Staff Reports
Another day, another scandal brewing in the Kamala Harris kitchen. Just when you thought the Vice President couldn’t sink any lower, new plagiarism allegations tumbled out of the laundry basket, which is her book, “Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer.” Conservative activist Christopher Rufo has come armed with a list of five damning accusations, pointing out Harris’s penchant for borrowing language from other sources like a college kid at a study session—except without the excuse of “I was just trying to finish my paper on time.”
The New York Times felt the need to jump in and play the referee in this literary slap-fest, declaring that none of the problematic sentences constitute “serious plagiarism.” They assured readers that the problem lay not in outright copying but in mishandled “descriptions of programs or statistical information.” Sure, but it’s akin to saying that skinning the family cat for a stew doesn’t count as animal cruelty if the meat is just a little undercooked. The stigma of plagiarism seems to have a unique ability to leap over party lines in this case.
Kamala Harris Hit with Another Plagiarism Allegation a Day After Scandal Erupts: 'We Can Keep This Going' via @WestJournalism https://t.co/l4XHEKRsrY
Shit keeps getting deeper— Richard Roderick (@RichardRod38375) October 16, 2024
Rufo, however, is not backing down and has offered more excerpts as proof of Harris’s copy-pasting prowess. He chuckled on social media, clearly reveling in the chaos that ensued when he revealed that Harris had swiped language directly from various government websites. No paraphrasing, no quotation marks, just plain old cut-and-paste—it’s like she thought this was the internet and not a book meant to appeal to a serious audience.
Stefan Weber, who undertook a thorough analysis of Harris’s book, has documented countless instances of plagiarism, stating that it stretches from page 10 to 185. In his findings, he threw shade on the idea that Harris offers any original thought in her book, letting the world know that she dared to copy from a Wikipedia article without acknowledging the source. And to top it all off, it appears that Harris even invented a fake source, fabricating a page number to make her work seem legitimate. This is not an advanced degree of dishonesty; this is practically a masterclass in plagiarism.
The fallout has resulted in commentary that has split the media’s response. The Times waved away concerns by bringing on Jonathan Bailey, a self-proclaimed plagiarism consultant, who minimized the issue into mere “errors” rather than an intentional attempt to con honest readers. However, Bailey then backtracked on his statements when he realized he was swimming upstream against Rufo’s evidence. Apparently, asking for a straightforward analysis before weighing in is too much for some in the “mainstream” media.
Meanwhile, CNN managed to perform a more discerning eye on the situation, confirming that Harris and co-author Joan O’C. Hamilton had indeed failed to give proper credit where credit was due. It seems that in the world of academic integrity, the Vice President is out of her league. With the airwaves filled with skeptical laughter and the virtual echo chambers buzzing, the saga raises a pressing question: how far can plagiarism stretch before it reflects a lack of ethical standards? For Kamala Harris, it appears the answer remains uncertain, but the implications could wash over her political career like an unexpected tidal wave.
