![christopherrufo's tweet photo. The New York Times is lying about my plagiarism story and I have the receipts to prove it:
1. The Times claims that I only argued that Kamala Harris plagiarized "five sections" involving "about 500 words." But this isn't true. In my story, I wrote that Stefan Weber argued there are "more than a dozen" instances of "'vicious plagiarism.'" This past Saturday, I provided the Times not only with my written analysis, which argues that there are "more than a dozen," but with Weber's full dossier, which included 18 allegations of varying severity. So, the Times deliberately withheld this crucial contextual information from its readers and from the supposed plagiarism expert, who, based on this limited information, called it "not serious." They could have easily confirmed the "more than a dozen" point, but instead, lied by omission.
2. The Times claims that "none of the passages in question took the ideas or thoughts of another writer." This is preposterous. Harris not only copied multiple paragraphs of other people's work verbatim, but she often lifted those ideas directly and at face value. In one case, she came to the wrong conclusion because she copied Wikipedia—i.e., she stole a bad idea, copied the language verbatim, and got the point wrong. This is the Full Monty of plagiarism. The Times's claim doesn't hold up at all; it's just a way of downplaying the transgression of Kamala Harris, as they tried to do initially with Harvard president Claudine Gay. Their claim is not supported by the evidence:
3. The Times provides one example of the plagiarism from my story, which suggests that it was a minor copy-and-paste of two short sentences:
But this is supremely misleading. The violation was not two sentences, but, rather, five sentences. Here is the actual extent of this plagiarism instance, which is much more severe than the Times suggests. She copied-and-pasted two paragraphs and simply added the word "additional":
4. The Times suggests that noticing Kamala Harris's plagiarism is somehow "racist," even though the paper has covered plagiarism by many other political figures, including conservative minorities, such as former Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, without suggesting that doing so was "racist." This is just a way of laundering in a smear to complement the absurd headline that my reporting on plagiarism by a presidential candidate is "seiz[ing] on" a transgression that is "not serious"—in other words, framing me as the villain of the story, rather than the plagiarism by a presidential candidate.
My rule of working with journalists is simple: If you treat me fairly, I treat you fairly. After publication of the Times piece, I called the reporter and editor at the Times to ask politely for a correction. The editor, Mary Suh, had nothing but excuses. And so, we're going to fight this one out. They should issue a correction, but, even if they do not, I will correct the record in public.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GZ4T9Nlb0AsFRa-.jpg)
![christopherrufo's tweet photo. The New York Times is lying about my plagiarism story and I have the receipts to prove it:
1. The Times claims that I only argued that Kamala Harris plagiarized "five sections" involving "about 500 words." But this isn't true. In my story, I wrote that Stefan Weber argued there are "more than a dozen" instances of "'vicious plagiarism.'" This past Saturday, I provided the Times not only with my written analysis, which argues that there are "more than a dozen," but with Weber's full dossier, which included 18 allegations of varying severity. So, the Times deliberately withheld this crucial contextual information from its readers and from the supposed plagiarism expert, who, based on this limited information, called it "not serious." They could have easily confirmed the "more than a dozen" point, but instead, lied by omission.
2. The Times claims that "none of the passages in question took the ideas or thoughts of another writer." This is preposterous. Harris not only copied multiple paragraphs of other people's work verbatim, but she often lifted those ideas directly and at face value. In one case, she came to the wrong conclusion because she copied Wikipedia—i.e., she stole a bad idea, copied the language verbatim, and got the point wrong. This is the Full Monty of plagiarism. The Times's claim doesn't hold up at all; it's just a way of downplaying the transgression of Kamala Harris, as they tried to do initially with Harvard president Claudine Gay. Their claim is not supported by the evidence:
3. The Times provides one example of the plagiarism from my story, which suggests that it was a minor copy-and-paste of two short sentences:
But this is supremely misleading. The violation was not two sentences, but, rather, five sentences. Here is the actual extent of this plagiarism instance, which is much more severe than the Times suggests. She copied-and-pasted two paragraphs and simply added the word "additional":
4. The Times suggests that noticing Kamala Harris's plagiarism is somehow "racist," even though the paper has covered plagiarism by many other political figures, including conservative minorities, such as former Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, without suggesting that doing so was "racist." This is just a way of laundering in a smear to complement the absurd headline that my reporting on plagiarism by a presidential candidate is "seiz[ing] on" a transgression that is "not serious"—in other words, framing me as the villain of the story, rather than the plagiarism by a presidential candidate.
