Tag Archives: Human Events

.@AnnCoulter Goes Gaga Over DC Statehood!

Ann Coulter prides herself on being a constitutional attorney, yet she gets so many things wrong!

Now, Coulter asserts that DC statehood is unconstitutional, but she was immediately proven wrong!

Nevertheless, Coulter doubled down, citing the exact same source as before. Coulter twice used her citation (Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17) which, like so many of her Endnotes in her second book, Slander, fails to prove her point.

Coulter has a very long history of fabricating junk law.[1] She has lied about Supreme Court cases and nominees for over 25 years![2]

What is particularly striking about all of this is that Coulter regards herself as a constitutional attorney, is a former law clerk, was a Senate staffer for about a year, worked for less than a year as an attorney for the Center for Individual Rights, and was a legislative correspondent for Human Events for over two decades.

Moreover, Coulter lived in the District of Columbia for about five years (failing to pass the DC bar).

Despite all of this experience, Coulter does not understand the Constitution.

When faced with personal, professional, or political outcomes she hates, Coulter lies.[3] Over and over again.

If you think that Coulter has deluded herself, you are correct.[4]

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged examines the psychological dysfunctions and character flaws which cause Coulter to say and do such bizarre things.

Endnotes:

[1]              See Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter at http://bit.ly/1N7zDji.

[2]              See @AnnCoulter Lies For 25 Years About #SCOTUS Cases and Nominees! at https://wp.me/p4jHFp-tx.

[3]              See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age at http://bit.ly/2a6Ns4w.

[4]              See Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged at https://bit.ly/2TttHtF.

Ann Coulter – Rejected by Her Peers, Sponsors, and Fans

In the late 1990s, Ann Coulter was called the Goddess of the Conservative Movement. In the early 2000s, Coulter became a Conservative Icon. For over a dozen years, Coulter was the go-to pundit for radio and TV interviews and she was regularly featured on Fox News (at least weekly, often more often than that).

Once regarded as one of the most powerful and influential people in America, Coulter’s meteoric rise has, ironically, found its meteor lost in a black hole of her own making.

Pride goes before destruction. Hubris destroys everything it touches.

Virtually every organization which one championed Coulter – and lavished her with praise, power, and lucrative speaking fees – has, one after another, abandoned her.

The conservative forum, Free Republic, worshiped Coulter as a goddess in 1998 and many years thereafter. Now, for the better part of a decade, its members almost uniformly dismiss Coulter with exceedingly uncomplimentary denunciations.

Coulter was a regular speaker for the Claire Boothe Luce Policy Institute (CBLPI) for well over a decade, but no longer. That relationship ended many years ago.

Similarly, Coulter was a very popular speaker for Young America’s Foundation, which would typically sponsor a dozen or score of Coulter speeches in any given year. That ended a few years ago.

The College Republicans frequently sponsored Coulter speeches for a number of years, but, for quite some time, has not done so.

Eagle Forum, once a Coulter advocate and speech sponsor, now acts as if Coulter does not exist.

Coulter was a featured speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) from 1998-2014. For the past five years, despite Coulter’s best efforts, CPAC has shunned Coulter due to her antics, polemics, and provocative behavior.

For over a dozen years, the Media Research Center (MRC) adamantly supported Coulter and featured her in its annual prestigious Dishonors Awards program. Following Coulter’s repeated series of anti-Catholic tweets and comments, MRC has privately disavowed Coulter.

For nearly two decades, Coulter was beloved by Fox News. Following a series of anti-Semitic tweets in 2015, Coulter was banished from its airwaves for about a year-and-a-half. Coulter’s bizarre behavior in 2018 led to another banishment. She hasn’t appeared on Fox News since November 2018.

In 2017, Turning Point USA added Coulter to its roster of speakers, but then, the very next year, declined to invite Coulter to speak at its four-day conference in Coulter’s backyard of West Palm Beach, Florida. (Coulter was actually in town during the conference.) Even now, in 2019, it excludes her from “The BIGGEST & most influential women in conservative politics will be in Dallas, TX for #YWLS2019 June 6th-9th.”

Most recently, Coulter has been abandoned by her journalistic home of some 23 years, Human Events! She was recently described as “formerly a regular on Human Events.” Her last column was published on February 20, 2019.

Coulter feels sorry for herself. She laments her loss of friends and relationships. But she seemingly fails to grasp why she lost those relationships.

Despite having over two million Twitter followers, Coulter’s actual fan base seems to be shrinking. Her last few books were flops!

Coulter’s words, last August, express her sorrow without really acknowledging the reality of why those relationships became broken. (Coulter is not one to take responsibility for her own actions or failures. Rather, she is quick to blame others for her own faults.)

I suspect that, in reality, Ann is saddened that she is no longer wanted. People have come to know who she really is and they don’t trust her.

When will Coulter look in the mirror, see her own faults, and seek forgiveness and redemption?

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis in this holistic exposé of how and why Coulter has become a pariah among her peers and former colleagues and friends.

Joker addresses the physical, mental, emotional, psychological, familial, sexual, and spiritual dimensions which have shaped the Ann Coulter that we know today and it highlights both the positives and the negatives of Coulter’s life and career.

Ann’s brokenness provides an object lesson for all of us and, hopefully, this book will act as an intervention to help Ann face her deep brokenness and motivate her to seek healing and restoration.

Until then, Coulter has become a spent force … all sound and fury signifying nothing.

Ann Coulter: Betrayer Extraordinaire

Ann Coulter and I became friends in the summer of 1997, or so I thought. My side was real; hers faux.

Ann Coulter’s Betrayals

During that time, I gave her everything she asked for and more. Ann was delighted with her Alamo Award, writing to me, “I love those quotes. that is much better than an interview would have been. they are totally, totally great. yes, please, please drop off or send as many copies as you can part with – I’m going to use it as part of my press packet. I had forgotten making most of those remarks but they do sound awfully familiar. thank you for compiling them” [SIC].

But I quickly discovered certain disturbing things about her. In mid-August, Ann was irate over little details contained in items about, and profiles of, her in three different publications.

