Does it make sense to elect a compromised candidate to the Senate?
Elizabeth Warren the Marxist sounding law professor of Harvard is running for the Senate, but the Senate is probably running from her. Positions of power offer many opportunities for corruption and it is extremely hard for an honest man to resist the temptation. Bringing in a corrupt lawyer who already is compromised in terms of honesty and integrity is a forlorn hope at reestablishing the reputation of the Senate. Will the Senate be jaded enough to accept a new member who has already displayed a lack of integrity, but is willing to break the law at will.
Elizabeth Warren has based her campaign on a mythical premise of intellect and integrity; based on that fact alone, it is remarkable her campaign hasn’t collapsed.
Ms Warren is adept at throwing out Marxist clichés, but she is running for Massachusetts.
Nearly everyone is familiar with her use of unsubstantiated minority status for preferential treatment in gaining a teaching position at Harvard; she has now been caught practicing law without a license in the state of Massachusetts.
Surprisingly, her client list includes the same large corporations she has condemned as greedy polluters and exploiters of the “little guy.”
Elizabeth Warren, the workers’ champion, represented LTV Steel in 1995 in its fight against thousands of retired coal miners. Apparently, her loyalty to the worker doesn’t include her own pockets.
In 2009, the Marist lawyer thought it was prudent to represent the Insurance giant Travelers against asbestos victims. Her willingness to stand up for the oppressed doesn’t include the dying; especially when she can make a buck.
The unsinkable Warren has been bold enough to represent Wall Street clients without a law license through the law firm of Simpson, Thacher, & Bartlett, who is aghast to learn of Warrens licensure discrepancy, since she is listed as “of counsel” in briefs filed on behalf of their corporate clients.
To Warren’s credit, she admitted to this slight infraction of practicing law without a license on a radio show.
She has also been accused by fellow law professors of “repeated instances of scientific misconduct” for writing papers that have provided the academic underpinnings for financial and health reform without showing her scientific data. She has been cited as the intellectual architect for the Dodd-Frank Act and Obama Care and her writing has been found to “deeply flawed” during peer review.
Atlantic magazine describes a disturbing pattern of using bogus metrics to advance her Leftist agenda. Warren refuses to provide her back-up data for the “scientific writing” with the same stonewalling technique she uses to avoid providing data to substantiate her claims of minority status.
Ms Warren places herself above public scrutiny by proclaiming she is above us all by her sheer presence and she doesn’t need to operate under the same laws as the rest of us. We have prisons full of people with this same attitude.
The Senate, Harvard, and the people of Massachusetts should review the status of Ms Warren and decide whether they want to be represented by a person who would ordinarily be dismissed as a scoundrel and a conman.