Legacy media are working overtime to delegitimize a new report indicating Kamala Harris allegedly plagiarized parts of a book she co-authored.

The cover-up began on Monday shortly after the Manhattan Institute’s Christopher Rufo reported findings by Austrian “plagiarism hunter” Stefan Weber, who purportedly discovered that a 2009 book co-authored by Harris and Joan O’C. Hamilton contains passages seemingly lifted from various other published works and websites. The book is titled Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer.

Rufo noted how “[s]ome of the passages [Weber] 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.” The report cited numerous examples in which Harris and her co-author seemingly lifted text from sources such as an NBC News article, a John Jay College of Criminal Justice press release, and a Wikipedia article.

In an effort to run damage control for Harris’ flailing campaign, the anti-speech New York Times dispatched three “journalists” to pen an article aimed at undercutting Rufo’s reporting. Replaying their worn-out “Republicans pounce!” playbook with the headline “Conservative Activist Seizes on Passages From Harris Book,” authors Stephanie Saul, Vimal Patel, and Dylan Freedman attempted to convince Times readers that the massive scandal is just another “right-wing” nothingburger.

“In a review of the book, The New York Times found that none of the passages in question took the ideas or thoughts of another writer, which

Last week, Politico ran a headline. Once upon a time, it would have been tempting to attach some superlative to said headline, such as “astonishing,” “remarkable,” or “crazy.” Now such headlines are commonplace and illustrative of the information warfare that defines American politics. Anyway, here it is:

One of the biggest political problems in America is the complete disconnect between what passes for “conventional wisdom” inside the beltway and how most Americans’ perception of reality affects how they vote. Roughly half the country identifies as politically conservative, and beyond that, there are supermajorities involving good chunks of the Democrat party that think that elite opinion has gone too far left on several key issues.

And yet, nearly all discussions that take place context of our “media-run state” basically start from the premise that radicalism on the right is a clear and present threat to the republic, whereas radicalism on the left is never threatening to prosperity and our way of life. Rather, it’s just a messaging problem, where the establishment left must be given broad latitude to say whatever it needs to say to get elected and stave off the absurdly broad category of candidates labeled dangerous right-wing extremists. And it doesn’t matter if what is said is fundamentally dishonest because the threat justifies the deception.

This is why an army of fact-checkers, misinformation experts, censors, and journalists — and good luck telling the difference between those four ostensible vocations, as they are frequently rolled into one

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris are two radically different candidates running radically different campaigns in what’s become a national popularity contest.

In September, the two candidates sparred in their one and only presidential debate, featuring activist moderators who might as well have been picked by the DNC. Out of the four controversial live fact-checks issued during the prime-time debate, not one of them were made against Harris, who, as the sitting vice president was allowed to claim “not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any warzone around the world [for] the first time this century.”

Kamala Harris: There’s not one military member in a combat zone today.

Military in combat zones: “Wait, what!? So where the fuck are we right now?” pic.twitter.com/y7qqKzIX3Z

— The Raymond G Stanley Jr (@raymondgstanley) September 14, 2024

Harris was also allowed to regurgitate the Charlottesville “very fine people” hoax debunked by Snopes, and she got away with characterizing Trump’s “bloodbath” comment as having to do with a political massacre rather than the collapse of the auto industry.

In this this clip from the Trump Harris debate…Harris lies several times.

Harris says Trump “incited a mob” on Jan 6…never happened. He said go there peacefully.

Harris says Trump said there would be a “bloodbath” if Kamala was wins. Yes, the auto industry will collapse pic.twitter.com/vIeIlsIQ7p

— Kevin Ryan – Mouth Almighty (@kevinryanmedia) September 11, 2024

But ABC didn’t fact check