She asked me to write letters-to-the-editor on her behalf. (I discovered that she routinely scoured the media for anything about her and that she hated any criticism of any kind, no matter how miniscule.)[1]

Ann found my letters-to-the-editor to be lacking in usefulness and, therefore, concluded that I was no longer useful to her. She dumped me with a nasty email. (I later discovered that she threw everything I had given her in the trash.)

But 12 days later, Ann feigned friendship to get back one of those things she had foolishly thrown away: an 11-page collection of Coulter quote highlights from her appearances on TV.

Having gotten what she wanted, she again dumped me (without telling me so this time). Instead, she made numerous false promises, keeping none of them during a four-month period.

When I confronted her about her behavior, she lashed out at me, using a strikingly similar argument she used to her boss at Human Events (without directing any hostility to him).

Coulter has turned her back on (and been rejected by) friends, colleagues, and organizations who were once her champions and benefactors. I remember Coulter saying on Politically Incorrect that she never remembers ex-boyfriends once they become exes. Apparently, her anti-social behavior applies to everyone.

Coulter once boasted of betraying her boss, Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-MI), when she was his staffer in 1995-96. Coulter secretly worked with other senate staffers opposed to Abraham’s immigration agenda. (Coulter was Deep State before the term was invented. No wonder she doesn’t attack the Deep State opposing Trump!)

At the very same time she betrayed me in 1997, she betrayed Paula Jones by leaking attorney-client privileged information to scuttle the settlement Jones’ desperately sought and she betrayed her employer,[2] the Center for Individual Rights, by engaging in a “pro-bono” political case CIR would have shunned (that’s why she kept her activities so secret).

In 1998, Coulter plagiarized both the words and the work of her colleague at Human Events, Michael Chapman, to write her first bestselling book, High Crimes and Misdemenaors. She has never given him due credit for his contribution and she even claimed that she’d never heard of him.[3]

In 1999 and on other occasions, Coulter frequently lied to her friend, Geraldo Rivera, on-air, about her connection with Linda Tripp’s tapes and other issues.

In 2000, Coulter sought to betray the people of Connecticut by running a “total sham campaign” for Congress.[4]

Over a period of many years, Coulter betrayed a host of individuals and organizations who had been very supportive of her.

Her fans are no exception. That’s what she did with me in 1996-97, emailing me her TV appearance schedule so that I could videotape her, transcribe highlights, promote her in my newsletter, and write supportive letters-to-the-editor on her behalf. Then, “Goodbye!”

Coulter forsook her own loyal fan club, one still linked on her website, seemingly for no reason whatsoever (the missing link remains missing).

In September 2017, Coulter boasted of having “TWO fan pages,” but by that December, she severed ties with her long-standing fan club.

Her now defunct fan club had a widely-used forum which promoted her books, columns, speeches, and other events. It vigorously discussed her columns and defended her from spurious attacks. And it actively aided her in organizing and setting up events across the country. They gave her 100% loyalty.

In the end, Coulter has also betrayed her readers and the American People with lies and fabrications, making things up from her own imagination. This was especially true during the past five presidential election cycles during which she defamed any candidate who threatened her chosen nominee.[5]

Let’s look beneath Coulter’s faux humanity. She revealed the real Coulter in an interview for The Drive Home (9/29/16): a phony hypocrite who pretends to like those she hates.

Speaking of conservatives opposed to Trump, Coulter boasted (emphasis added), “But all the people that I had to be talked into liking before because they’re technically on my side, whoa, they’re all gone now.”

Her next words: “I don’t have to pretend I like them anymore. It was all the ones I hated. Gone, gone, gone.”

Hear that, conservatives! Coulter no longer has to pretend to like you. Talk about phony! She really hated you all along!

You are now “gone, gone, gone” down into her personal memory hole. Except, naturally for her, Coulter never forgives and she never forgets.

A split microsecond later, Coulter singled out one name: “John Podhoretz.” (Podhoretz, a former friend and ally, incensed Coulter by shaming her inexcusable behavior.)

A few seconds later, Coulter claimed, “I don’t have to defend the people who were the most embarrassing to our side.”

(Who is the real embarrassment, Ann?)

In the end, Coulter has betrayed a host of people, groups, and organizations.[6]

For many years, post-9/11, Coulter betrayed the American Conservative Union and CPAC on numerous occasions.

In 2017, Coulter trashed her decades-long friendship with Sean Hannity in an extremely petty manner.

Also, in 2017, Coulter trashed her beloved Charles Murray and a 19-year-old Cornell student with one tweet.

In 2019, Coulter even threw her long-time good friends, George and Kellyanne Conway, under the bus.[7] (Ann was Kellyanne’s bridesmaid!)

Her one-time friend and ideological mentor, author Joseph Sobran, wrote that lies are betrayal! (emphasis added):[8]

A lie is not just a statement that isn’t “accurate.” It’s a personal betrayal. It means you are a traitor to whomever you are talking to. You make him a fool for trusting you in the way we all have to be able to trust each other for life to go along. You’re willing to turn his good faith against him for your selfish advantage. You treat him not as your friend or fellow citizen, but as your prey.

For the entire 22 years that I have known Ann, she has been adept at manipulating people. She uses them and then throws them away.

Many conservative organizations fawned over Coulter as she became a conservative icon and “goddess of the conservative movement.” Among them, the Claire Booth Luce Policy Institute, Young America’s Foundation, the American Conservative Union, and the Media Research Center. All of them granted Coulter lucrative speaking fees and/or promoted her work. They have all since effectively boycotted Coulter.

In 2017, Turning Point USA, sponsored her speeches, but not in 2018, even though its four-day conference was held in West Palm Beach, FL, which Coulter calls her home (she was actually in town during the conference!).[9]

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis this holistic exposé of how and why Coulter became such an untrustworthy human being.

Joker addresses the physical, mental, emotional, psychological, familial, sexual, and spiritual dimensions which have shaped the Coulter that we know today and it highlights both the positives and the negatives of Coulter’s life and career.

