Tag Archives: Regnery

Adios, Ann: Coulter’s Blood Politics

Coulter lied about her credentials[1] and she lied about ISIS and Mexican immigration.[2] Now, Coulter promotes blood politics while decrying blood politics.

Every time Coulter has been interviewed about her new book on Fox News, the hosts have begun by asking her whether she expects to be called a racist. Invariably, the answer is in the affirmative, with Coulter claiming that 1) the Left is afraid to debate her and 2) spurious charges of racism is their only recourse to the truth she proclaims.

Adios3

For instance, on Hannity (6/1/15), Hannity introduced the topic: “You will, you know you will be called racist for this.” Coulter replied, “As I say, that’s the only argument they have. They prefer not to debate me at all, but if they have to, they’ll call me that.”

Similarly, on Kelly File, Coulter responded, “But they won’t say it to my face because few are brave enough to interview me.”[3]

Invariably, the hosts line of questioning is designed to inoculate Coulter from such charges and, also invariably, the hosts never actually consider the validity of the question.

Overlooked are the many and varied reasons so many people suspect she is racist. Coulter has been hostile to countries across the globe[4] and vilified overseas Christian missionaries.[5] She has demeaned seemingly every racial group imaginable[6] and openly displayed her prejudices.[7]

It is a small wonder that some people regard Coulter as racist.

Blood Politics

Coulter is correct in identifying major cultural transformations in America due, in large measure, to unbridled immigration and the Left’s refusal to pursue a proper integration into the existing American culture. She is also conversant with the Left’s obsession with identity politics and cautions conservatives from adopting their positions.

An American conservative of Cuban descent told Coulter that he was proud to have two GOP candidates of his blood in the presidential race. Coulter’s response – initially – appeared exemplary, mildly rebuking this young conservative:

“This blood thing – not really an American Anglo-Saxon tradition. This is a problem, and that’s why the Democrats are insistent upon dumping all of these very different cultures on America, because they can get people to vote on the basis of blood. That is not how Anglo-Saxons vote. Not at all.”[8]

Liberalism’s penchant for voting (and judging) on the basis of race, gender, or class is a Marxist, not an American, notion.[9]

Coulter continued: “No, and we have, we have Third Worlders voting in tribal ways.”

So far, so good. Coulter first stated the standard: the American Anglo-Saxon tradition. She then identified the problem: identity politics.

But then Coulter launched into her own version of identity politics, saying: “If we had gotten 71% of the Hispanic vote, Mitt Romney still would have lost. If he’d gotten about five percent more of the white vote, he would have won.”

Having condemned tribal voting as un-American, and then complained about the results of tribal voting in the last presidential election, Coulter next urged Republicans to vote tribally:

“So Republicans better wake up and for the first time – in, oh, I don’t know, my lifetime – appeal to white Americans for votes.”

On the Laura Ingraham Show, Coulter said, “Any immigrant to this country is going to make America less free, more statist, and more corrupt, unless they are from one of the half dozen northern, Western European, Protestant nations.”[10]

For all Coulter’s stuff and nonsense about her book, her viewpoint, and her mission being about cultural preservation, they are not. Coulter is not seeking to preserve an American culture but a white culture. She couches it in other terms – Anglo-Saxon, British, Western European, etc. – but, at heart, she means white.

From her book: “Historically, when Republicans ignore white voters, they lose.”[11]

White!

Race. Not culture.

White.

Are there not voters who are black, Asian, and Hispanic who believe in Rev. King’s colorblind vision of the world,[12] who believe in a constitutional and republican form of government, and who cherish the values of America’s Founding Fathers?[13] I would argue “Yes.” Coulter apparently believes otherwise.

Again, from her book, “By unapologetically opposing the transformation of America into a Third World country, the GOP could sweep the white vote – once white people recovered from the shock of any candidates asking for their vote.”[14]

No! Don’t appeal to whites! Appeal to Americans!

Coulter continues: “Any party incapable of winning the vote of white men ought to hang its head in shame.”[15] I would argue that blacks should overwhelmingly support conservatives given the abject failures of liberal policies over the last fifty years.[16] But Coulter focus is on whites.

Does Coulter really believe this stuff? Only the white man could have tamed the North American continent? She thinks so!

“Without the white settlers, what is known as ‘America’ would still be an unnamed continent full of migratory tribes chasing the rear end of a buffalo every time their stomachs growled.”[17]

No one else – except white men from western Europe – could possibly colonize and civilize America? Even today?

