https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/14/politics/kamala-harris-plagiarism-allegation/index.html Vice President Kamala Harris has been accused by a conservative activist of plagiarizing passages in a book she co-authored more than a decade ago. Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, on Monday cited in an online post an analysis by so-called Austrian plagiarism hunter Stefan Weber, alleging Harris lifted “verbatim language” from uncited sources in “Smart on Crime,” which she co-wrote with Joan O’C. Hamilton. The book – published in 2009, the year before Harris was elected California attorney general – focuses on policy drawing from her experience prosecuting crimes that ranged from child sexual assault to homicide in Alameda County and San Francisco. Rufo, in his post, refers to six specific paragraphs from Harris’ roughly 200-page book. CNN reviewed several of the passages highlighted by Rufo and found that Harris and O’C. Hamilton failed to properly attribute language to sources. Plagiarized works include using someone else’s work without giving them proper and appropriate credit for their ideas and words. Even if the source of the information is cited, it is still considered plagiarism if the ideas are not paraphrased or quoted in the correct place, experts told CNN late last year. In one instance, Harris and O’C. Hamilton appear to have lifted some language from a John Jay College of Criminal Justice press release without proper attribution. The book copies exact language and sections of the press release but fails to use quotation marks in several sentences, according to an analysis of the book and the press release. The authors do, however, cite the press release as a source in a footnote next to the text. They also properly attribute other quotes from parts of the press release. Rufo also highlighted another example claiming Harris and O’C. Hamilton “lifted language verbatim” from an NBC News report about a 2008 study on low graduation rates in city schools. CNN confirmed that the language is very similar in both the book and the NBC News report. Haris and O’C. Hamilton cite the study in their book when using the study’s statistics, but do not cite the NBC News article. The Harris campaign said the Democratic presidential candidate “clearly cited sources and statistics in footnotes and endnotes throughout” the book. “Rightwing operatives are getting desperate as they see the bipartisan coalition of support Vice President Harris is building to win this election, as Trump retreats to a conservative echo chamber refusing to face questions about his lies. This is a book that’s been out for 15 years, and the Vice President clearly cited sources and statistics in footnotes and endnotes throughout,” said Harris campaign spokesperson James Singer. Vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance quickly seized on the allegations from the conservative activist, posting on X: “Lmao Kamala didn’t even write her own book!” The Ohio Republican said in another post that he “wrote (his) own book,” in reference to his memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy.” CNN’s Priscilla Alvarez contributed to this report.
Vice President Kamala Harris has been accused by a conservative activist of plagiarizing passages in a book she co-authored more than a decade ago.
Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, on Monday cited in an online post an analysis by so-called Austrian plagiarism hunter Stefan Weber, alleging Harris lifted “verbatim language” from uncited sources in “Smart on Crime,” which she co-wrote with Joan O’C. Hamilton.
The book – published in 2009, the year before Harris was elected California attorney general – focuses on policy drawing from her experience prosecuting crimes that ranged from child sexual assault to homicide in Alameda County and San Francisco. Rufo, in his post, refers to six specific paragraphs from Harris’ roughly 200-page book.
CNN reviewed several of the passages highlighted by Rufo and found that Harris and O’C. Hamilton failed to properly attribute language to sources.
Plagiarized works include using someone else’s work without giving them proper and appropriate credit for their ideas and words. Even if the source of the information is cited, it is still considered plagiarism if the ideas are not paraphrased or quoted in the correct place, experts told CNN late last year.
In one instance, Harris and O’C. Hamilton appear to have lifted some language from a John Jay College of Criminal Justice press release without proper attribution. The book copies exact language and sections of the press release but fails to use quotation marks in several sentences, according to an analysis of the book and the press release.
The authors do, however, cite the press release as a source in a footnote next to the text.
They also properly attribute other quotes from parts of the press release.
Rufo also highlighted another example claiming Harris and O’C. Hamilton “lifted language verbatim” from an NBC News report about a 2008 study on low graduation rates in city schools. CNN confirmed that the language is very similar in both the book and the NBC News report.
Haris and O’C. Hamilton cite the study in their book when using the study’s statistics, but do not cite the NBC News article.
The Harris campaign said the Democratic presidential candidate “clearly cited sources and statistics in footnotes and endnotes throughout” the book.
“Rightwing operatives are getting desperate as they see the bipartisan coalition of support Vice President Harris is building to win this election, as Trump retreats to a conservative echo chamber refusing to face questions about his lies. This is a book that’s been out for 15 years, and the Vice President clearly cited sources and statistics in footnotes and endnotes throughout,” said Harris campaign spokesperson James Singer.
Vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance quickly seized on the allegations from the conservative activist, posting on X: “Lmao Kamala didn’t even write her own book!” The Ohio Republican said in another post that he “wrote (his) own book,” in reference to his memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy.”
CNN’s Priscilla Alvarez contributed to this report.
两货都不选的报道
她又不是没参选过,当年估计是创下了民主党初选历史最低得票率的记录吧。
+1 选你最讨厌的那个人的对立的那个. 不然你就是把选择权给别人了,别人选你最讨厌的那个,那你就郁闷了.