Ann’s brokenness provides an object lesson for all of us and, hopefully, this book will act as an intervention to help Ann face her brokenness and seek healing and restoration.

Endnotes:

[1]              Even now, Coulter is known to report derogatory social media comments about her. She will often report negative tweets about her to the Guardians of Twitter. Has she nothing better to do?

[2]              Coulter ruined Paula Jones’ life by thrusting her into an unwanted media maelstrom which ultimately destroyed Paula’s marriage.

[3]              See Case Study 2, Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, at http://bit.ly/1N7zDji.

[4]              See Case Study # 3, Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, at http://bit.ly/1M2z2O5.

[5]              Of course, Coulter has famously betrayed Trump for over two years.

[6]              See case studies in Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory at http://bit.ly/1M2z2O5.

[7]              On 3/19/19, Coulter doubled down, tweeting, “Trump should declare Kellyanne Conway’s marriage a national emergency.” Remember, Ann and Kellyanne were long-time best friends and Coulter introduced George to Kellyanne and was her bridesmaid. This displays a total lack of conscience or simple human decency.

[8]              Joseph Sobran, “Liar, Liar,” Sobran’s, October 1998, pg. 6.

[9]              When conservative organizations refuse to sponsor a very popular “conservative” speaker like Coulter, you know that there is a serious problem.

Coulter’s Ghastly Eulogy

True to form, Coulter politicized her eulogy for M. Stanton Evans.[1] Coulter turned the loss of a colleague she has known for two decades, someone she has suggested was a mentor, and used it to further her own personal and political agenda.

EvansEulogy

Coulter has a very long history of doing just that.[2]

Her lead paragraph quoted Evans on immigration, Coulter’s current cause célèbre.

Coulter then spends more time talking about Reagan, Romney,[3] immigration, and McCarthy than she does about the subject of her eulogy.

And, she throws in an attack on CPAC: “(This was back when CPAC mattered.)”[4]

Remember, CPAC was integral to Evans’ life, yet Coulter churlishly and vindictively attacked his institutional love.

Coulter remains insistent that Romney can win the presidency, again comparing him to Reagan:

“Reagan ran for president a third time, won the presidency and saved the country.” (Coulter noted that Evans was wrong to reject Reagan!)

Lest we fail to grasp her advocacy for Romney, she added:

“(One thing you must always remember, right-wingers: Never run the same guy for president three times. Look how that turned out!)”

Of course, Evans’ defense of Joseph McCarthy lavished attention on Coulter, who mentioned:

“Stan gave me a few teaser documents for my book Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism,[5] which liberals denounced on the grounds that I wore short skirts and also that it was insufficiently ‘scholarly.’”

Lengthy sections on Reagan, Romney, and Coulter’s pet issues, but scant mention of Evans’ life, work, and legacy.

Coulter concluded: “Two weeks ago, he told me not to give up. And neither should you, America.”[6]

Perhaps it’s time we gave up on Ann.

Endnotes:

[1]              Ann Coulter, “The Great, Amazing, Incomparable Stan Evans is Dead, 3/4/15.

[2]              See “Chapter 8: The Lost Art of the Eulogy: It’s All About ME!” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[3]              See “Coulter Stumps for Romney – Again!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-4V.

[4]              See “CPAC Shuns Coulter, Ann Incensed” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-4M.

[5]              See “Coulter Right on Rape, Wrong on Treason” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-3U.

[6]              See “Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-3p.

Ann Coulter’s Plagiarism – Godless

Ann Coulter’s Plagiarism – Godless

[See Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter for a more detailed examination of Ann Coulter’s history of plagiarism. – DB]

Plagiarist03

Plagiarism Redux

Ann Coulter unquestionably plagiarized in her first book, High Crime and Misdemeanors. Coulter’s fifth book, Godless, also plagiarized the work of others, as extensively unearthed by numerous bloggers.

Allegations of plagiarism in Godless arose on the heels of Coulter’s “ecstatic widows” controversy. The New York Post broke the story in early July.[1] Philip Recchia reported:

John Barrie, the creator of a leading plagiarism-recognition system, claimed he found at least three instances of what he calls “textbook plagiarism” in the leggy blond pundit’s “Godless: the Church of Liberalism” after he ran the book’s text through the company’s digital iThenticate program. …

Barrie, CEO of iParadigms, told The Post that one 25-word passage from the “Godless” chapter titled “The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion” appears to have been lifted nearly word for word from Planned Parenthood literature published at least 18 months before Coulter’s 281-page book was released. … [other examples cited]

Instances of plagiarism appear throughout Godless.[2] One lengthy sentence on page five apparently came from a 1999 Portland Press-Herald article.[3] Language on page 37 appears to have been derived from a Parents Television Council report in 2002.[4] One sentence on page 95 came from a 2004 Planned Parenthood pamphlet.[5] Another lengthy sentence on page 209 was lifted from a San Francisco Chronicle article in 2005.[6]

On page 55, “Coulter employs language similar to a December, 2004 article written by Gregory D. Kesich for the Portland Press Herald[7] on convicted killer Dennis Dechaine, but offers no citations for her summation of the case.”[8]

On page 63, “Coulter employs language similar to that in a February, 2005 article published in the New York Sun,[9] written by David Salisbury, the Director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, as well as numbers used in the Sun, without citing any source at all.”[10]

Several sentences and phrases on pages 66-67 were taken from an “October 27, 1988 press conference with Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes and Cliff Barnes.”[11] Coulter “presents the exact same information in the exact same order as Barnes did back in 1988, including many directly quoted phrases, without citing anywhere the source for the information. As if it just appeared out of thin air. No footnotes. No mention in the text.”

