Eric Swalwell Responds to Sexual Assault Allegations in a New Video. It's Not...
Guest Shuts Down Bill Maher's Attempt to Trash Operation Epic Fury
Wait, That's Why the Iranians Can't Reopen the Strait of Hormuz?
House Dems' Latest Demand Involving Trump Is Never Going to Happen. The Lack...
Excuse Me, Our Diplomats Were Ambushed in Iraq by Iran-Backed Militias?
Zohran Mamdani's Administration Just Had Its First Major Scandal
The Fight for Election Day Is Now at the Supreme Court
Nebraska's Court of Appeals Has a Chance to Cement Tough-on-Crime Sentencing. The Question...
AI: A Blessing or a Disaster in the Making?
What This Kansas Democrat Posted Was Unbelievable...Almost
Oil, Faith, and Freedom: Lifting Latin Americans Out of Poverty
Rules for Radicals Turns 55: Division Without Deliverance
Red States Prove Lower Energy Costs Start With Expanding Domestic Supply – From...
Words, War, and the Bully Pulpit
Immigration Won’t Fix America’s Marriage and Baby Bust
Tipsheet

There's an Update on Kamala's Plagiarism Scandal

There's an Update on Kamala's Plagiarism Scandal
AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

On Monday journalist Christopher Rufo detailed how Democratic presidential candidate and Vice President Kamala Harris lifted major portions of her book, "Smart on Crime," from Wikipedia, press releases and other sources without citation.

Advertisement

But it turns out the very institutions tasked with holding officials accountable for plagiarism covered for Harris and are now admitting they were wrong. 

That plagiarism expert, New York Times’ consultant Jonathan Bailey, had more to say in Plagiarism Today

"At the time, I was unaware of a full dossier with additional allegations, which led some to accuse the New York Times of withholding that information from me. However, the article clearly stated that it was my ‘initial reaction’ to those allegations, not a complete analysis," Bailey wrote. "I reviewed the complete dossier prepared by Dr. Stefan Weber, whom I have covered before. I also performed a peer review of one of his papers in 2018. With this new information, while I believe the case is more serious than I commented to the New York Times, the overarching points remain. While there are problems with this work, the pattern points to sloppy writing habits, not a malicious intent to defraud."

Advertisement

Related:

2024 ELECTION

"Is it problematic? Yes. But it’s also not the wholesale fraud that many have claimed it to be. It sits somewhere between what the two sides want it to be," he continued. 

Days into the scandal the Harris-Walz campaign has failed to comment on the situation.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement