Kamala Harris this week faced accusations of plagiarism over multiple sections of her book, “Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer.”
This is not the first such accusation, Harris has been accused of lifting a story from Martin Luther King. In 1965, King described “a moment in Birmingham when a white policeman accosted a little Negro girl, seven or eight years old, who was walking in a demonstration with her mother.” King recounted how the policeman asked the little girl “‘What do you want?’ and the little girl looked at him straight in the eye and answered, ‘Fee-dom’.” Harris would later tell the story of how her mother asked her “Kamala, what’s wrong? What do you want?” and I wailed back, “Fweedom.”
As found by various media outlets, the new allegations from her book would qualify as plagiarism despite the denial of the campaign. It is doubtful it will matter to many voters in the hardened political silos of this election. However, it could prompt a long-needed discussion about how we handle plagiarism in academia.
Here is a slightly expanded version of my Hill column:
“I wrote my own book, unlike Kamala Harris, who copied hers from Wikipedia.” That criticism, from vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance, was only the latest salvo in what has become known as the “the Plagiarism War.”
Like virtually every aspect of our lives, plagiarism has become politics by another means. It is hardly new. President Joe Biden admitted to plagiarism long ago. The seriousness of the allegation often depends on how sympathetic the media is toward the author.
Vice President Kamala Harris was accused of plagiarizing her 2009 book, “Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer.” Immediately, the New York Times ran a column citing a “plagiarism consultant” named Jonathan Bailey who suggested that, while Harris plagiarized from sources like Wikipedia, it was nothing to “make a big deal of it.”
Bailey took to social media Monday to confirm he had not done a full analysis of the book and that his “quotes were based on information provided to me by the reporters and spoke only about those passages.”
The response set off conservative media, which argued that the mainstream media would have had a very different response if the allegations were made against Trump’s book “The Art of the Deal.”
The fact is, an opponent of Trump could probably copy “War and Peace” word-for-word and would still be showered with literary awards in this political environment.
After Harvard President Claudine Gay became embroiled in the controversy over antisemitism on campuses, conservative activist Christopher Rufo and writer Christopher Brunet scanned her work for possible plagiarism. They found numerous examples in her work, going back to her 1997 dissertation. Soon after, Harvard’s diversity chief was accused of more than 40 incidences of plagiarism going back to her own dissertation.
The controversy leaves many professors in an uncomfortable silence, while others have pledged to weaponize reviews by targeting conservative academics in a hunt for academic wretches to hoist in retaliation. Indeed, for intellectuals who cherish the insulated world of academia, the tit-for-tat campaigns are apparently about as unnerving as a tax audit going back to your teenaged babysitting gigs.
Yet perhaps the reflexive defense of Harris could prove a positive development if critics are willing to put hypocrisy aside and embrace a new approach.
The fact is, much, if not most, non-student plagiarism is not due to a lack of ethics but a lack of diligence. It is the difference between negligent and intentional acts.
Most books and academic works take months or years to complete. Hundreds or thousands of sources can be reviewed and incorporated into a publication. In the age of computers, it is extremely easy to cut and paste your way into a plagiarism problem. Quotation marks can be lost or omitted by authors or research assistants; attributions can be omitted in basic background development. It is all too easy to lose track of original sources in production.
That fact is evident from past plagiarism controversies involving accomplished figures, including Harvard professors Lawrence Tribe and Charles Ogletree, as well as historians Doris Kearns Goodwin and Steven Ambrose.
These writers have well-earned reputations that are the product of their own insights. Alex Haley’s fame was not the product of the plagiarized material in his work on “Roots.” When viewed in isolation, a paragraph or multiple references can appear damning, but these often arise in works that reach hundreds of pages.
There is a tendency to treat all such allegations as monolithic and equally culpable. Yet even homicide has lesser offenses on a range from murder in the first degree to simple manslaughter.
Moreover, there remains a striking lack of uniformity in how such allegations are treated. For popular figures like Goodwin or Ogletree, the allegations were mere speed bumps in their careers. For others who may be less popular or well connected, the same acts can result in contract terminations or even the stripping of tenure. There are no sentencing guidelines for academics and the result can turn as much on the popularity of the person as the gravity of the offense.
Defining Plagiarism
In the first century, the Roman poet Martial was upset when he recognized some verses in the work of another poet. He immediately declared the man a kidnapper or “plagiarius” of his words. With that, the term plagiarism was born.