On page 162, “Coulter apparently lifted language, along with the entire premise, primarily from the ‘executive summary’ of a 35-page report[12] written by Paul Ciotti in March of 1988 for the Cato Institute called ‘Lessons from the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment.’”[13]

Chapter 7 of Godless provides 16 examples of “successful treatments achieved by adult stem cell research.” Columnist Ron Brynaert notes that 15 of those examples “are nearly identical to items in a longer list of seventeen compiled by the Illinois Right To Life website,[14] that has been available since at least September of 2003.” Brynaert adds, “For these fifteen items, Coulter appears to do little more than remove the parentheses and slightly change a word or two, such as ‘using’ into ‘with.’”[15]

Coulter’s publisher, Crown Forum, after a cursory examination of only three “snippets,” ridiculed plagiarism accusations in their official statement: “We have reviewed the allegations of plagiarism surrounding Godless and found them to be as trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible. Any author is entitled to do what Ann Coulter has done in the three snippets cited: research and report facts. The number of words used by our author in these snippets is so minimal that there is no requirement for attribution. As an experienced author and attorney, Ms. Coulter knows when attribution is appropriate, as underscored by the nineteen pages of hundreds of endnotes contained in Godless.”

About those endnotes, Recchia also reported: [16]

Meanwhile, many of the 344 citations Coulter includes in “Godless” “are very misleading,” said Barrie, who holds a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley, where he specialized in pattern recognition.

“They’re used purely to try and give the book a higher level of credibility – as if it’s an academic work. But her sloppiness in failing to properly attribute many other passages strips it of nearly all its academic merits,” he told The Post.

Initially, Universal Press Syndicate claimed it would investigate these allegations, declaring, “We take allegations of plagiarism seriously. It’s something we’d like to investigate further. We’d like to see a copy of the report. We’d like to start looking into it.”[17] A whitewash was apparent in its final statement to Editors & Publishers: “In addition to looking at the columns mentioned in the New York Post story, we also reviewed a sampling of other columns that have been mentioned in the media. Like her book publisher, Crown, Universal Press Syndicate finds no merits to the allegations of plagiarism brought by the software company executive. There are only so many ways you can rewrite a fact and minimal matching text is not plagiarism.”

The websites of Coulter’s two alma maters offer definitions of plagiarism which refute the claims of Coulter’s publishers.[18] Cornell University is very clear in what constitutes plagiarism:[19] “where you reproduce part or all of someone else’s idea in your own words (commonly known as paraphrasing), where you use or summarize someone else’s research, where you use facts or data that are not common knowledge, where you reproduce source material in slightly altered form while retaining the main idea or structure. Both direct and indirect citations require proper documentation.”

The University of Michigan is equally direct and damning:[20] “Plagiarism is representing someone else’s ideas, words, statements or other works as one’s own without proper acknowledgment or citation. Examples of plagiarism are: Copying word for word or lifting phrases or a special term from a source or reference without proper attribution. Paraphrasing: using another person’s written words or ideas, albeit in one’s own words, as if they were one’s own thought. Borrowing facts, statistics, or other illustrative material without proper reference, unless the information is common knowledge, in common public use.”

Endnotes:

[1]       Philip Recchia, “Copycatty Coulter Pilfers Prose: Pro,” New York Post, 7/2/06, http://www.yuricareport.com/Religion/CoulterPlagiarismInGodless.html.

[2]       Justin Rood, ““’Complete’ List of Coulter Plagiarism Allegations,” TPMuckraker, 7/7/06, http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001070.php.

[3]       “People and events that made Maine’s century,” Portland Press-Herald, 12/12/9.

[4]       “Retraction to WWE And the Public,” Parents Television Council, 7/11/02.

[5]       “About Planned Parenthood,” Planned Parenthood Federation of America pamphlet, 2004.

[6]       “Pity This Blushing Bride-To-Be,” San Francisco Chronicle, 7/3/05.

[7]       See http://www.romingerlegal.com/newsviewer.php?ppa=8oplo_ZkrmmsspTUnjy30qbfek%5C%21.

[8]       Ron Brynaert, “More examples of ‘possible plagiarism’ from Coulter’s ‘Godless’ book,” Raw Story, 7/10/06, http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/More_examples_of_possible_plagiarism_from_0710.html.

[9]       See http://www.cato.org/research/articles/salisbury-050217.html.

[10]     Ron Brynaert, “More examples of ‘possible plagiarism’ from Coulter’s ‘Godless’ book,” Raw Story, 7/10/06, http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/More_examples_of_possible_plagiarism_from_0710.html.

[11]     “More Ann Coulter Plagiarism (Updated),” The Rude Pundit, 6/14/06, http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-ann-coulter-plagiarism-updated.html.

[12]     http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.pdf.

[13]     Ron Brynaert, “More examples of ‘possible plagiarism’ from Coulter’s ‘Godless’ book,” Raw Story, 7/10/06, http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/More_examples_of_possible_plagiarism_from_0710.html.

[14]     http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/stemcellsummary.htm.

[15]     Ron Brynaert, “In new book, Coulter ‘cribs’ stem cell list from right-to-life group,” Raw Story, 6/14/06, http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/In_new_book_Coulter_cribs_stem_0614.html.

[16]     Philip Recchia, “Copycatty Coulter Pilfers Prose: Pro,” New York Post, 7/2/06, http://www.yuricareport.com/Religion/CoulterPlagiarismInGodless.html.

[17]     Greg Sheffield, “Ann Coulter Faces Charges of Plagiarism,” NewsBusters.org, 7/7/06.

[18]     References courtesy of Rude Pundit.

[19]     http://plagiarism.arts.cornell.edu/tutorial/logistics6.cfm.

[20]     See http://www.lsa.umich.edu/lsa/detail/0,2034,53%5Farticle%5F294,00.html.

Ann Coulter’s Plagiarism Cover-up 2014

It is well-known but underreported that Ann Coulter committed plagiarism with the publication of her first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Even today, Coulter denies doing so. However, a recent interview with a Coulter colleague leads to the inescapable conclusion that Coulter did, in fact, use the words and research of Michael Chapman and that she has never given him credit for his contribution to her very first best-selling book.

On July 15, 2014, I published a column chastising Coulter for daring to falsely accuse a National Review columnist of plagiarism. At that time, I brought up Coulter’s own plagiarism in 1998. That night, I briefly interviewed Mark LaRochelle, columnist for Human Events, about a number of matters unrelated to plagiarism.

