This Bill Maher Episode Was Wild...and the Libs Are Not Going to Like...
Gavin Newsom Just Took This Stupid Billionaire Tax Idea to a Whole New...
One Dead After Eight People Overdose While DC Struggles to Combat Opioid Addiction
Too Little, Too Late: The NYT Let Chevalier’s Radical History Slide Until After...
Bronx Woman Pleads Guilty in $4 Million Medicaid Fraud Scheme
Criminals Steal Over $850,000 From Federal Summer Food Program in Massachusetts
U.S. Strikes Iran Again After Tehran Breaks Ceasefire With Tanker Attack
Fugitive Accused in $28 Million Apartment Fraud Scheme Extradited From Israel
Trump Taps Oklahoma Former Marine Lance Schroyer to Lead ICE
This South Dakota Democrat May Have Lost by Just Two Votes
DOJ Sues Four States That Refused to Hand Over SNAP Data
The U.S.'s Path to the World Cup Final Is Here and It's Not...
San Francisco Trans March Turns on One of California's Most Radical Progressive Democrat
Alaska Judge Rules That Bogus Democrat-Recruited Senate Candidate Can Remain on Ballot
Texas Democrats Have a Plan to Beat Ken Paxton: Calling Talarico's Supporters Gay...
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