As Twitchy told you earlier, MSNBC managed to address the current controversy surrounding Elizabeth Warren’s apparent lie about getting fired for being “visibly pregnant” by swallowing EMILY’s List VP of comms Christina Reynolds’ BS explanation for Warren’s evolving narrative.

The New York Times has essentially decided to follow suit, gathering as many water-carrying buckets as they can in order to defend Warren from the Washington Free Beacon’s journalism:

Senator Elizabeth Warren further detailed her experience of losing a teaching job because of pregnancy, refuting a conservative news site's challenge of her account. "I had an experience millions of women will recognize," she tweeted.https://t.co/dmZMBLHyOE — The New York Times (@nytimes) October 8, 2019

The New York Times is a lot more concerned about the Washington Free Beacon’s reporting undermining Elizabeth Warren’s narrative than they are about Elizabeth Warren undermining Elizabeth Warren’s narrative. Pathetic.

Amazing truth to power happening here. pic.twitter.com/WcMLTLC52Y — Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) October 8, 2019

The entire piece basically does Elizabeth Warren’s dirty work for her, making her out to be the victim of a discriminatory policy as opposed to the perpetrator of yet another lie to perpetuate her victimhood narrative.

Um, she's literally on video twelve years ago giving an entirely different narrative of the same story. The two stories are completely opposite. So she was lying then, or she's lying now. Pick one. — Aim-ee (@Aim84856493) October 8, 2019

She said on tape the exact opposite. It's not a Conservative thing, it's a truth thing. — Gregg (@ECTSpoiler41) October 8, 2019

When a conservative screws up, that's the story. When a liberal screws up, conservatives' reaction is the story. https://t.co/hGrl0EfsNX — Jim "Halloween Name" Treacher (@jtLOL) October 8, 2019

Incredible. Mainstream outlets avoided covering this until they got her defense and could use a "conservatives pounced" framing. https://t.co/NsTJwrgub5 — (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) October 8, 2019

Why was it a conservative news site that found documents and proof and not the New York Times? https://t.co/n5f2E4aM98 — Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) October 8, 2019

(That’s a rhetorical question, of course.)

That's not what "refuting" means. — trick-or-treater (@neontaster) October 8, 2019

Contradicting and refuting are not synonyms. pic.twitter.com/gUl0TKT1lH — Virginia Yankee (@VirginiaYankee1) October 8, 2019

The Journos defending Elizabeth Warren after she was caught lying again want you to look at this woman and believe she's a native american pic.twitter.com/KqQdrYw0za — Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) October 8, 2019

"Ignore the documents the Free Beacon has that the Warren campaign and her journo surrogates haven't refuted. Warren is our pick, comrade. She is a native American. Don't think, just vote for Warren, comrade." — Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) October 8, 2019

Covering for a liar. Real nice, NYT — KAGWITHME (@kagwithme) October 8, 2019

Preview of the general election, when "conservative news site(s)" will do the journalism and the NYT will act as the unofficial spin shop of the candidate, speaking power to truth https://t.co/6cPoSUp5Cg — Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) October 8, 2019

Sounds about right.

NYTIMES IS VERY FAKE NEWS https://t.co/a5lzR4DKfn — Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) October 8, 2019

It’s honestly hard to argue with that assessment.

Last word to the Free Beacon:

Refute means to prove something false. We posted documents. She stuck to her story. To our colleagues at the New York Times: words matter. https://t.co/iC0AJomHQ2 — Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) October 8, 2019