Despite its ancient origins, the actual definition of plagiarism remains dangerously vague.
Even when an academic cites such work, the failure to do so in a specific paragraph or line can be charged as plagiarism. It is common to rely on the work of others for background history or cases that lay the foundation for a new approach. Harris’s defenders insist that much of the lifted material was background support for her own arguments.
Plagiarism hawks often dismiss such habits as a “pawn sacrifice,” where a writer will “put the citation somewhere else, or you put the citation in and have the exact words, but you forget the quotation marks.” While hawks may view this as a “tell,” it can also be an honest mistake or poor habit. In such cases, the academic is citing the work but fails to do so sufficiently.
Then there is the concept of “self-plagiarism,” which many of us view as something of an oxymoron. Universities are now cracking down on academics using their own material. Some of us have criticized this effort, but it is now taking root in many departments. Universities threaten action if you “recycle ideas” from earlier work.
Harvard’s Diversity Chief Sherri Ann Charleston was hit with a complaint alleging dozens of incidents, including self-plagiarism by her husband. The latter allegation is that her sole peer-reviewed journal article—coauthored with her husband, LaVar Charleston, in 2014 was a recycling of an earlier work. LaVar Charleston was the deputy vice chancellor for diversity and inclusion at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and is accused of pawning off the old material as a new work with his wife.
The problem is that many academics write papers restating prior work or ideas before pushing them into new areas or further evolutions. Some writers are often starting where they left off, repeating earlier work and ideas before advancing the work further in a new paper.
The definition of the act does not establish the gravity of the act. Treating plagiarism as a capital offense ignores that there are vastly different levels of culpability.
Antebellum Plagiarism
Just as we need a better understanding of what plagiarism is, we may need to recognize changes in the ability to spot it before publication. For the last four decades, academic work has become faster and arguably more precarious with the ease of computer storage and copying. Yet, there is now technology that may counter that danger and reduce the excuse for academics. Various systems, including Artificial Intelligence-based systems, can check work for potential plagiarism.
If these systems prove effective and cost efficient, we may need to adopt an antebellum and postbellum classification for plagiarism cases. The war over the Gay scholarship happens to fall on this very line. The availability of plagiarism software makes future violations less excusable.
If these systems prove effective and cost efficient, we may need to adopt an “antebellum” and “postbellum” classification for plagiarism cases. The war over the Gay scholarship happens to fall on this very line. The availability of plagiarism software may make future violations less excusable.
Indeed, in a recent survey, more than 78 percent of faculty said that they used software to check the originality of student work. It may be time for academics to direct such programs on their own work as a check for inadvertent attribution problems.
I decided, for the first time, to give these systems a try for my new book on free speech. “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” is over 400 pages. I decided that I would use the work to compare these services and share the results.
I chose two of the leading services: Ithenticate and Copyleaks. Both are pricey options. For Ithenticate, I had to break the book up into 25,000 word parts and pay roughly $100 per part. That resulted in hundreds of dollars for a complete review. Copyleaks charges roughly the same.
In both systems, the review is blazingly fast and impressive. With Ithenticate, you can literally watch the results pop up in minutes.
Both reports were a bit of a heart stopper. They showed a percentage of hits that could be as high as 30 percent for my material. After I was resuscitated, my assistant explained that each of the hits showed less than one percent overlap or block quotes from cases or other works. Most were hits from something on the Internet. I had two individuals review each of the hits to make sure that there were no substantive attribution problems. That also cost money and time.
That is obviously expensive and labor intensive. Moreover, both systems could use a bit more analytical content rather than just assembling hits. However, it also offers some peace of mind. It does not guarantee that you will not be the next snared in a plagiarism scandal, but it certainly reduces the odds for you.
As these systems improve and the costs drop, there may be a point where the failure to put your own work through such a source check becomes unreasonable and even unforgivable. The future of academic plagiarism may indeed fall along an antebellum line of technology.
Harris’s alleged plagiarism is unlikely to change many minds in this election. She could have begun her book with “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,” and it would have been at least poignant, if plagiarized.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Nonce verification failed again.
Nonce verification failed.
Today is Kamala’s birthday. Is she taking the day off the campaign trail? You know, because she ‘deserves’ it?
Where’s Trump?
He’s ‘working the fries’ at a McDonald’s outside Philly.