Affirmative Action and Racism

Surprisingly, Coulter reiterates already debunked claims from several years ago, namely that civil rights are an exclusively black thing.

In her book, Coulter claims, “The entire edifice of civil rights and discrimination law was meant of address the black experience in America, not to reward any loser with resentments.”[18]

To a question from the audience, Coulter shouts, “The answer is: you’re not black, so drop the racism crap.”[19]

Coulter clearly does not understand what constitutes racism. Coulter actually uses race as a criterion for racism when, in fact, anyone from any race can be guilty of – or a victim of – racism.

But Coulter’s position is absolutely astonishing in that she hails conservative author and intellectual Thomas Sowell as “the greatest economist” and she claims to have read most of his books. If her claim is true, then she must modify her reading habits to concentrate on absorbing what she reads. Sowell repeatedly condemns thinking such as that displayed by Coulter.

I am reminded of her similar nonsense when she was on tour for Mugged, claiming that civil rights are only for blacks.[20]

Although she is a self-described constitutional attorney who worked as a litigator for the Center for Individual Rights and has been the Legal Editor and the Legal Affairs Correspondent for Human Events since the mid-1990s, on the eve of her book tour for Mugged, Coulter was surprisingly inarticulate and in-artful when discussing civil rights, “one of the most important points of [her] book.”[21]

Indeed, her words were astonishing! Coulter claimed, “civil rights are for blacks.” Her reasoning? “We owe black people something, we have the legacy of slavery.” In contrast, “We don’t owe the homeless. We don’t owe feminists. We don’t owe women who are desirous of having abortions, or gays who want to get married to one another.”

On her Adios, America! tour, Coulter insisted: “The only time you should be able to sue for discrimination is if you are an African-American. That’s it! That’s it! I don’t want to hear about anybody else. You can hire whomever you want to. You can fire whomever you want to. … Civil rights are for blacks.”[22]

Again, “And I agree with that, we are not allowed to insult black people. Blacks, African-Americans can boss us around.”[23] What? Ask Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas if they agree. (Hint: They do not.)

As noted by Cornell Law School: “Discrimination based on ‘race, color, religion, or national origin’ in public establishments that have a connection to interstate commerce or are supported by the state is prohibited.” Civil rights are individual, not collective, and pertain to all citizens.

Coulter to this day still contends that affirmative action remains intact “to make up for the legacy of discrimination and of slavery,”[24] claiming, “Their experience has been stolen by people who have never set foot in this country.”

But this is nonsense.[25] America has already paid its slavery debt – many times over. The Civil War (which wiped out any economic boom from slavery) and LBJ’s Great Society/War on Poverty are but two examples.[26]

Coulter herself has known better for the better part of two decades. In the course of our personal and professional correspondence (which lasted well over a year), Ann sent me precisely one press release, suggesting its importance to her.

While working for the Center for Individual Rights in 1997, Coulter forwarded me a press release on a CIR lawsuit to end racial preferences by the University of Michigan. (Coulter was hired by CIR expressly because she had graduated from U of M.)

At that time, Coulter considered racial preferences (i.e., affirmative action) “unconstitutional.” That press release stated, “The lawsuit seeks to terminate use of race-based admission preferences.”

“According to University documents, minority and non-minority students with identical credentials are treated differently solely on the basis of their race. In some cases, minorities are automatically admitted whereas non-minority applicants with identical SAT scores and grades are automatically rejected.”

“The lawsuit contends that the University’s racial preferences violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Those students who were discriminated against were white.

(CIR has this case information online.)

Still, in many ways, Coulter emulates the Left in racial thought.

Update: David Duke loves Ann Coulter and Adios, Americaexcept, he wants her to attack Jews.

See also “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s Racial Confusion” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7f and “Adios, Ann: Diversity = White” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7j.

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s Bio Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-6p.

[2]               See “Adios, Ann: Fear Mexicans, Not Jihadists” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-6A.

[3]               Ann Coulter, Kelly File, FNC, 6/2/15.

[4]               See “Ann Coulter Auditions for U.N. Ambassador” at http://t.co/R7IDzwnUJ8.

[5]               See “Ann Coulter’s Xenophobic Anti-Gospel of Hate” at http://t.co/aQGhLuWwtD.

[6]               See Chapter 10: “Equality: Self-Evident Truths,” The Gospel According to Ann Coulter, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

[7]               See Chapter 4: “Prejudice,” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[8]               Ann Coulter, America with Jorge Ramos, Fusion, 5/26/15.