My rule of working with journalists is simple: If you treat me fairly, I treat you fairly. After publication of the Times piece, I called the reporter and editor at the Times to ask politely for a correction. The editor, Mary Suh, had nothing but excuses. And so, we're going to fight this one out. They should issue a correction, but, even if they do not, I will correct the record in public.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GZ4TX-3bsAAxr0U.jpg)
![christopherrufo's tweet photo. The New York Times is lying about my plagiarism story and I have the receipts to prove it:
1. The Times claims that I only argued that Kamala Harris plagiarized "five sections" involving "about 500 words." But this isn't true. In my story, I wrote that Stefan Weber argued there are "more than a dozen" instances of "'vicious plagiarism.'" This past Saturday, I provided the Times not only with my written analysis, which argues that there are "more than a dozen," but with Weber's full dossier, which included 18 allegations of varying severity. So, the Times deliberately withheld this crucial contextual information from its readers and from the supposed plagiarism expert, who, based on this limited information, called it "not serious." They could have easily confirmed the "more than a dozen" point, but instead, lied by omission.
2. The Times claims that "none of the passages in question took the ideas or thoughts of another writer." This is preposterous. Harris not only copied multiple paragraphs of other people's work verbatim, but she often lifted those ideas directly and at face value. In one case, she came to the wrong conclusion because she copied Wikipedia—i.e., she stole a bad idea, copied the language verbatim, and got the point wrong. This is the Full Monty of plagiarism. The Times's claim doesn't hold up at all; it's just a way of downplaying the transgression of Kamala Harris, as they tried to do initially with Harvard president Claudine Gay. Their claim is not supported by the evidence:
3. The Times provides one example of the plagiarism from my story, which suggests that it was a minor copy-and-paste of two short sentences:
But this is supremely misleading. The violation was not two sentences, but, rather, five sentences. Here is the actual extent of this plagiarism instance, which is much more severe than the Times suggests. She copied-and-pasted two paragraphs and simply added the word "additional":
4. The Times suggests that noticing Kamala Harris's plagiarism is somehow "racist," even though the paper has covered plagiarism by many other political figures, including conservative minorities, such as former Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, without suggesting that doing so was "racist." This is just a way of laundering in a smear to complement the absurd headline that my reporting on plagiarism by a presidential candidate is "seiz[ing] on" a transgression that is "not serious"—in other words, framing me as the villain of the story, rather than the plagiarism by a presidential candidate.
My rule of working with journalists is simple: If you treat me fairly, I treat you fairly. After publication of the Times piece, I called the reporter and editor at the Times to ask politely for a correction. The editor, Mary Suh, had nothing but excuses. And so, we're going to fight this one out. They should issue a correction, but, even if they do not, I will correct the record in public.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GZ4TGFwb0AkPgXx.png)
Olivia
Online
Geronimo's Ghost
@LetGoBrondon
Louisiana has been a backwater shithole run by corruptocrats and morons since 1803. Jeff Landry faces a monumental task.
Atchafalaya Swamp
Joined April 2016
489 Following
246 Followers
7.1K Posts
Pinned Tweet
@julie_kelly2 Giving the government emergency powers will ALWAYS lead to an abundance of "emergencies...
@theblaze Subtract the number of Republican House members leaving to work for Trump.
@46Chadwick @CPhilly19 @AYSSPORTS @lsu_hq @lsu_capital @SSN_LSUTigers @Geaux247 @LSUfootball @bryce_koon @DrunkCoachBaker @PurpleAndGold @LSU I went to a Billy Graham revival with my grandmother around 1960. Went to Tiger football games and tailgates for decades. Death Valley may be the top college game day experience in the country.
@therealthodin @realMaalouf Islam has been a scam from the beginning. Works like the Somali pirates and the Mafia business insurance.
The New York Times is lying about my plagiarism story and I have the receipts to prove it:
1. The Times claims that I only argued that Kamala Harris plagiarized "five sections" involving "about 500 words." But this isn't true. In my story, I wrote that Stefan Weber argued there are "more than a dozen" instances of "'vicious plagiarism.'" This past Saturday, I provided the Times not only with my written analysis, which argues that there are "more than a dozen," but with Weber's full dossier, which included 18 allegations of varying severity. So, the Times deliberately withheld this crucial contextual information from its readers and from the supposed plagiarism expert, who, based on this limited information, called it "not serious." They could have easily confirmed the "more than a dozen" point, but instead, lied by omission.