华人是应该提高投票率,最后是集中投票给某个候选人。但是目前就总统选举而言真的很困难,看看这个网站上多少人在毫无底线地谩骂和攻击TRUMP的支持者,他们能团结在一起才怪了。我一向认为你可以攻击TRUMP,可以攻击HARRIS,他们出来参选,就应该承受大家的精挑细选。但是如果你一旦攻击他们支持者,这个性质就完全不一样了。
说的好像别的族裔多团结就华人不团结一样
别的族裔跟我有啥关系吗?
➕1
很好,按照自己的想法不选,是你的权利,比这里动不动口出脏话的垃圾强多了。
不必太在意,那些出口成脏的人未必是有投票权的人吧。
当然不在意,对我又没有任何损失, 只是觉得的对着不认识的网友破口大骂的人都是脑子有问题的
有川普这种毫无下限的总统,阿狗阿猫都可以,都比他强。
这里好几个暴露了没有选举权的都是川粉 当然,人家是us person
你不是找咖喱粉的骂? 不投咖喱姐不投川普都是川粉的阴谋,咖喱粉疯癫了。
说“咖喱粉”有点过了,我还特意问了印度裔的朋友,没人认为她是印度人。
那个文章太经典了
要是希拉里这次出来参选,我肯定投她。
按照某些这里的疯子, 连不选的自由都不应该有,这是什么样的脑残啊。
好多川粉都是这样:投希拉里,投拜登,反正不投民主党提名人。申明一下,没说你是川粉啊。
当年希拉里竞选的时候,疯狂的川粉天天造谣污蔑希拉里。应该是选举年都不要信。 也就是从川普开始竞选(2016开始),选举出现川粉造谣污蔑对手。川普这是起了坏的头。2016年起了作用,现在一直沿用这个造谣污蔑对手的策略。
革命不彻底就是彻底不革命。知道了,你可以跪安了
希拉里和拜登是经过民主党初选,被众多选民选出来的人。Harris只是被指定的,拜托不要把这两种人相提并论。而且前面我也提过了,Harris当年和拜登一起参加过总统初选,她4年前的得票率怎么样,你自己稍微查一下就知道。
希拉里当年竞选算是很成功了吧。她之所以失败,两个根本原因都不在她自己身上。第一是政党更替是美国民主的保障,没有重大理由,基本都会8年一轮换。第二是当年的欧巴马医疗导致保费大涨,很多普通民众一下无法接受。
真没说你,你别多心啊。很多川粉都是民主党提名希拉里时说她腐败,提名拜登时说他痴呆,然后提名哈大姐了(终于又不痴呆又不腐败吧):要是提名拜登、希拉里我就投民主党了。
拜登这次也是经过初选的,虽然第一次辩论表现不算太好,但真的搞不懂民主党高层为什么会想换掉他。传闻中是认为拜登继续干下去,民主党新一代再上台至少得12年后了。要是Harris来参选,民主党4年以后重返白宫。
不选trump也不选Kamara,不表示我不去投票啊。不选Kamara就要被谩骂扣帽子这种,真是烦透了,我的选票我做主。就算我其实也不选trump都会被叫川粉黄右😂 行吧,爱咋咋,随他们疯吧,我已经拉黑一些满嘴不说人话的疯子了。
别再为喜婆找借口,从公从私她也是一屁股子屎,作为国务卿能力非常一般,班加希还死一个大使。也是一个老牌的战争贩子。她当初没拼下奥巴马就是丢了最好的机会, 压根就没有想到能翻船,也反应了她能力就是弱筹划组织能力差。 再输给床铺也是必然。这次逼退拜登,她有勇气出来喊open primary总统可能就是她的,但她就是没这个勇气,第一时间拥抱咖喱姐,这种能力还想总统位置
希拉里可惜了,当年我挺希望她成为第一位女总统的
她主要是太自大了,忽略了铁锈带的人民的穷困生活导致失败。不然是可以上台的。
阿根廷一直到这一届总统选举,就是跟Harris现在在做的一样,不断不断的开支票。反正都是纳税人的钱。根本不痛不痒。 说难听一点的,就是变相的买票。然后因为政府不断的花钱,通膨居高不下。你以为自己有个十米,在贫困线上就能退休?不好意思。阿根廷90年代10米披索是10米美金。现在十米披索还不够买台车。
这一切都是当初贝隆党(就是Eva Peron她先生)开的先例。 这种先例,只要开了一次,就需要几十年的洗礼,到了再开什么支票也无法满足了才会回归正途。
你假如希望自己小孩未来在一个被大家说到就说烂国家,那就去选猪党吧。 不要说不可能。阿根廷1900初期可是世界上最富裕强大的国家之一。地铁这两个字中文可能还没有时他们就已经盖好了。如今你听到一个从阿根廷来的人,你第一印象会是她是有钱人吗?!
Trump支持者攻击非Trump支持者, 很多. 绝对不允许挑战Trump, 甚至坚信Trump是上帝之子.
Trump支持者, 已经把Trump抬到了无比高的地位, 和神,基督一起.