[9]               See “Identity Politics Is the Problem” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-1l.

[10]               Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham Show, 6/3/15.

[11]             Ann Coulter, Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole, Regnery, 2015, pg. 257.

[12]             See “King’s Dream Realized (sort of)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-76.

[13]             See “CPAC: America’s Christian Heritage Denied” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8E.

[14]             Ann Coulter, Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole, Regnery, 2015, pg. 266.

[15]             Ann Coulter, Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole, Regnery, 2015, pg. 278.

[16]             See “Baltimore ‘Purged’” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8S.

[17]             Ann Coulter, Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole, Regnery, 2015, , pp. 51-52.

[18]             Ann Coulter, Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole, Regnery, 2015, pg. 63.

[19]             Ann Coulter, America with Jorge Ramos, Fusion, 5/26/15.

[20]             See Chapter 4: “Prejudice,” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf. For more on Coulter’s sometimes bizarre formulations on race, class, and gender, see chapter “Chapter 10: Equality: Self-Evident Truths,” in my free PDF book, The Gospel According to Ann Coulter, which is available for download at http://www.CoulterWatch.com/gospel.pdf.

[21]             Ann Coulter, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ABC, 9/23/12.

[22]               Ann Coulter, Red Eye, FNC, 6/6/15.

[23]               Ann Coulter, Chronicles, 6/8/15, https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/ann-coulter-interview-part-one/.

[24]             Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity Show, Premiere Radio Networks, 6/1/15.

[25]             See my 1998 column, “Race Does Not Matter – Part 1,” at http://www.brotherwatch.com/files/Race%20Does%20Not%20Matter%20-%20Part%201.pdf.

[26]             See “King’s Dream Realized (sort of)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-76.

Adios, Ann: Coulter’s Bio Fraud

(Saying Goodbye to Integrity Even in a Book Cover)

Bad habits die hard, if ever. Ann Coulter’s proclivity for embellishing her accomplishments continues to this day.

Adios01

Coulter’s fraudulent biographical claims include:

  • Status as a ten-time bestselling author
  • Writes and researches her own books
  • Founded the Cornell Review
  • Had a private law practice
  • Does pro-bono work

(If you can’t trust Coulter’s bio, how can you trust Coulter?)

Ten Nine-Time New York Times Bestselling Author

Adios, America is emblazoned with the assertion that Coulter is “Author of 10 New York Times Bestsellers.” Wrong!

In 2013, Coulter insisted, “By the way, it’s now ten best sellers.”[1] Two months later, I exposed her claim as fraudulent.[2] Still, Coulter continues to – very unnecessarily, I might add – puff up her résumé.

Coulter’s newly-launched Facebook page claims, “Ann Coulter is a ten-time New York Times bestselling author, gun-clinger and right-wing polemicist.”

Contrary to Coulter’s contentions, her tenth book did not make the best-seller list. Even her publisher disputes Coulter’s claim.[3]

Never Trust a Liberal Over 3 did not make the bestseller list. According to Regnery, her last book made the “Also Selling” list, not the Bestseller list.

Regnery maintains a list of Regnery books making the bestseller list and it necessarily includes rankings from only 1 – 15. Never Trust a Liberal Over 3 is not on this list.

To reiterate, Also Selling is not Bestselling. But Coulter insists it is. (Hint: Also Selling books aren’t given a “number of weeks on bestseller list” number.)

It would be like placing fifth in the Olympics and claiming to be an Olympic medalist, or like being virtually a virgin.

Why does Regnery exclude Coulter’s tenth book from its list of published bestsellers yet promote her as a ten-time best-selling author? I suspect that we can blame Coulter more than Regnery.

A little history is in order. Regnery published Coulter’s first book in 1998. At that time, Coulter boasted, “I had vituperative arguments with Regnery that required a number of tantrums to pull off.”[4] Apparently temper tantrums work in Ann Coulter’s world.

(Oddly, Regnery doesn’t use Coulter’s criteria for its other books. To date, Regnery has not provided a rationale for its  decision.)

But why would Coulter lie? With such an obvious, fact-checkable lie?

Perhaps Coulter felt her 10th book deserved to be a best-seller so she claimed it was. Perhaps she wanted a perfect record of bestsellers.

Alternatively, she may have felt ashamed of her failure to make the list, especially given her history of using that list as a criterion for success.

Coulter’s Obsession

Coulter has an obsession with bestsellers.

