成人午夜福利A视频-成人午夜福利剧场-成人午夜福利免费-成人午夜福利免费视频-成人午夜福利片-成人午夜福利视

Not every news story about a politician's past has to be bilgisayar?mdan porno filim izliyemiyorum izlemek i?in napmal?y?mdamning. Sometimes — and I know this might come as a shock to some — articles can simply reveal facts about a person that were not previously known. Those articles don't have to pass judgment at all.

I say this because today Twitter is all riled up about a Washington Postarticle that reveals that 2020 Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren formerly worked as a teacher and a legal consultant, simultaneously. And she made good money! *gasp*

The article, which features the lengthy and kinda trolly title, "While teaching, Elizabeth Warren worked on more than 50 legal matters, charging as much as $675 an hour," has come under fire for carrying a tone that makes Warren's attempt to make a living sound a bit audacious.

You mean to tell us Warren had a job anddaredto work other ones? At the same time? Whilecharging for her services? My god, the nerve!

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Along with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who tweeted the article with the words, "BREAKING NEWS: Lady Had A Job, Got Paid More Than Me," many Twitter users defended Warren's hustle, along with every person's right to work and make a living.

They also defended teachers — noting that many educators often receive relatively low salaries, and are no strangers to picking up second jobs or seeking out additional paid work in their spare time — and questioned whether the article would have even been written if Warren were a man.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

The headline was undoubtedly worded in a way that some could read as disapproving, but Annie Linskey and Elise Viebeck, the Washington Postreporters who wrote the article, each made an effort to highlight other points when tweeting the piece. (Writers, of course, are often not the headline writers at all.)

Linskey stressed that the article was meant to shed light on the extensive work Warren did during her time at Harvard, and Viebeck simply noted that they found Warren was involved in "more legal matters than previously disclosed."

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

For those too turned off by the headline to even read the article, it notes that "Warren’s presidential campaign released a list of 56 cases on her website on Wednesday night," which was more than had been previously disclosed when she first ran for the Senate in 2012.

"At the time, she released a list of just 13 cases without saying whether it represented a full accounting; at least one other case came to light during the race," the article reads.

The piece details several of the cases and explains the list demonstrates "an aspect of her [Warren's] career that she rarely discusses in public." That's all valid information, but the packaging definitely could have been better.