是Trump支持者主导了其他人的态度.
自大是一个,才疏是另外一个。08年大选,黑人并未支持奥巴马,而是支持希拉里。但是希拉里竟然没有注意到很多州初选都是小范围的选举团毫无应对方案,奥巴马就是靠激进进步派活跃分子拿下全部选举团的胜利,打的希拉里措手不及毫无应对,就算在普选的大州取胜票数上还落后,然后黑人倒戈败的稀里哗啦。她能力就是差,总觉得可以躺赢, 2016年又翻船败北。她最好的机会就在2008年, 年轻而且克林顿党内政治声望高在黑人内支持度很高,也没有行政失误的包袱。
马克吐温写的明明是竞选州长被造谣抹黑,你怎么看成被挖?
哈里斯上次初选辩论的时候被Tulsi Gabbard按地上摩擦,就乖乖退选了,没坚持到投票的时候
前脚退选,后脚就把人家列入恐怖分子名单了。剽窃个把文章这种微小瑕疵还拿出来说,CNN太不地道了。
最近最好笑的不是拜登的助攻么?“我和拜登不同”,然后拜登出来说我们共同参与的那些重大决定;“德桑蒂斯让灾情雪上加霜”,然后拜登笑眯眯地说德桑蒂斯干得好啊!
这也是我想说的。 这种,和文革差不多。 让你闭嘴,你闭嘴了,还不行,要让你屈服。 你不屈服,就消灭你,从网上消灭你!
对,只是不选总统。ballot上还有很多其他待定的职位呢
非常同意。 我最多讨论一下候选人,网友们选谁不是我应该管的,选举自由,爱选谁选谁,甚至不选也是你的自由,这里不少人出口大骂,岂不知越骂越让人讨厌他们, 没有一点作用。
我不喜欢Trump,但更讨厌Harris, 我是绝对不会选她的,但投她的对立者也不情愿啊,该怎投票呢?
不觉得根据对政客个人好恶来投票是明智之举。看你更想生活在什么样的美国了。神棍当道、歧视移民的project 25,还是民主党治下的美国。
帮你补充一下:民主党冶下的美国,物价飞涨,边境大开, 找工作上大学要看肤色。
谢谢。我们这儿很多古巴人和中南美洲的移民。他们也是压倒性的共和党支持者。他们支持的原因正是离乡背井费那么大劲来美国就是为了自由民主的美国。选择民主党跟留在他们原来的第三世界国家没有区别了。
是啊,奇怪,还有times 的头儿也公开表达对卡马拉的不满。这次民主党内部人心不齐,比四年前差远了,婆罗西也静悄悄的。 主要是卡马拉水平太差了,很多人受不了她
以Harris在加州的“政绩”,你让人如何吧吹捧的话说出口?吹得太狠,一旦没选上,肯定会丢失信誉的。佩洛西本身就是加州出来的,和Harris商业互吹还行,过了商业互吹的界限,就多多少少有点说不出口了。要她真的出来助选,憋了半天也只能骂几句Trump。然后呢?Trump不行,不能投Trump,Harris就一定是好选择?前几次选举,无论是希拉里还是拜登,至少在加州在路上到处都能看见有车上贴着支持希拉里、拜登的口号,这次说实话,在车子贴支持HARRIS的标语的车主真的不多。
当年美国反古巴魔怔了,古巴人到了美国就给绿卡,卡斯特罗很高兴地把古巴的罪犯流氓妓女精神病人各种垃圾人渣都打包送到了佛罗里达,你说得这些古巴人就是这些人的后代… 果真是鱼找鱼虾找虾乌龟专找大王八
你根本就不明白民主的基石是啥
跪舔黑人和非法移民的下限在哪儿
民主是骗人的,是骗那些没有受过系统训练的人的。 如果说民主不骗人,那么请问 动物庄园 乌合之众 乌托邦 理想国 到底说的是什么
这个世界,只有求大同存小异 你让一帮反智的 或者有意反智的 去讲民主 带沟里去吧
其实很多人都和你一样,两个都烂,可以把重点放在议员和local选举上,让三权分立起作用。全红全蓝都可能是disaster,特别是全蓝的话真的会变南非
所以美国不是民主,是共和,republic。三权分立的republic,我觉得比一刀切少数服从多数强。
攻击投票人,真是low到没底线。 这次是两差之中选其一,不是选榜样。
哈里斯代表的是: 无底线拉低美国经济文化以及世界和平局势的邪恶力量。 川普代表的:四年前的无战争保守的力量。虽然不伟光正,起码他在任期间经济政治都在往好的方面发展。
你愿意因为投票而被称为哈粉,哈巴狗?
你去隔壁新买提看看 双方是互骂 美国左右都是互骂的 性质有什么不一样 搞政治就没有平和的
Biden内心里对民主党大佬逼他退出肯定是愤恨的,未与大佬们通气就把Harris推出来就是他的回击。Polosi估计本想推Gavin Newsom,他的助理透露当时把后面两周行程都取消了, 被Harris横插一脚
我也这么猜测。估计是Newsom 一生中离总统位最近的一次