extreme left new york times On Monday, he disgraced himself by clearing incumbent Vice President Kamala Harris of obvious and blatant plagiarism. Currently, experts are using times Harris said he did not conduct a complete analysis to prove his innocence.
Journalist Christopher Rufo on Monday afternoon. dropped The bombshell claim that Harris plagiarized at least a dozen sections from her criminal justice book. Smart against crime.”
A 2009 non-fiction work co-authored with Joan O'C. Hamilton was written while Harris was district attorney in San Francisco and preparing to run for attorney general of California.
With the help of Dr. Stephen Weber, an internationally known “plagiarism hunter,” Rufo uncovers one astonishing example after another of Harris directly copying and pasting paragraphs from his own books written by others. provided. She did this without sources or quotes. In other words, she not only stole texts from other sources, but also ideas, reports, and scholarship. That's textbook plagiarism.
Moreover, according to Rufo, “Harris copied virtually the entire thing.” Wikipedia Article published in her book without attribution Wikipedia” [and] “Forged source references and fabricated page numbers that didn't exist.”
Kamara was caught red-handed. There's no way to defend this. Nevertheless, when reporting on Rufo's bombshell, I told Breitbart News readers that “corporate media will almost certainly ignore this scandal or flip it on the wrist and dismiss it as a 'Republican-made controversy.' “They will try to 'check the facts,'” he warned.
In just a few hours, you'll do just that. new york times did. It says something that can be easily predicted: “Conservative activists are using passages from Harris' book.'' times Heading.
Even more predictable… times This article lied to its readers to protect Kamala.
The text Rufo found problematic on the Substack platform was about 65,000 words, or about 500 words in a 200-page book. Harris, a Democratic presidential candidate, co-wrote the book with another author while she was San Francisco's district attorney.
In its review of the book, The New York Times revealed that the text in question does not incorporate any ideas or thoughts from another author, which is considered the most serious form of plagiarism. Instead, the text copies descriptions of programs and statistics that appear elsewhere.
And then comes this beauty… times asked its own plagiarism experts to back up its claim that this is no big deal.
Jonathan Bailey, a New Orleans plagiarism consultant and publisher of Plagiarism Today, said Monday that his initial reaction to Ruffo's claims was that the error was not serious given the size of the document.
after that, times He accused Rufo of racism.
But now Times” All lies will be solved.
First of all, Mr. Rufo. was hit by a torpedo of Times” Primary defense:
The Times claims that I only claimed that Kamala Harris plagiarized “five sections” containing “approximately 500 words.” However, this is not true. In my article, I wrote that Stephen Weber claims that there are “more than a dozen” examples of “'egregious plagiarism.'” Last Saturday, I not only provided the Times with my written analysis claiming there were “more than a dozen” instances of “egregious plagiarism.” However, Weber's full dossier included 18 allegations of varying severity. So the Times deliberately withheld this important contextual information from its readers and alleged plagiarism experts, who said it was “not serious” based on this limited information. . They could have easily checked the “dozens” but instead lied by omission.
Additionally, Rufo has posted a passage that he claims he gave directly. times Concocting the claim that “none of the texts in question incorporate ideas or thoughts from other writers.''[.]The mere fact that she cut and pasted the Wikipedia page invalidates that defense.
And the bottom fell out Times” The book's expert, the aforementioned Jonathan Bailey, asked Xwitter on Monday that he had not done a full analysis of the book and that his “quotes were based on information provided by reporters and that This lie is a lie when we admit that “we are only talking about the passages in the book”.
The problem for Bailey is that if she looks at all the material Rufo provided and concludes that she is guilty of plagiarism (which she definitely is), what if she speaks that truth out loud? , that he would be ruined both personally and professionally. If he lies and says that Kamala is not guilty of plagiarism, everyone will know that he lied, even the people who want him to lie. His reputation will never recover.
John Nolte's first and last novel. borrowed time, winning five star rave From daily readers. You can read an excerpt here and a detailed review here. Also available in hard cover And even more Kindle and audio book.
