Her nearly inexplicable release of her DNA test just 22 days out from the midterm elections, which include her own bid for re-election, has perplexed the nation. Unless her campaign team is comprised of fraction-challenged mathematicians, Senator Elizabeth Warren seems to be faking a victory in the results.

I can't remember ever running home and proudly waving a report card for my parents to view with straight Fs, but for one D- grade, across the report. Yahoo?

I surmise she only released the ethnic data because she was aware of a compromise or possible compromise of DNA matter from her or her children. If political opposition invested in surveillance on her in Washington or Cambridge, or either of her two children living in California, it would only be a matter of time before investigators seized on an opportunity of bagging a disposed coffee cup or even getting curbside trash to search for a legally obtained, competent DNA sample.

There is no poll that I am aware of which shows the senator in need of showing DNA test results. Her opponent in the election, Republican Geoff Diehl, is not polling strong enough to make her sweat--but he is closing the gap. Diehl isn't demanding results, nor is there any uptick in demand by anyone for this lately.

Boston Globe via Getty Images

We've all watched the forensic shows on TV late night. Murder and rape suspects often deny giving voluntary swabs to the authorities for DNA tests, but almost always learn of police getting the samples anyway in surprisingly little time.

I think it is plausible that Warren was aware of a serious effort, or even a successful result of such an effort, and then was forced to make a decision. A decision had to be made: either do nothing and wait to see if the financier of this report would come forward with the test results, or get out in front of it and present it to the American people on her own terms.

This "celebratory" result shows Warren's Native American heritage amounting to some eight generations back in her ancestry, giving strong indications that she was anywhere from 1/64th to 1/1024th Native American, or native Central or South American.

It has backfired. Plenty of people with microphones, reams of paper and barrels of ink did do the math, and emphasized not the barely detectable Native American indicators, but the highly dominant European Caucasian prevalent in her DNA.

The anecdote she offered, portraying highly racist grandparents on her father's side, was not very plausible given the facts surrounding the test.

Does anyone buy the story that her parents' plan to wed in 1931 was being undermined because Donald Herring's parents couldn't bear the idea of their son marrying Pauline Reed, who somehow they knew carried Indian blood via an ancestor born sometime around 1737?

First off, who carried those sorts of records in the frontier days? How did her ancestors not get forcibly removed from Missouri in 1838, when all Cherokees were relocated to Oklahoma?

If would-be in-laws knew of her heritage in 1931, how could those around her ancestors, Preston Crawford and Sarah Harlin, have been unaware of the alleged Native American heritage? Their own filled-out records indicated "white" as their race too. Yet some 94 years later, the Herrings were hyper-vigilant enough to know of Warren's minuscule link to North or South American indigenous DNA from 194 years ago?

Getty Images

Yesterday, Warren stepped in it again as she released the rationale for her releasing the test results with #FakeNews. She said that based on record distrust in the government by the American people, she took the test to help rebuild that trust.

So ultimately, she is somehow blaming Trump for her reason, if not her need, to come forward. But even this is an easily debunked lie. The lowest indicator for public trust in the federal government points to October 19, 2011, almost the exact same point into President Obama's administration as we are in the Trump's today.

So, while she painted on a brave face (pun intended), I highly suspect that Senator Warren knows damn well that her test results were damaging. I believe that she came forward anyway on her own terms to describe a way where one could possibly see a victory in this for her.

The alternative would be to allow any adversary with the same information to emphasize the dominant white ethnicity, and to belittle the trace presence of Native blood from a much older lineage than Warren originally claimed.

That truth did not stop her from checking off a box claiming her minority ethnicity. A claim which, many believe, had a positive effect on the trajectory of her career and a negative effect for that deserving someone out there somewhere who was actually able to make the claim to Native American status.

Getty Images

That nameless, faceless person did not get the Harvard position.

Yes, Harvard University denies that Elizabeth Warren was given the position based on her ethnicity, but how often do employees admit that the person was not the most qualified but a politically correct hiring?

This also flies in the face of the political shaming Harvard was facing in the 1990s. A poll, embarrassing the university, showed a deep resentment by the student body over the almost exclusively white faculty. Harvard, at the time pointed to the few professors who were "not white," and included recent hire, Professor Elizabeth Warren, who they said was Native American.

Ken Pittman is the host of The Ken Pittman Show on 1420 WBSM New Bedford. He can be heard Saturdays from 9 a.m. to noon. Contact him at ken.pittman@townsquaremedia.com and follow him on Twitter @RadioKenPittman. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.