Plagiarist02

The next morning, we continued our interview. I initiated the chat and he said he would be right back. A few minutes later he returned. It quickly became apparent that Coulter was coaching him. He was more reserved, not as forthcoming as he had been the previous evening. The relevant portions are provided below with annotated endnotes.

July 16, 2014

Daniel Borchers

Have you seen my essay, “Ann Coulter Falsely Accuses Journalist of Plagiarism” at http://t.co/lig5hQLg5S? If so, what are your thoughts?

Mark LaRochelle

No.

Daniel Borchers

Would you mind checking it out and giving me your thoughts? As a member of the Human Events team, you might be able to provide some insight.

Mark LaRochelle

I know Chapman.

We talked about the dispute. I understand his frustration.

Daniel Borchers

What did Chapman say to you?

Mark LaRochelle

He wanted Coulter to give him something more for his articles from which she had copied passages.[1] Instead she removed him from the acknowledgements.[2]

Daniel Borchers

Do you mean that he wanted payment of some kind?

Mark LaRochelle

I don’t know the details. I think Coulter had paid him something for research.[3] He may have wanted co-author (or “with”) credit or something.

Daniel Borchers

Do you think it was right for Coulter to fail to ever publicly acknowledge his contribution to her book? To claim that she wrote every word of it? To even deny ever having heard of his name? To threaten lawsuits against those publishing reports about it?

Mark LaRochelle

I don’t know about all that.[4]

I do research, too.[5]

Sometimes I ghostwrite.[6]

I’m more concerned about getting the information out than getting credit.[7]

Daniel Borchers

You don’t have an opinion, Mark?

Do you think her behavior is emblematic of someone with integrity?

Michael wasn’t ghostwriting. Totally different. Did you get paid for ghostwriting?

Michael published articles and reports and did research and he was given absolutely no credit. Ann even besmirched his name.

Mark LaRochelle

I have too many beams in my own eye to go around throwing stones. I have forgiven people for much worse. And there are much bigger problems confronting us.[8]

Daniel Borchers

This isn’t about throwing stones, it is about accountability. And it is about the truth.

Ann plagiarized from Michael, lied about Michael, threatened legal action against anyone who spoke the truth about it. Is that integrity?

Moreover, this is but one example – an instance you are personally familiar with. But Ann has exhibited a pattern of such unethical, immoral, and ungodly behavior.

How can conservatives possibly hold liberals accountable for their misconduct if we can’t even address significant failings such as this on our side of the aisle?

And would God – the God who indeed does forgive – would He want the truth to be hidden, the lies to be concealed, the sin to be continued? I think not.

Mark LaRochelle

I don’t think criticism of Coulter is that well hidden.[9] She is probably the single most defamed individual since McCarthy.[10]

Daniel Borchers

It’s only defamation if it is false.

But you still haven’t addressed my questions.

Mark LaRochelle

Virtually all the vilification of Coulter that chokes the media is false.[11]

Daniel Borchers

We can disagree on that. But what of Ann’s plagiarism? Do you condone that? Excuse that? Ignore that?

Mark LaRochelle

Any number of left-wing luminaries have committed genuine, legally actionable plagiarism.[12] Yet they are lionized and promoted by tax-funded agencies like the National Institute for the Humanities, PBS and NPR; they are given awards and rewards.[13] Whenever a conservative such as Rush or Coulter dares speak out, they must be silenced and banished like McCarthy.[14]

Daniel Borchers

So, because others do it, it’s OK for Ann to break the law? It’s OK for Ann to besmirch the reputation of the person she victimized? It’s OK for Ann to threaten truth-seekers? It’s OK for Regnery to side with Ann – lie! – and leave Michael high and dry?

When does doing the right thing cease to be the right thing to do?

Mark LaRochelle

When Chapman wrote for Human Events, he was writing for Regnery. They paid him for his work. It was theirs.[15] They allowed Coulter to use it. She put Chapman in her acknowledgements.[16] I understand Chapman’s position. Been there, done that.

Daniel Borchers

1) Ann did not put Michael in her acknowledgements. She has never publicly acknowledged his contribution. In fact, she denied his contribution, denied even ever having heard his name.

2) Michael’s research was Michael’s.

3) Regnery lied about Michael’s part in her book, saying that every word was Ann Coulter’s. EVERY WORD.

Mark LaRochelle

I have a first edition hard copy. Chapman is in the acknowledgements.[17]

[I was taken aback by his clear, bold, and unequivocal statement. For a very brief moment, I questioned myself. But then I distinctly remembered that High Crimes is the only Coulter book without an Acknowledgment.

LaRochelle lied. Why would he lie about possessing a book he did not have with an Acknowledgement it did not contain? Why would he lie about something so fact-checkable? It wasn’t his lie, it was Coulter’s.

Liars live in the moment. They always believe that their next lie will cover-up their last one. Besides, Coulter wasn’t lying to me (she knows I know the truth). She was lying to her colleague. – DB]

Daniel Borchers

Would you please provide the citation?

Mark LaRochelle

After Chapman made a public dispute, Coulter (or Regnery) removed his name from later editions.[18]

Daniel Borchers

Please provide the citation.

Also, why spitefully remove his name if he was originally acknowledged? His contribution to her book still remains his contribution.

When privately questioned about the omission of Michael’s name, why did Ann say it would be corrected in the softcover, but never correct it?

Mark LaRochelle

I don’t know about that. Acknowledgement is at the author’s discretion. If I accused an author who acknowledged my research of plagiarism, I wouldn’t be surprised to be removed.[19]

As far as “Chapman’s research is his own” – I wish! Human Events retains the rights to every article I ever got paid for.

Daniel Borchers

“Research” not “article” – unpublished research.

Mark LaRochelle

How did Coulter acquire Chapman’s unpublished work?

Daniel Borchers

Terence Jeffrey wanted Ann and Michael to co-author the book. Terence asked Michael to give everything he had to Ann. He did so, expecting credit and/or co-authorship.

