Posted on 10/15/2024 11:12:44 AM PDT by george76
The far-left New York Times disgraced itself Monday by clearing sitting Vice President Kamala Harris of obvious and blatant plagiarism. Now the expert used by the Times to exonerate Harris says he did not do a full analysis.
...
Christopher Rufo dropped the bombshell that Harris “plagiarized at least a dozen sections of her criminal justice book, Smart on Crime.”
...
With the help of Dr. Stefan Weber, an internationally famous “plagiarism hunter,” Rufo provided one jaw-dropping example after another of Harris directly copying and pasting paragraph after paragraph into her book that were written by others. She did this without attribution or quote marks. In other words, she not only stole text from other sources, but she also stole ideas, reporting, and scholarship. That is textbook plagiarism.
Additionally, per Rufo, “Harris copied virtually an entire Wikipedia article into her book without providing attribution to Wikipedia” [and] “fabricated a source reference, inventing a nonexistent page number.”
Kamala has been caught red-handed. There is no defending this. Nevertheless, while reporting on the Rufo bombshells, I warned Breitbart News readers that the “corporate media will almost certainly either ignore this scandal or attempt to wrist-flick and ‘fact check’ it away as a ‘Republican-fabricated controversy.’
Within just a few hours, that is precisely what the New York Times did.
...
The problem for Bailey is that if he looks at all the material Rufo provided and concludes she’s guilty of plagiarism (which she most definitely is), if he speaks that truth out loud, he’ll be personally and professionally ruined. If he lies and says Kamala is not guilty of plagiarism, everyone will know he lied, even those who want him to, and his reputation will never recover.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
or he did a Fake Analysis
The problem for Bailey is that if he looks at all the material Rufo provided and concludes she’s guilty of plagiarism (which she most definitely is), if he speaks that truth out loud, he’ll be personally and professionally ruined. If he lies and says Kamala is not guilty of plagiarism, everyone will know he lied, even those who want him to, and his reputation will never recover.
His first answer: “It’s Russian disinformation.”
But they had to tell him that they weren’t looking for that answer today.
His second answer: “She’s totally not guilty of plagiarism.”
But then he found out that sensible people knew perfectly well that she was very guilty of plagiarism.
His third answer: “I didn’t do a full analysis.”
She obviously didn't write the book, since she's incapable of even reading it.
Jonathan Bailey denying such plagiarism “without doing a full analysis” is not just unprofessional, it’s actually criminal. Jonathan Bailey and the New York Times are guilty of an illegal political contribution-in-kind because that’s exactly what their lies and the coverup are.
Another NYT far-left, lying fag “white dude” lying to save Harris and Walz the Blazing Tampon VP.
If a plagiarist can’t be the President of Harvard, one shouldn’t be President of the USA.
His fourth answer: “She grew up in a middle-class family.”
Ha! They boxed Bailey in — damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
I LOVE it! Ruin them professionally forever!!
Well done Rufo and Weber. Hat’s off to you gents!
Plagiarize
Plagiarize
Let no one else’s work evade your eyes
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes
So don’t shade your eyes
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize
Only be sure always to call it please “Research”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL4vWJbwmqM
The New York Times, along with all the propaganda media, does not care if they get caught lying. They got the denial that it was plagiarism onto the Internet first, and that is what people will see when they do a search.
If this so-called plagiarism expert goes down, he is probably acceptable collateral damage to the left. Someone will probably give him a seven figure job at a think tank. Dems take care of their own.
Let’s see if Brett Baier asks Kamala about this tomorrow afternoon. I predict Baier will act as her defense attorney, giving her a chance to put out her point of view on everything and not challenge her. I hope I am wrong.
In fairness, he was only working with five small examples that the NYT provided him.
Then he should have said "no". He knew what they were up to. He wanted to get paid.
Fixed the article title for what really happened.
He just copy-pasted what CNN copy-pasted from the Harris campaign. But they both copied it PERFECTLY. Good job!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.