Kamala says she worked at McDonalds. Trump did some checking. She lied.
She plagiarizes her book? and lies about working the fries, too?
Kamala is a total fraud.
On his way to McDonalds….
Trump just posted:
“We have checked with McDonald’s, and they say, definitively, that there is no record of Lyin’ Kamala Harris ever having worked there. In other words, she never worked there, and has lied about this “job” for years. Additionally, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden are killing franchises, want to end all franchises, which will destroy values and jobs. Also, remember, from me: No Tax on Tips!”
Reporter asks: “Why would she lie about working at McDonalds?”
Trump responds: “Because she’s Lyin’ Kamala”
Kill franchises? Of course. 15 minute cities with a Walmart super center. You’ll like it.
TRUMP Sends Kamala Birthday Wishes from his shift at the MCDONALD’S DRIVE-THRU WINDOW:
“It’s Kamala’s birthday? Happy Birthday, Kamala! Maybe I’ll give her some McDonalds fries.” 🤣
She lied, she cheated, she stole someone else’s work and claimed it as her own.
Her name is on the book. She is responsible for what goes in the book.
Will she take responsibility? Of course not. She never has, never will.
Kamala is a fraud.
She’s a shameless fraud. Shocker.
Listen to how decent and honest Trump’s answer was to this question at the Univision Townhall: “Say 3 nice things about your opponent Kamala Harris”…
Yes, Kamala is a plagiarist.
Kamala is a liar.
Kamala failed the bar exam because she is not very smart.
Kamala is corrupt.
Her record as DA demonstrates that she is an abuser of power.
Kamala is a petty tyrant who abuses her staff. Her staff turnover tells the story.
Kamala is intellectually lazy – because she’s been handed everything throughout her 20 year political career.
Kamala has sneering disdain for anyone daring to hold her accountable or question her about anything.
Kamala is an entitled ‘person of color’ who didn’t earn it. And she doesn’t deserve it, either.
Her 20-year ride on the DEI gravy train is coming to a screeching halt for this cackling, pompous, fool.
Not just as DA, but her entire record – every position she has held– demonstrates that she is an entitled, pompous, abuser of power.
I doubt that Harris has had many original thoughts! Watching video clips of her speaking, it is clear she needs teleprompters – or “practiced” lines. But some voters will chose her to be the occupant of the White House?
@TheLastRefuge2
“Sometimes when you reach mile markers in the research journey, you find something that makes you pause, rethink the previous questions and then quickly dispatch the new information.
This is one of those markers.
Many people, including RFK Jr himself and his legal team in court filings, have presented the situation and asked a question. Essentially:
Why did the DNC apparatus sue to keep RFK JR’s name off certain state ballots and simultaneously sue to keep him on certain state ballots? It just didn’t make sense….
… Until now.
Ballots were contracted for localized printing by those who intended to use the blanks for fraudulent purposes. RFK Jr’s name ON or OFF ballots, changed the dynamic of the physical paper.
The tabulation scanners need one ballot format per precinct to scan for vote tally.
In states where they preprinted the fraudulent countly level ballots *without* RFK Jr’s name, the DNC sued to keep him off.
In states where they preprinted the fraudulent county level ballots *with* RFK Jr’s name, the DNC sued to keep him on.
That’s the answer.
That also helps put context on how long this localized ballot printing and tabulation plan has been in place.”
As an engineer it always puzzled me comparing the different treatment for using intellectual property. We can and do frequently use expired patents, textbook designs, libraries of designs all without attribution or any sense of shame. Literature IP is a whole different story.
“Is Kamala Harris a Plagiarist?”
It looks like she stole the work of other’s and pretended it was her own sweat, blood and bs.
I don’t care if it is evidence of technical plagiarism.
It is enough that it appears to be evidence of laziness, dishonesty, and stupidity.
* money laundering
* Hillary Clinton would be due inspection for money laundering.
Date on Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy– I’ll look it up. If he had such a disturbed childhood there must be baggage. That’s really not a strength.
A friend told me that
If Vance had baggage because of a disturbed childhood, then he’d be a Democrat. Because Democrats have no strength – just BS and assorted other types of lies.
Vance adversity made stronger – just as serving in the Marines as Vance did makes Americans stronger.
List of prominent successful black Americans who also had disturbed childhoods growing up under Democrat racism and Jim Crow laws – not crushed, not weak.
