RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2024/10/14/media-rushes-to-downplay-explosive-evidence-of-kamala-harris-plagiarism-n4933333

Did Kamala Harris plagiarize sections of her 2009 book? It sure looks like it. Christopher Rufo has uncovered significant evidence of Harris taking the work of others word for word and passing it off as her own, and it’s damning. Nowadays, when many Americans take for granted that politicians lie, this may not seem like a big deal, but it is. The plagiarism calls into question Harris’ honesty, her integrity, her trustworthiness, and even her most celebrated area of alleged expertise, as the plagiarism took place in a book that was designed to establish her credibility as a prosecutor.

JD Vance knows it’s a big deal. “I saw today, actually,” Vance said Monday, “a story that Kamala Harris apparently copied some significant chunks of her book from Wikipedia. So if you want a president with their own ideas, vote for Donald Trump. If you want a president who copies her own ideas from Wikipedia, vote for Kamala Harris.”

The New York Times knows it’s a big deal as well, which is why it published an 1100-word piece on Monday trying to explain away Harris’ plagiarism and portray the whole matter as an unfortunate example of just how low the foes of the sainted Harris will go. In the Times’ version, “conservative [a four-alarm word for the Times and its hapless readers] activist Christopher Rufo” is making a mountain out of a molehill. He “had taken relatively minor citation mistakes in a large amount of text and tried to ‘make a big deal of it.’” 

That was the assessment of one Jonathan Bailey, whom the Times identifies as “a plagiarism consultant,” without explaining what exactly a “plagiarism consultant” is or how one attains such a lofty position. Bailey, the Times informs us magisterially, “said on Monday that his initial reaction to Mr. Rufo’s claims was that the errors were not serious, given the size of the document.”

See, if you’re a Democrat, you can get away with ripping off entire paragraphs of other works and claiming them as your own, as long as you fit the thefts into a document of sufficient size.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4928306-desperate-democrats-cry-misinformation-to-squash-criticism-of-kamala-harris

For days now, the liberal media and its Democratic allies have seemed much more concerned about Republicans spreading “misinformation” than about the real-life suffering of North Carolinians.   

For proof, look no further than this blizzard of headlines — all from Politico:  

“The worst I have ever seen’: Disinformation chaos hammers FEMA”
“After the deluge, the lies: Misinformation and hoaxes about Helene cloud the recovery” 
“Elon Musk is piling onto all the hurricane disinformation, hampering relief efforts” 
“FEMA director on misinformation: ‘Truly dangerous narrative’” 

Politico is certainly not alone, ABC ran with this story on Tuesday: “Ahead of election, experts warn Hurricane Helene misinformation is ‘just the beginning.’” 

CBS contributed this one on Monday: “Misinformation has surged following Hurricane Helene.” 

 That’s the same CBS that reportedly doctored video of Kamala Harris’s “60 Minutes” interview to make the Democratic candidate appear more intelligent. So their concern about misinformation is apparently episodic.

It’s almost as though a memo went out to Democrat-friendly media allies, prompting a concerted pushback against criticism of the Biden-Harris White House’s response to Hurricane Helene. It’s not surprising. 

The pile-up of delayed, tone-deaf and embarrassing responses to the devastating storm from the administration and Kamala Harris has been damaging; her team is desperate to contain the damage. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/cooke-the-oprah-interview-eliminated-all-pretense-the-press-and-harris-are-on-the-same-side/

National Review senior editor Charles C. W. Cooke, on today’s edition of The Editors, said the upside of Kamala Harris’s interview with Oprah Winfrey was that viewers got to see clearly the case of “an interviewee and an interviewer who were manifestly on the same side.

“I really do appreciate,” he said, “that the press is at long last cut out the pretense in that Oprah Winfrey spoke at the Democratic Convention and endorsed Harris. And that is the default position of most journalists, but they’re just not honest enough to make it clear.”

Cooke pointed out that the interview, in which Harris was asked how she would bring down prices, “really verged into metaphysical . . . almost poetry. And Winfrey sat there and said, ‘Yes, yes, mm, mm, mm, mm, yes, mm.’

“It’s absurd,” Cooke said. “I am aware by now that people are voting against, and that they are going to pretend, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, that their candidate is therefore fine, but they’re not, they’re not fine. Kamala Harris is not an acceptable candidate for president of the United States. She can’t answer elementary questions. She can’t talk. And the reason that she can’t talk is because she can’t think. . . . The mouth follows the mind.

“There are lots of people in this country with whom I strongly disagree who are able to present their worldview in a manner that is comprehensible and even compelling. But she is not one of them.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/09/20/why-do-media-think-democrats-are-worth-cheating-for/

It would be helpful to voters to know that a “whistleblower” says ABC rigged last week’s debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. But outside of conservative media, it’s being largely ignored, because the legacy press covers its own and as zealously as it does the Democratic Party. Whether the claims are true or not – the existence of the whistleblower remains unconfirmed – the mainstream media’s loyalty to Democrats is uncomfortably similar to the relationship Pravda had with the Central Committee of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party.

To quickly recap, the unnamed whistleblower said ABC agreed to fact-check Trump while ensuring “Harris would not face comparable scrutiny.” The plan was so detailed that “various people were assigned to fact check observations it was perceived candidate Trump would make during the debate.”

“In fact,” says the whistleblower, the “Harris campaign required assurances that Donald Trump would be fact-checked.”

These agreements were reached on calls that the Trump campaign was not a part of although all discussions regarding the rules and negotiations were supposed to include both sides.

The affidavit also says Harris was provided with sample questions that, while not the exact questions that would be asked, nevertheless “covered similar topics that would appear during the debate.”

There were also issues that could not be raised – Joe Biden’s health; Harris’ performance as San Francisco’s district attorney; her brother-in-law and “key campaign adviser” Tony West, who allegedly “fleeced taxpayers for billions to give to left-wing groups and lawyers” – since they would reflect poorly on Harris.

“I have observed a pronounced bias against Donald Trump within ABC News,” the affiant continues, while also noting “many” ABC employees “questioned the clear bias that is well known throughout the company.”