Mark LaRochelle

I’ll ask Terry about that.

Daniel Borchers

Please do. Also, would you mind scanning that Acknowledgement for me?

Thanks in advance.

[After a lengthy pause]

Can you get back to me on Terry and the Acknowledgement?

July 21, 2014

[I waited for several days for LaRochelle to do his research on Terry and the Acknowledgement. – DB]

Daniel Borchers

Hi Mark. Are you there?

Hi Mark. Do you have a moment?

Were you able to scan the High Crimes’ Acknowledgement for me?

[Shortly afterwards, LaRochelle blocked my access to his Facebook page. – DB]

July 22, 2014

[The following morning, I sent the following email to LaRochelle. – DB]

Subject: Ann Coulter’s Plagiarism

Dear Mark,

Thank you for your (abruptly terminated) Facebook chat. Have you ever noticed that people who refuse to talk are generally those who have something to hide?

I eagerly anticipated seeing your scan of Ann’s Acknowledgement in High Crimes. My own first editions (both hard cover and soft cover) of High Crimes contain no Acknowledgement whatsoever. I’d like to see what yours looks like.

Ann lied to you, she lied about Michael (and me), and she has turned you into a liar, too.

You have discovered how easy it is to become an enabler, to condone and enable sin, instead of what we are called to do: expose the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph. 5:11-14).

The bottom line: Ann plagiarized from Michael, using his words and his research without giving him credit. That is the very definition of plagiarism. Then she denied knowing him, attacked him, and threatened legal action against the press reporting on it. Cover-up? Of course.

Moreover, Regnery literally said that High Crimes was 100% Ann Coulter. A lie. And now you have joined the ranks of those who will defend Ann no matter how wrong she is.

Would Jesus approve?

If you want to talk, I can be reached at 240-476-9690.

You can use this email address: coulterwatch@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

Dan Borchers

[Not without its irony, in my first interview with LaRochelle, Mark wrote “My personal experience (with Ann) is mostly in helping with the research for her McCarthy chapters in ‘Treason.’” Would that be the Treason in which LaRochelle was not credited? Yes!

I wonder what Mark thinks of Ann’s tweets: “I do all my own research[20] and “No one does my research for me, but me.[21] – DB]

[See Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, available as a free PDF download at http://www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf, for a more detailed examination of Ann Coulter’s much-neglected plagiarism in her very first book. To date, Coulter has yet to publicly acknowledge the many contributions in words and research provided by her colleague, Michael Chapman. – DB]

Endnotes:

[1]       This is an admission that Coulter “copied passages” from Chapman’s articles.

[2]       This is an utter impossibility as High Crimes and Misdemeanors did not have an Acknowledgements section. Already the lies are materializing.

[3]       Coulter paid Chapman absolutely nothing!

[4]       He doesn’t have an opinion about a colleague’s adherence to moral and ethical practices in journalism?

[5]       So? Don’t all journalists?

[6]       Relevancy?

[7]       That’s nice. Stealing credit is illegal. Besides, Chapman did want the credit – credit to which he was entitled.

[8]       In other words, he is turning a blind eye to his colleague’s wrongdoing – because she is his colleague (and rich and powerful). What she did wasn’t so bad, so let’s forget it. Let’s hide the truth. Besides, I forgive her, so Chapman should, too.

[9]       Certainly, Coulter is a very criticized person – from the Left. Very few conservatives criticize her, especially when she deserves criticism.

[10]     Actually, Coulter is probably the most defaming individual since McCarthy. Most substantive criticisms of Coulter are largely accurate and based in reality. Coulter does lie, does use hate speech, does employ elimination rhetoric, and does deliberately offend other people.

[11]     The reverse is true.

[12]     Consider his immediate parsing and equivocation: “genuine, legally actionable plagiarism.” Coulter’s plagiarism was definitely genuine and legally actionable, but his assertion implies it isn’t.

[13]     The Left gets away with it, so shouldn’t Coulter? Can we please dispense now and forever with the “everybody does it” defense?

[14]     The issue is not silencing or censorship, it is plagiarism – a crime!

[15]     Human Events may have owned the published work, but not the credit. Chapman deserves the recognition.

[16]     Once again, High Crimes did not contain an Acknowledgement. This is pure fiction.

[17]     A flat out lie, as noted above. Coulter must have provided these words to LaRochelle. Who would volunteer such an assertion on their own, one which could so easily be refuted if inaccurate? LaRochelle clearly did not know there was no Acknowledge in High Crimes. Coulter must have dictated his answer, lying to me (and to LaRochelle).

[18]     Yet another detailed lie provided by Coulter. Chapman certainly never made that claim. Coulter is the only possible source for this lie. Moreover, the public dispute arose years later, not 1998. Chapman tried, privately, to address the matter.

[19]     Yet another rationalization. If Coulter had credited him in her Acknowledgement, there would have been no basis for a charge of plagiarism. She could have easily said, “Look, here’s your credit!”

[20]     Ann Coulter tweet, 3/7/12, 11:37 p.m..

[21]     Ann Coulter tweet, 3/7/12, 11:23 p.m..

Ann Coulter’s Plagiarism – High Crimes

[See Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter for a more detailed examination of Ann Coulter’s much-neglected plagiarism in her very first book. To date, Coulter has yet to publicly acknowledge the many contributions in words and research provided by her colleague, Michael Chapman. – DB]

The publication of High Crimes and Misdemeanors launched Ann Coulter’s literary career and expanded her meager credentials as a journalist.

Plagiarist01

In 1998, on Washington Journal, Coulter boasted of how impressed her law professors were over her own research: “Both my undergraduate at Cornell and University of Michigan professors have been quite impressed with what I’ve turned up on “high crimes and misdemeanors.”[1] What, exactly, did Coulter “turn up” that so impressed her professors? As it turns out, one of her most cited sources was the Rodino Report (on Watergate), which was coauthored by Hillary Rodham Clinton who, seemingly, did the grunt work for Coulter.