Dr. Thomas Sowell (also a Marine), recovered radical Marxist
Dr. Walter Williams, veteran, recovered radical Marxist
Dr. Ben Carson
Associate Justice Thomas, recovered Marxist.
A friend told me Democrats hate having that pointed out to them because it makes them cry. They cry even harder to when reminded of successful conservative black Americans who became successful after growing up under Democrat racism made them stronger – not submit to life on the Democrat Poverty Plantation.
* Sure, there isn’t one person you’ve cited without baggage and while they’ve found success in one or more areas there’s also odd behaviors and failures and abuses of others unexpired. It goes with the territory and in leadership positions that baggage can result in poor judgements at some point.
What and where are the personal judgement failures of the much esteemed Dr Sowell? They’re there uncovered.
Trump warned that if Kamala is president the whole country will be like Detroit.
Incredibly, at a Kamala rally rapper Lizzo just said the same thing. She thinks it would be great if Kamala turned the whole country into Detroit.
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/lizzo-vows-the-whole-country-will-be-like-detroit-if-kamala-harris-becomes-president
So many of the Kamala promos actually promote Trump one wonders if it is sabotage in the Kamala organization or just stupidity.
I think that a lot of us don’t want to live in Detroit.
Daily Mail on it now.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13978725/lizzo-america-kamala-harris-wins-donald-trump-election.html
“That’s an ad for Trump!”
Yeah, it is.
Is it against the law to encourage someone else to break the law?
Apparently not if you are a Democrat or a federal law enforcement officer.
Generally not but it depends on the specific facts. There are inchoate crimes like conspiracy and solicitation that can include “encouragement” depending on how you define it.
http://individual.utoronto.ca/dubber/web/website/inchoate/Model_Penal_Code.htm
Oldman–
Sounds right, but I was thinking more of the Whitmer Kidnapping case where feds outnumbered suspects and kept supplying them with suggestions.
David B. Benson asked: Is it against the law to encourage someone else to break the law?
Like when Obama and Biden instructed their FBI Director, Deputy FBI Director, and last two Attorney Generals to take their party’s fictional and illegal “Trump Russia Dossier” in front of FISA court judges and perjure themselves that their election lie was verified US intelligence agency evidence?
David, you want to make an argument that every one of them who repeatedly committed those felonies in those FISA courts did it in secret?
They agreed to all engage in a conspiracy to keep what they were doing secret from Obama and Biden?
So David: did Obama and Biden commit multiple felonies, telling their subordinates in the DoJ to repeatedly perjure themselves and utter false documents to FISA courts?
Yes they did and hopefully will be held accountable soon.
Born in 1965, started school in 1970, what in the Hell would she know of Civil Rights? The only thing going on was riots. What Mother would take her kid to riots, especially a Indian woman of high education? It wasn’t like protests, it was like Minneapolis at night with stores burning. People dying in the streets.
High education requires high capacity.
Kamala only has a high capacity for Willy Brown.
So far, that is all she has needed.
Perhaps she was a beneficiary of education capacity affirmative action.
Where are her transcripts?
Same place as Obama’s
* What of Willy Brown’s character. Just a good ol’ boy I guess. Just another I like my liquor brown and I like my women brown kinda guy.
“Kamala only has a high capacity for Willy Brown.”
The term “could suck start a Harley” comes to mind.
* Want to know how to stop abortion? Fine or jail all the pollinators of the pregnant children, girls and women. Not even their names are listed in a million pieces of abortion data. That’s where the abortion motherload really is.
Scott Free
Well well well, it’s a Dennis post immediately following up a GiGi comment. Why it’s almost as if on que… almost like they’re one!
^^^ total amateur
Because he said que instead of cue?
Que as in loading lane?
She cant write
She cant speak
She cant reason
But boy can she swallow
Kamala Harris’s Plagiarism Problem
…according to Stefan Weber, a famed Austrian “plagiarism hunter” who has taken down politicians in the German-speaking world, Harris’s book contains more than a dozen “vicious plagiarism fragments.” Some of the passages he highlighted appear to contain minor transgressions—reproducing small sections of text; insufficient paraphrasing—but others seem to reflect more serious infractions, similar in severity to those found in Harvard president Claudine Gay’s doctoral thesis.