As a guest host for a three-hour talk show in 1999, Coulter repeatedly introduced herself as the author of a bestseller which was on the New York Times bestseller list longer than James Carville’s book.

For Coulter, an elite’s elite, rank matters. Status matters. Image is everything.

Coulter loves to cite her bestseller status:

“I’m a massively successful bestselling author.”[5]

“I write about it in my very first New York Times’ bestseller, High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”[6]

“It’s nine [bestsellers] now. .. It does technically make it nine, I made number three the first week.”[7]

“I’m Ann Coulter, the author of NINE massive NYT Best sellers.”[8]

Coulter thinks of her books as her children, and she lavishes praise on every single one. Here are but two examples:

“This fabulous book [Mugged] is available at fine book stores everywhere – or it oughta be!”[9]

“As noted in that great book that came out this week, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans …”[10]

How gauche! Praising her own books. (More to follow.)

Coulter’s Adios, America

As for Adios, America, Coulter said that the publisher should move up its publication date because, “The country needs this book. … this is the best one ever.”[11] Hubris?

In March, Coulter said, “I’ve just turned in the edits to my next book, which is fantastic.”[12]

Effervescent and irrepressible in praise of her own book, Coulter gushed, “It’s a rollicking book!”[13] It’s an “explosive upcoming book.”[14] “It’s a blockbuster.”[15]Fantastic book. It’s unbelievable. Out June first.”[16]

“I’ve been finishing my page proofs for my magnificent new book that comes out June 1st.”[17]

“This blockbuster book …”[18] “You’re gonna love it.”[19] “But the audiobook is fantastic.”[20] Also, “my smash new book,”[21] “isn’t it fun? Don’t you love [my book]?”[22]

Not only is Coulter’s book yet another blockbuster – and magnificent to boot – but it will save America!

(Didn’t Coulter repeatedly describe both Romney and his catastrophic 2012 presidential campaign as magnificent?)[23]

“And this next book of mine, I’ve told my friends … this is my last shot at saving the country, and if this doesn’t work, then screw it. I’m building a bunker and hiring the cheap maids.” [24]

Yes, Adios, America will save America!

“I’m thinking we may have to move [the release date] up. The country needs [my new] book.”[25]

It is promoted thus: “If you love your country, you need to read ¡Adios, America!

Moreover, Coulter contends that an elite conspiracy seeks to silence her. Coulter claims, “The only problem is going to be getting word out about my book when every elite group in America is against me.”[26]

As if preparing an excuse for not getting a bestseller, Coulter again promoted a vast left-wing conspiracy to deny her due glory as a bestselling author.

Coulter began her last column prior to book launch hyping her book, her bogus bestseller status, and her perceived liberal conspiracy to silence her:

“I have an explosive book on the No. 1 issue in the country coming out next week, I’ve already written 10 New York Times best-sellers – I’d be on a postage stamp if I were a liberal – but can’t get an interview on ABC, NBC or CBS.”[27] She made the very same claim that night on Hannity.

“I love Jorge [Ramos]. I salute Jorge. I finally found a Mexican willing to do a job no American will do: interview Ann Coulter.”[28] Coulter then repeated her column lead virtually verbatim, adding, “Will NBC, ABC, CBS have me on? Oh no, no, no, it’s like I’m a blogger.”

Coulter is insistent on this point: “The media’s just pretending I don’t exist and the book doesn’t exist. … Maybe Barnes and Noble will be forced to stop hiding it.”[29]

Coulter is so paranoid that she accused her friends at Fox News of being part of this vast conspiracy of silence when her segment on Justice with Judge Jeanine was canceled due to breaking news. Coulter tweeted: “Oops – canceled. Immigration is a little too hot.”[30] Were the two killers who escaped from a maximum security prison with the help of a prison employee part of that conspiracy, too?

Yes, Coulter thinks her friends are conspiring against her.

Coulter’s Paranoia Over Godless

Let’s revisit Coulter’s paranoia from nine years ago. Godless was released on June 6, 2006. The very next day, Coulter published her own review of Godless, arguing, “If the New York Times reviews it at all, they’ll only talk about the Ann Coulter action-figure doll, so I think I’ll write my own review.”[31]

Disproving her conspiracy theory, just five days later, the New York Times published a substantive review of Godless,[32] which became her second of two books to top the bestseller list.

But in her fantasy world, Coulter really believes:

“The main problem with ‘Godless’ is that I had to walk through the valley of darkness to find it. You will have to push past surly bookstore clerks, proceed past the weird people in the ‘self-help’ section, and finally past the stacks and stacks of Hillary Clinton’s memoirs. If all else fails, ask for the ‘hate speech’ section of your local bookstore. Ironically, if you find ‘Godless’ without asking for assistance, it’s considered a minor miracle.”