While Coulter verbally took credit for research performed by Hillary Clinton, wife of her intended impeachment target in High Crimes, in late 2001, it was discovered that she also took credit for her colleague’s research into and reporting of various Clinton scandals.

In October 2001, the Boston Globe published a scoop revealing allegations of plagiarism by Coulter, who then threatened a lawsuit if the story was published. Regnery stood by its best-selling author (money talks, power corrupts), denying any plagiarism took place. The facts prove otherwise.

The most factual of Coulter’s books, High Crimes perhaps owes that accuracy in part to its undisclosed de facto co-author, Michael Chapman.

Published in June 1998, to both capitalize on and influence the impending impeachment of President Clinton, High Crimes included both the words and the research of Michael Chapman, who at that time was Associate Editor for Human Events. According to a corroborating source at Human Events, Regnery “should have given him credit. They treated him wrong on that. He really wrote and researched most of the material. The book does not acknowledge the huge amount of research done by Michael Chapman.”[2]

As of this writing, Regnery and Eagle Publishing have never officially credited Chapman’s contribution to this book, despite the written evidence and the direct personal knowledge of key players at Eagle Publishing. Indeed, they – and Coulter herself – assert Coulter’s sole authorship of High Crimes.

Not only does Coulter continue to claim she wrote every word, she even denies knowing – and knowing of – Michael Chapman, a co-worker with whom she attended weekly editorial meetings at Human Events. However, Coulter did admit to a Coulter fan and friend of Chapman, at a CPAC conference, that the exclusion of Chapman’s name from her book was “an editorial oversight.” The chronology – and the actions of Coulter et. al. – prove otherwise.

Plagiarism & Ghost Writers

Chris Matthews asked Coulter about her about-to-be-released third book, Treason (2003):[3]

MATTHEWS: “Let me ask you, why’s your book going to be better than Hillary’s?”

COULTER: “Well, for one thing, because I wrote my book.”

MATTHEWS: “Are you charging Hillary with plagiarism or having a ghost writer?”

COULTER: “No, no, well, of course, she has a ghost writer. I mean, I don’t think that’s disputed or particularly dishonorable. But I believe you write your own books.”

Coulter chided Hillary Clinton for not writing her book when, as it turns out, Coulter’s first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, was not entirely her own. Coulter borrowed some sections from a co-worker whom she later disavowed even knowing. Portions of High Crimes were unquestionably plagiarized from Michael Chapman and portions may even have been ghostwritten by David Wagner.[4] Let’s examine the chronology.

February & March, 1998 – Other Authors

Circa Feb. 12th – Terence P. Jeffrey (Editor, Human Events) and Michael Chapman (Associate Editor and Clinton reporter for Human Events), were originally tasked with writing an impeachment book.

Circa Feb. 13th – Jeffrey dissolved the agreement because he didn’t believe that Clinton had committed an impeachable offense.

Feb. 19th – Regnery asked Chapman to co-author what would become the Coulter book.

Feb. 20th – Chapman presented Regnery with a proposal containing the same terms and conditions of his previous agreement with Jeffrey.

Circa Feb. 23rd – Mark Ziebarth rejected Chapman’s conditions, which included insistence on co-authorship credit and copyright retention.

Circa March 2nd – Coulter entered Chapman’s office, demanding his files and research. Chapman says, “She was adamant, impatient, and acted as if she deserved those files.” Chapman later gave those files (paper and electronic) to Thomas M. Winter (Editor-in-Chief, Human Events). “Tom told me that he was sure they would have to give me some type of credit or acknowledgement.”

Early March – David Wagner (former writer for Insight magazine) took possession of the office next to Chapman’s to ghost-write the manuscript for Coulter. Chapman says, “Wagner was ghostwriting the Coulter manuscript. He had Human Events articles and the booklets on impeachment and other materials in his office. Everyone in the office knew what was going on. It was no secret.”

June 8, 1998 – Original Research

Coulter appeared on C-Span’s Washington Journal boasting that “both my undergraduate at Cornell and University of Michigan professors have been quite impressed with what I’ve turned up on ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’”[5] Actually, Coulter drew heavily from Raoul Berger’s book,[6] the Rodino Report,[7] and the Federalist Papers.

Indeed, the preponderance of materials directly related to “high crimes and misdemeanors” is actually contained in those three sources. Hardly “original” research. One could reasonably contend that Hillary Rodham “turned up” more on “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the Rodino Report than Coulter did in High Crimes.

August, 1998 – Book Publication

Regnery published High Crimes and Misdemeanors under Coulter’s sole byline. The cover prominently featured President Clinton’s photo. Subsequent reprints and paperback versions sport a Coulter photo and sole authorship given to Coulter.

December 17, 1998 – Michael Chapman

Michael Chapman sent a letter to the Trustees of the Phillips Foundation. In it he stated:

“From what I have seen so far, verbatim passages from my writing are found on pages 121, 122, 219 and 220 of the High Crimes book. Rewritten passages are reproduced on pages 125, 126, 127 and 220. Other material I wrote is paraphrased on pages 123, 124, 203, 204, 205, 214, and 218.”

“Furthermore, mostly all of chapter 18, ‘Wampumgate,’ is a rewrite or paraphrase of reporting I did for HE.”

October 18, 2001 – Boston Globe

Rumors about Chapman’s work reached the Boston Globe[8] and Coulter’s attack machine immediately went into action. Coulter threatened lawsuits and denied ever knowing – or having heard of – Chapman.

Richard E. Signoreli, Coulter’s lawyer, sent Alex Beam an email[9] to dissuade him from publication.

“I am legal counsel for Ann Coulter. I write in connection with an article that I understand you are preparing about my client and her book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors. You should know that Ms. Coulter’s book was not ghostwritten at all. Ms. Coulter researched and wrote the entire book from beginning to end with no assistance whatsoever from any ghostwriter.”

“This e-mail will put you on notice that the information you are receiving from a Michael Chapman about this subject is completely false. Ms. Coulter does not even know who Mr. Chapman is and Mr. Chapman did not contribute any writing or research for her book.”