There’s more. In another section of the book, Harris, without proper attribution, reproduced extensive sections from a John Jay College of Criminal Justice press release. She and her co-author passed off the language as their own, copying multiple paragraphs virtually verbatim.
In a section about a New York court program, Harris stole long passages directly from Wikipedia—long considered an unreliable source. She not only assumes the online encyclopedia’s accuracy, but copies its language nearly verbatim, without citing the source.
To make matters worse, in duplicating Wikipedia’s language, Harris seems to have missed critical information and misstated a relevant detail. She claims, in prose identical to the online encyclopedia’s, that “illegal vending was down 24 percent” as a result of the court’s policies. Early in the paragraph, Harris cites the Bureau of Justice Assistance report to substantiate the figure. But she made a mistake: On Wikipedia, the “24 percent” figure was apparently tied to a different report, which found that “arrests for unlicensed vending,” rather than unlicensed vending as such, “fell by 24 percent” (emphasis mine). Her reliance on Wikipedia, an unreliable source, led to an unreliable conclusion.
On that point, one might recall the title of her book: Smart on Crime. There is nothing smart about plagiarism, which is the equivalent of an academic crime. The publisher, as well as the sitting vice president, should retract the plagiarized passages and issue a correction. There should be a single standard—and Kamala Harris is falling short.
https://christopherrufo.com/p/kamala-harriss-plagiarism-problem
Kamala is both the lowest IQ candidate, and tied for the phoniest candidate in American history (tied with John Edwards who was John Kerry’s running mate). She is an empty pants suit with virtually no functioning brain cells. She wouldn’t know what a book was if it hit her over the head, there is no way in hell she could ever write one.
* she has the boxes checked
1. birthing person
2. Of color
3. Non Christian non Jew
4. Immigrant parents
Few others
You must adapt to the cosmetic appeal.
* just as joe had Harris as insurance knowing nothing could happen to him because no one wanted Harris ushered in so Harris has Walz.
If anyone’s smart it’ll be Spiro Agnew first and then impeach dirty Harris. Bet your bottom dollar someone is keeping a Walz crime quiet.
Insurance is a good thing.
* info regarding Walz is beginning to surface.
Jonathan: Something happened with my computer and it cut short. So here is a continuation of my comment:
“…The NY times reviewed Harris’s book and found “none of the passages in question took ideas or thoughts of another writer. The Harris campaign responded to the allegations by stating that Harris “clearly cited sources and in footnotes and endnotes throughout”
DJT is one “writer” who can’t be accused of plagiarism. All his books were ghost written by someone else. Besides, DJT doesn’t read much–except maybe the speeches of Adolph Hitler or citing from one of your articles defending him!
Dennis,
The nonsense by the NYT was in error – as the author of the NYT article – their plagarism expert eventually admitted.
NYT gave him a handful of passages – the actual count is somewhere between 19 and 24 depending on the source.
Nearly all of these are near verbatum – even Gaye made more changes than Harris.
]
This was a cut and paste job.
Is it serious ?
No.
Why not ?
Because no book by Harris is serious.
Is it Plagarism – absolutely.
Is NYT once again caught in lies – yup.
Barnes and Noble list 4 pages of books that have Trump as an author, about 70% have Trump as the lead author.
There is plenty of material for you to check for plagarism
I have no idea how many Trump books are ghostwritten.
We do know that the Harris book has a coauthor that likely wrote most of the book.
Dennis,
we know you are bitter and angry.
Kamala Fest has come to an end.
Her Joy has turned to bile and recrimination.
If we are to trust lip readers – even Pres. Obama thinks she was a mistake.
The coup did not work – Harris is loosing all swing states. There are something like 6 democrat senators in trouble.
Democrats retaking the house is a fairy tale.
And it all gets worse everyday.
Trump is up by 1 in swing states – but it is near certain higher than that.
Harris is barely up by 1 in the popular vote and will with certainty lose that.
2 years of lawfare, smears and lies has not derailed Trump.
* So where was Joe when he sent out the cryptic letter saying he was withdrawing? Being pistol whipped?
Feel bad for the nation and Harris if she wins. It’s some kind punishment in some perverted way. Walz is not playing with a full deck either.
Trump and Vance are the Happy Warriors, bringing the joy to their campaign. It’s palpable.
Kamala and Tim are just pathetic. There is no “joy” in Kamala’s campaign.