Although couched in humorous terms, Coulter’s personal apocalypse did not occur. Her conspiracy did not materialize. Yet another contrived Coulter controversy.

Plagiarism

Coulter unswervingly contends, “I both write and research my own books … I am a maniacal researcher.”[33] Also, “I am a ferocious researcher.”[34]

On Hannity, she again made that same false claim: “I research my own books. I write my own books. … I look it all up myself.”

History proves otherwise. Coulter committed plagiarism in at least two books: High Crimes and Misdemeanors[35] and Godless.[36] And she has gone to great lengths to cover-up her behavior.[37]

Asked about how she came to be an author, Coulter claimed, “I’d been writing about Clinton’s various scandals for Human Events, Regnery’s sister company, so Regnery came to me and suggested to write a book on Clinton’s impeachable crimes.[38] Actually, Regnery first came to Michael Chapman because of his expertise on the Clinton scandals, and then he gave his notes to Coulter when she refused to co-author the book with him.[39]

Cornell Review

Just as Coulter repeatedly and insistently lied about her bestselling status, she exhibited a similar measure of insecurity when she padded her credentials for almost three decades, claiming that she had founded the Cornell Review. That claim was made in interview after interview, profile after profile. And it was false.

But then, once her professional status as a journalist and bestselling author was secure, Coulter admitted (just a few years ago), “I don’t think I was technically a founding editor … of the Cornell Review.”[40]

As with Also Selling being equivalent to Bestselling, Coulter treated being on the newspaper staff after its first edition was published as if she were a founding editor.

There’s something pathological there, an irrepressible neediness and insatiable longing for approval, accolades, and acclaim.

Private Practice

Coulter’s bio still claims, “After practicing law in private practice in New York City …” when, in fact, she was never in private law practice.[41] Coulter worked, consecutively, for two corporate law firms, work which she described as “mind-numbingly boring.”[42] In citing a bogus “private practice,” is she seeking to demonstrate her independence and ability to be successful on her own? Or does she feel that her legal credentials, such as they are, are insufficient as they are?

Pro-Bono

In the summer leading up to Clinton’s impeachment, Coulter boasted of doing pro-bono work for her law firm: “Pro-bono work is all I do these days. My law firm is a non-profit law firm.”[43] But according to a spokesman at the Center for Individual Rights, Coulter provided no pro-bono work for them.[44]

Clearly Coulter side-stepped the intent of the question which was whether she had ever volunteered her time. While the Center for Individual Rights does pro-bono work, Coulter was paid for her work.

Long after Clinton’s impeachment took place, Coulter again boasted of her pro-bono work for Paula Jones. That year, she also boasted of her betrayal of Jones and took credit for getting Bill Clinton impeached.[45]

In a George magazine essay,[46] Coulter defended her “motives” and accentuated her “pro-bono” generosity in aiding Paula Jones in Jones’ hour of need.

“As Isikoff reports, I had been doing a little unofficial pro bono work on the Jones case, along with a few other civic-minded Gen-X lawyers, a.k.a. the Elves. Unfortunately for Paula, she wasn’t the sort of pro bono client most lawyers favor, like a cop killer.”

“For the benefit of the American Bar Association pro bono awards committee … We are all fairly confident that none of us will be getting any pro bono awards from the ABA, which reserves its awards for enterprises such as getting guys who were convicted of molesting and murdering children off death row. Pro bono work on behalf of some poor girl who’s been sexually assaulted by the most powerful man on the planet isn’t the kind of thing that wins you accolades, at least not if the defendant is a Democrat. That kind of pro bono work gets you fired, harassed, and accused of having bad ‘motives.’”

Finally, “we were just a few nerdy lawyers quietly doing pro bono work for an unpopular plaintiff.”

[For those counting, Coulter used “pro-bono” seven times in those 170 words.]

Bear in mind, Paula Jones is the only known client for whom Coulter did pro bono work and Coulter, in the end, betrayed that client!

As for CIR, Coulter’s bio states:

“From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.”

Did you notice? The bulk of that paragraph describes the work CIR does, not the accomplishments of Ann Coulter.

Coulter’s Bio Fraud

Ten-time bestselling author? No!

Writes and researches her own books? Not always.

Founded the Cornell Review? No.

Had a private law practice? Never happened.