“We consider any statement by anyone that Ms. Coulter’s book was ghostwritten not only to be totally and recklessly false, but libelous as well. Ms. Coulter’s reputation will be significantly harmed if such a statement was printed in your newspaper. Please be advised that legal action will be taken against you, the Boston Globe, and Mr. Chapman if your article states that Ms. Coulter’s book was ghostwritten, or was even partially written by someone else.”

Nevertheless, the Boston Globe story was published:

“… But now Coulter is facing less welcome publicity – the suggestion that she is not the sole author of the 1998 bestseller ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ that brought her to national prominence as a telegenic Clinton-basher and poster girl for the right-wing establishment.”

“The charges were first leveled in a memo by Michael Chapman, formerly a colleague of Coulter’s at the conservative weekly Human Events. In December 1998, shortly after Coulter’s book came out, Chapman complained to his bosses that a lot of his original research and reporting – carried out for a special 1997 Human Events supplement called ‘A Case for Impeachment’ – ended up in Coulter’s book. In several instances, he wrote, his work was reproduced verbatim, paraphrased, or slightly rewritten, but never acknowledged. Chapman had originally volunteered to ghostwrite the impeachment book, but Regnery Publishing, which is owned by the same company as Human Events, didn’t sign a contract with him. Instead, David Wagner, then a writer at Insight magazine, was hired to write a draft of the impeachment book project. …”

“Regnery’s executive editor Harry Crocker said Wagner ‘drew some stuff together. Ann read those chapters and she read Chapman’s work as well. They offered some basis for source material, but it was my impression that she threw those drafts away as irrelevant. … If you took a page of [Chapman’s impeachment report] and a page of her book, she thinks you wouldn’t find any overlap. The book is 100 percent Ann Coulter.’”

Richard E. Signoreli sent Beam a second email,[10] this one to encourage a retraction. In the second, Signorelli wrote:

“Your October 18, 2001 column suggesting my client Ann Coulter engaged in a misuse of the May 23, 1997 Human Events Impeachment Report is recklessly and intentionally false. You have falsely identified a Michael Chapman as the author of the Report. In fact, Ann Coulter was herself a co-author of the May 23, 1997 Human Events Impeachment Report.”

Coulter’s attorney wrote:

“As is obvious on the face of the report, Chapman was the sole author only of the introduction to that report (which is not the source of the statements you cite as evidence of misuse.) The rest was a Human Events staff report that lifted passages directly from, among other things, Ms. Coulter’s earlier columns in Human Events. It is outrageous – intentionally malicious – that you neglect to mention the indisputably crucial fact that Ms. Coulter herself was part author of the very report you accuse her of misusing. Incidentally, Ms. Coulter still does not recall knowing Mr. Chapman. …”

“As I repeatedly informed you, Ms. Coulter researched and wrote all of High Crimes and Misdemeanors from beginning to end with no assistance whatsoever. Her editor and publisher can confirm this. …”

Errors in these two emails from Coulter’s lawyers include:

  • If Coulter was a co-author of the Special Report, this contradicts her claim of not knowing Chapman.
    Material from Chapman’s article (“Casino Lobbyist: ‘I talk to Al Gore a Lot,’ Wanted Veep to Intervene with Babbitt,” by Michael Chapman, Human Events, 2/13/98) was not in the Special Report, but was in Coulter’s book.
  • The Special Report first appeared as a special supplement in the 5/23/97 issue of Human Events. Michael Chapman was the sole byline, with no reference to “Human Events editors.”
  • The booklet version of the special report (“A Case for Impeachment?”) also has a sole byline for Chapman. Of its approximately 50 pages, Coulter provided short sections subtitled “The Law” on pages 10, 15, 23, 27, 31, 34, 38 and 43 (a total of 24 paragraphs out of 50 pages). The remainder of the material was not Coulter’s. The plagiarized portions were not part of her paragraphs.

Coulter’s editor and publisher do not confirm that Coulter had “no assistance whatsoever.” Coulter had the benefit of the writing, research and analysis of both Michael Chapman and David Wagner. (The Globe published the feature but rewarded Coulter with a coveted seat at their table at the next White House Correspondents’ Dinner.)

Alfred Regnery, President of Regnery Publishing, explained the genesis of Coulter’s first book. “We originally came up with it in our office. Part of it was published in Human Events originally. Ann Coulter then got involved in it. She wrote the book. It didn’t take more than six months probably from the time she got involved till we had book. The book’s first printing went out in large quantities. Subsequent printings. New York Times best seller. Lots of promotion. It was a big book.”[11] He confirmed that the concept arose before Coulter became involved.

January, 2002 – Book Publication

Regnery published High Crimes in paperback, again without acknowledging Michael Chapman’s contribution.

Current Status

Coulter lied and threatened lawsuits to conceal the personally humiliating fact that her career-making first (and perhaps best) best-selling book plagiarized the work of a colleague. Neither Coulter nor Regnery will publicly acknowledge Chapman’s contribution to High Crimes, nor have they even offered Chapman a private apology for their “editorial oversight” in failing to give credit where credit is due.

[The media resurrected Coulter’s plagiarism in High Crimes when it was discovered that she also plagiarized in Godless (2006). This column does not delve into that already well-documented instance of plagiarism. The point has already been made: Coulter is a confirmed plagiarist!.– DB]

See Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter for additional material. It is available as a free PDF download at http://www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, Washington Journal, C-Span, 6/8/98.

[2]       Author interview.

[3]       Hardball, CNBC, 5/1/03.

[4]       Author interview.

[5]       Ann Coulter, Washington Journal, C-Span, 6/8/98.

[6]       Raoul Berger, Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems, 1973.

[7]       Staff report, House Committee on the Judiciary, 93rd Congress, “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,” 2/22/74.

[8]       Alex Beam, Boston Globe, 10/18/01.

[9]       Email provided to me by Richard E. Signoreli.

[10]     Ibid.

[11]     Author interview.