Kamala’s spastic laughter is not “joy.” It’s a lack of self control. It reveals insecurity. It’s odd, unsettling behavior for a presidential candidate. Her husband Doug is accused of slapping his ex girlfriend in public, at a public event, with multiple witnesses who said he slapped her so hard that she spun around. It happened only 12 years ago, yet not one reporter has asked him about it?
Tim Walz clapping like a manic seal is not “joy.” It’s strange behavior.
Walz waving his spastic jazz hands is just weird, and unsettling. His wife is a weirdo too.
Kamala’s campaign message: “Here’s why we hate Trump and you should too”. So much joy. Not.
Kamala cannot call her campaign: ‘joy’ when literally her entire campaign is about spewing Trump hate and nonsense.
She and her surrogates vomit nonstop Trump hate, Trump derangement, and bold, brazen lies about Trump.
That’s it. That’s her entire campaign.
It’s pathetic.
WHO cares if Kamala Harris plagiarized something from someone? We KNOW, without any qualification, that Melania Trump plagiarized a speech directly from Michelle Obama. The “Drill Baby Drill” BS that Trump keeps spouting was gotten from former half-governor Sarah Palin–and is truly stupid, just like him. The US is already producing a record amount of energy and is making federal lands available for oil exploration, so we don’t need to “Drill Baby Drill”. Anyway, that meme was stolen from R&B disc jockey Magnificent Montague, who coined the phrase “Burn Baby Burn” during the 1964 Watts riots. Turley says: “However, it could prompt a long-needed discussion about how we handle plagiarism in academia.” Kamala Harris isn’t “in academia”.
Meanwhile, Turley is ignoring Trump’s increasingly incoherent rants and obvious signs of cognitive decline and lack of physical stamina while he looks hard for something, anything, to criticize Kamala Harris for.
If you’ve ever dreamed of getting paid to stir the pot online, you’ve come to the right place. Here’s your ultimate guide to becoming a professional paid troll like Gigi—complete with tips, tricks, and a sprinkle of absurdity! You too can be a Gigi
Chapter 1: Choose Your Persona, e.g. Gigi
First things first: you need a persona. Are you a conspiracy theorist who believes that Americans do not care about plagiarism, lying and sloppy seconds by Kamala Harria? Or perhaps a self-proclaimed expert on nursing, law and political talking points? Pick something outrageous and stick to it! Remember, consistency is key—your followers need to know what to expect from your wild rants. Crazy as Gigi is a tough bar to beat!
Chapter 2: Master the Art of the Comment Section just like Gigi
The comment section is your playground. Here are some classic moves:
The Overly Dramatic Response: “I can’t believe you would say that! This is worse than when they canceled my favorite show!”
The Misinformation Maven: “Actually, studies show that 90% of people prefer cats over dogs. It’s science!”
The Outrageous Question: “If we can’t trust the government, who can we trust? The squirrels in my backyard seem pretty reliable!”
Chapter 3: Engage with Your Audience
Engagement is crucial! Respond to every comment, no matter how ridiculous. Use phrases like:
“You’re absolutely right! But have you considered the real implications of this?”
“I appreciate your perspective, but let’s not forget about the hidden agenda behind this!”
Chapter 4: Create Your Own Hashtags
Hashtags are your best friend. Create catchy, nonsensical hashtags to rally your followers. Examples include:
#TrollLife
#PineapplePizzaConspiracy
#SquirrelsAreInCharge
Chapter 5: Embrace the Chaos
As a paid troll, your job is to create chaos. Don’t shy away from absurdity! Post memes that make no sense, share bizarre theories, and always, always take things too far. Remember, the goal is to confuse and amuse!
Conclusion:
Congratulations! You’re now equipped with the tools like Gigi to become a paid troll extraordinaire. Just remember: the internet is a wild place, and your job is to make it even wilder. So go forth, spread your nonsense, and may your trolling be ever entertaining!
WHO cares if Kamala Harris plagiarized something from someone?
Everybody who doesn’t agree with you, Gigi, The Womb Of Democrat Lies.
Meanwhile, Turley is ignoring Trump’s increasingly incoherent rants and obvious signs of cognitive decline and lack of physical stamina
Gigi, you’re hoping nobody notices that you and Cackling Kamala claim you never noticed Bribery Biden’s incoherent rants and obvious signs of cognitive decline and lack of physical stamina.