2. The Times claims that "none of the passages in question took the ideas or thoughts of another writer." This is preposterous. Harris not only copied multiple paragraphs of other people's work verbatim, but she often lifted those ideas directly and at face value. In one case, she came to the wrong conclusion because she copied Wikipedia—i.e., she stole a bad idea, copied the language verbatim, and got the point wrong. This is the Full Monty of plagiarism. The Times's claim doesn't hold up at all; it's just a way of downplaying the transgression of Kamala Harris, as they tried to do initially with Harvard president Claudine Gay. Their claim is not supported by the evidence:
3. The Times provides one example of the plagiarism from my story, which suggests that it was a minor copy-and-paste of two short sentences:
But this is supremely misleading. The violation was not two sentences, but, rather, five sentences. Here is the actual extent of this plagiarism instance, which is much more severe than the Times suggests. She copied-and-pasted two paragraphs and simply added the word "additional":
4. The Times suggests that noticing Kamala Harris's plagiarism is somehow "racist," even though the paper has covered plagiarism by many other political figures, including conservative minorities, such as former Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, without suggesting that doing so was "racist." This is just a way of laundering in a smear to complement the absurd headline that my reporting on plagiarism by a presidential candidate is "seiz[ing] on" a transgression that is "not serious"—in other words, framing me as the villain of the story, rather than the plagiarism by a presidential candidate.
My rule of working with journalists is simple: If you treat me fairly, I treat you fairly. After publication of the Times piece, I called the reporter and editor at the Times to ask politely for a correction. The editor, Mary Suh, had nothing but excuses. And so, we're going to fight this one out. They should issue a correction, but, even if they do not, I will correct the record in public.
![christopherrufo's tweet photo. The New York Times is lying about my plagiarism story and I have the receipts to prove it:
1. The Times claims that I only argued that Kamala Harris plagiarized "five sections" involving "about 500 words." But this isn't true. In my story, I wrote that Stefan Weber argued there are "more than a dozen" instances of "'vicious plagiarism.'" This past Saturday, I provided the Times not only with my written analysis, which argues that there are "more than a dozen," but with Weber's full dossier, which included 18 allegations of varying severity. So, the Times deliberately withheld this crucial contextual information from its readers and from the supposed plagiarism expert, who, based on this limited information, called it "not serious." They could have easily confirmed the "more than a dozen" point, but instead, lied by omission.
2. The Times claims that "none of the passages in question took the ideas or thoughts of another writer." This is preposterous. Harris not only copied multiple paragraphs of other people's work verbatim, but she often lifted those ideas directly and at face value. In one case, she came to the wrong conclusion because she copied Wikipedia—i.e., she stole a bad idea, copied the language verbatim, and got the point wrong. This is the Full Monty of plagiarism. The Times's claim doesn't hold up at all; it's just a way of downplaying the transgression of Kamala Harris, as they tried to do initially with Harvard president Claudine Gay. Their claim is not supported by the evidence:
3. The Times provides one example of the plagiarism from my story, which suggests that it was a minor copy-and-paste of two short sentences:
But this is supremely misleading. The violation was not two sentences, but, rather, five sentences. Here is the actual extent of this plagiarism instance, which is much more severe than the Times suggests. She copied-and-pasted two paragraphs and simply added the word "additional":
4. The Times suggests that noticing Kamala Harris's plagiarism is somehow "racist," even though the paper has covered plagiarism by many other political figures, including conservative minorities, such as former Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, without suggesting that doing so was "racist." This is just a way of laundering in a smear to complement the absurd headline that my reporting on plagiarism by a presidential candidate is "seiz[ing] on" a transgression that is "not serious"—in other words, framing me as the villain of the story, rather than the plagiarism by a presidential candidate.
My rule of working with journalists is simple: If you treat me fairly, I treat you fairly. After publication of the Times piece, I called the reporter and editor at the Times to ask politely for a correction. The editor, Mary Suh, had nothing but excuses. And so, we're going to fight this one out. They should issue a correction, but, even if they do not, I will correct the record in public.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GZ4UGTJb0AE0Nfj.jpg)
@seanmdav In tossup races, Republicans should say that if the Republican wins, every Republican who voted will be entered into a lottery drawing with $500,000 spread over 1000 places, top prize $10k.
@Jairo_I_Funez You have zero SEC Championships. Sit down.
@MelaniaTrumpo State flags and Old Glory. None other.
@MichaelRCaputo More proof that the enemy is the uniparty government elites
@3YearLetterman @VivekGRamaswamy @elonmusk Did they name any rodents after President Franklin? No. But they did for Elon Musk
@DailyCaller "Piss off, fool."
@civildisstream @RashidaTlaib What kind of vile person admits that taking innocent people hostage is good?
@LeaKThompson You are not important.
@DC_Draino Why would he not do this? Is there some painful consequence, or nah?
@Dobro167 @StanfordDowning @neal_katyal Worse, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbolla will attack Israel, and his withdrawal from the Afghan war will be a debacle.
@Riflemanscreed2 Pot roast dinner is a perfect meal
@BrendonLeslie I think Walz is a communist idiot. However, he was unloading his gun in the video.
@LeadingReport Did not realize there are some people who didn't already know this...
@emilykschrader Nothing will happen to the people who published this obviously fabricated article.
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
240.6M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
110.5M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.6M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.9M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.6M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.4M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
69.8M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
62.5M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60.7M followers