When the news broke yesterday that Elizabeth Warren probably invented the tale of her pregnancy firing as a teacher, some benefit of the doubt was fair, given that an old tape of her describing the reason she left her job could have been incomplete, and maybe there was more than one reason she left the job.

Welp. Now we've got the county records.

The Washington Free Beacon went digging into the microfiches or the physical records themselves from the early 1970s, which is very challenging non-Google research doable only on location in Riverdale, New Jersey, and pretty well blew that Warren story out of the water.

RIVERDALE, N.J. — The Riverdale Board of Education approved a second-year teaching contract for a young Elizabeth Warren, documents show, contradicting the Democratic presidential candidate's repeated claims that she was asked not to return to teaching after a single year because she was "visibly pregnant." Minutes of an April 21, 1971, Riverdale Board of Education meeting obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show that the board voted unanimously on a motion to extend Warren a "2nd year" contract for a two-days-per-week teaching job. That job is similar to the one she held the previous year, her first year of teaching. Minutes from a board meeting held two months later, on June 16, 1971, indicate that Warren's resignation was "accepted with regret."

You can read those Courier-typewritten minutes themselves at those very links above.

I had my skepticism about that story as the reports first started cracking a couple days ago, given that Warren was a special ed teacher, which is a tough specialty slot for a principal to fill. She was teaching on an "emergency certificate," which suggested a labor shortage. She was living in the woke era of George McGovern as well as in union-happy New Jersey, and she had shown a pattern of ambitious interest in moving onward and upward.

That she could claim that she was just an ordinary workin' Joe who got fired from her special ed job for being "visibly pregnant" and didn't leave on her own to take care of the baby is a cynical bid to make herself into a victim.

And it's not the first time she's done it.

She faked her Indian heritage, not just to benefit personally from an affirmative action slot against actual Native Americans for whom the Ivy League law slots were intended, but also to browbeat whites about racial discrimination from her ancestors' supposed racially mixed marriage. That never happened in her home state of Oklahoma, where whites and Native Americans intermarry more frequently than any other state in the country and most longtime Oklahomans actually can claim some Native American ancestry, although, as Warren's case shows, not all of them. Warren herself was descended from army men who actually persecuted the Indians. She did, too, by gaming the woke affirmative action system against the Indians and then claimed to be the real victim.

She also faked her research into medical bankruptcies, to claim that half of them were caused by medical bills, when only about 4% were the case, which came about after more serious research was conducted. (Hat tip: Instapundit.) The aim was to blame bad, wicked hospitals and then advance a government takeover of the health care system. In the quest to pass Obamacare, the Obama administration and the Democratic Party–led Congress beat Warren's fakery like a drum and incidentally advanced her career with it.

Time and again, Warren has this worldview that is premised on the lefty idea of everybody being a victim. She's using that a lot on herself, claiming to be a victim in two instances now, as a means of advancing, and she's used phony victimhood in research to advance her career in a third. This latest instance suggests it's getting worse with her in that she casts blame on people who were not to blame at all. As Glenn Reynolds notes, not only was she a fake victim, but being such a victim meant that someone else was the bad guy, and whoever that someone was was innocent. People could have been smeared for that one. Maybe that's a function of Warren's taking of under-the-table direction from Hillary Clinton, who specialized in this "art" and who still has rigging influence in the Democratic nomination process, something that's very useful to Warren.

If Warren becomes president, it will be all about how she was really a victim.

If Warren were right-wing, she'd easily be able to market her whole story into a tale of ambition and go-getter success from the semi-bottom rungs, and all would be honest. But since she's a lefty, and the success she has had comes from the lefty Ivy League, she can only try to downplay that and use the lefty version of success and heroism, which is to claim she's a victim. Which would explain why she made the whole thing up.

It's kind of tough to be Elizabeth Warren and somehow try to shoehorn all that into a claim to be a victim. Especially when the lies are so easily blown out of the water.

Image credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.