Freud was the first to refer to what you’re doing as “channeling”, Gigi: attributing your failures, misdeeds, lies, criminality, etc. to somebody that you hate. I doubt that Freud and a platoon of fellow psychiatrists could have the slightest success in treating your Trump Hate-Derangement Syndrome.
How many wonder why you come here, when apparently you disagree 100% with every single column that Professor Turley posts here?
What’s your purpose in reading and responding to Professor Turley that you clearly despise as much as you do Trump, Vance, and pretty much every Republican politician drawing breath?
If your psychopathy were diagnosed as PTSD, a therapist would advise you to avoid things that trigger your mental illness.
Would like to give yourself a credibility rating with the audience here, Gigi?
“a therapist would advise you to avoid things that trigger your mental illness.”
Yep. Or to face it, work through it, and move on as best you can. Not stay stuck.
“WHO cares if Kamala Harris plagiarized something from someone?”
No one. Harris is a light weight – no intellectual heft.
No one cares.
“We KNOW, without any qualification, that Melania Trump plagiarized a speech directly from Michelle Obama.”
First ladies are not vice presidents and candidates for president and no Melania did NOT take a speech DIRECTLY from Michelle.
” The “Drill Baby Drill” BS that Trump keeps spouting was gotten from former half-governor Sarah Palin–and is truly stupid, just like him.”
You can not plagarize 3 words.
“The US is already producing a record amount of energy and is making federal lands available for oil exploration, so we don’t need to “Drill Baby Drill”.”
Only partly true. Nearly all production is from wells with prior leases, Biden has made getting new leases nearly impossible.
There is a small amount of land in Alaska that is being drilled on – because Republicans added that to legislation.
“Kamala Harris isn’t “in academia”.
Correct, she is not subject to the same standards and expectations an he lone book is not worthy of serious consideration.
“Meanwhile, Turley is ignoring Trump’s increasingly incoherent rants and obvious signs of cognitive decline and lack of physical stamina while he looks hard for something, anything, to criticize Kamala Harris for.?”
Trump did an excellent job at the Al Smith dinner. He came into the lions den, he was poked an prodded, and he took it in humour and gave back what he got in the same vein.
Harris phoned it in, she did not bother to show, She did not even do her own jokes.
If Trump’s health is in decline – that is amazing. He is doing about 3 times the appearances that Harris is.
He speaks longer – more impromtu and frankly more coherently and mostly without a teleprompter.
All with people shooting at him.
‘Gigi’
Is the one ‘like’ you give yourself
like getting a ‘participation trophy’?
Trump’s schedule since Oct 1
✅28 in-person events
✅25 cities
✅12 states
✅21 interviews (including 7 long form podcasts)
✅Little sleep
Where’s Kamala?
She’s being criticized for her unusually light campaign schedule.
She’s still hiding and ducking.
She’s complaining about her first and only ‘adversarial interview’ with Fox News.
And she’s resting –quite a lot — in between her unusually light schedule of events.
Trump shows up to give his speech at the Al Smith Dinner; Kamala phones it in.
Trump is up the next morning being interviewed live on Fox and Friends at 8am.
Before the Al Smith dinner Trump did a long-form podcast interview,
and then a “Black Men’s Barbershop Talk” event in The Bronx.
Then off to another rally. Off to another interview. Doing multiple events in multiple cities a day.
Trump runs circles around Kamala. And he’s been doing this for nearly two years!
She’s been campaigning for barely 3 months,
taking off days to prepare for one debate,
taking days to prep for one interview.
Doing barely one campaign event a day – if that.
Kamala hasn’t kept a campaign schedule even close to Trump’s schedule.
Nor is she remotely capable of handling his schedule.
Don’t forget that Trump also had to campaign to win his competitive presidential primary.
She never had to endure the rigors of being vetted in a competitive primary. She was selected.
Now Trump has had to campaign for President against not one, but two opponents.
Plus he’s fighting their lawfare campaigns against him.
And he’s been shot! Dealing with numerous assassination attempts.
Kamala has only been campaigning for a few months — and she already looks and sounds exhausted.
Kamala has never had to endure the rigors of a hostile press.
Kamala has never had to answer for anything. She’s been coddled by the press.
She regurgitates the same memorized talking points. Always scripted, rehearsed, phony.
She reads the same teleprompter speech again and again, from rally to rally.
She’s acting as if she has not been in power these past 4 years.