Does pro-bono work? One time. Didn’t work out so well for the client.

Coulter’s Blue Max

Recently, I again watched the classic Blue Max in which the antagonist so desperately seeks Germany’s highest honor, the titular medal awarded to superior pilots during World War I. At one point, his aeronautical nemesis asked him whether people respected the medal or the man who wore it.

Coulter faces a similar introspective quandary. With all of her emphasis on her professional accomplishments, literary achievements and bestseller status, does she ever wonder if she would be respected without her own literary Blue Max?

Does Coulter care more about her image than about the person she has become?[47]

Endnotes:

[1]               Ann Coulter, Daybreak with Drew Steele, Fox News, 10/28/13.

[2]               See “Appendix 2: Ann Coulter’s Trust Busted,” Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, 2013, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

[3]               Regnery’s list of its bestselling books excludes Never Trust a Liberal Over 3. Though clearly Coulter’s tenth book did not make the bestseller list, Coulter’s bio and Adios, America both claim it did.

[4]               Howard Kurtz, “The Blonde Flinging Bombshells at Bill Clinton,” Washington Post, 10/16/98, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/coulter101698.htm.

[5]               Ann Coulter, interview with PJMedia, 2/2/09.

[6]               Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity Show, Premiere Radio Networks, 4/6/15.

[7]               Ann Coulter, Through the Mirror with Larry Sinclair, 10/10/12.

[8]               Ann Coulter, CPAC, 3/16/13.

[9]               Ann Coulter, Bill Frank Show, KTVA, 10/1/12.

[10]             Ann Coulter, “Pretend to be all that you can be,” 10/3/07

[11]             Ann Coulter, Joyce Kaufmann Show, WFTL, 2/2/15.

[12]             Ann Coulter, Good Day, LA, KTTV, 3/17/15.

[13]             Ann Coulter, Mark Simone Show, WOR, 4/30/15.

[14]             Ann Coulter, tweet, 5/12/15.

[15]             Ann Coulter, Mark Simone Show, WOR, 5/7/15.

[16]             Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity Show, Premiere Radio Networks, 3/4/15.

[17]             Ann Coulter, Mark Simone Show, WOR, 4/8/15.

[18]             Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity Show, Premiere Radio Networks, 4/29/15.

[19]             Ann Coulter, Joyce Kaufman Show, WFTL, 5/8/15.

[20]             Ann Coulter, Mark Simone Show, WOR, 4/30/15.

[21]               Ann Coulter, “Immigration Advocates Frightened by 99-Pound Blonde,” 6/3/15.

[22]               Ann Coulter, Mark Simone Show, WOR, 6/3/15.

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

[24]             Ann Coulter, interview at KSU, Kennesaw, GA, 4/22/15.

[25]             Ann Coulter, Joyce Kaufman Show, WFTL, 2/2/15.

[26]             Ann Coulter, Joyce Kaufman Show, WFTL, 5/8/15.

[27]             Ann Coulter, “Ramos Can Stay, But Matt Lauer Has to Go,” 5/27/15.

[28]             Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 5/27/15.

[29]               Ann Coulter, Mark Simone Show, WOR, 6/3/15.

[30]              Ann Coulter, tweet, 11:45 a.m., 6/13/15.

[31]             Ann Coulter, “Hey you, browsing ‘Godless’ – buy the book or get out!” 6/7/06.

[32]             David Carr, “Deadly Intent: Ann Coulter, Word Warrior,” New York Times, 6/12/06, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/12/business/media/12carr.html?_r=0.

[33]             Ann Coulter, John Gibson Show, Fox News, 5/11/15.

[34]               Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity Show, Premiere Radio Networks, 6/1/15.

[35]             See “Ann Coulter’s Plagiarism – High Crimes” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-4l.

[36]             See “Ann Coulter’s Plagiarism – Godless” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-4z.

[37]             See “Ann Coulter’s Plagiarism Cover-up 2014” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-4o.

[38]               Ann Coulter, “Ann Coulter Exposes The Illegal Immigration Cabal,” Conservative Book Club interview, http://www.conservativebookclub.com/ann-coulter-exposes-the-illegal-immigration-cabal/.

[39]               See “Ann Coulter’s Plagiarism – High Crimes” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-4l.

[40]             Ann Coulter, In Depth, C-Span, 8/7/11.

[41]             See Chapter 1: “The Seduction of Ann Coulter,” The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

[42]             Howard Kurtz, “The Blonde Flinging Bombshells at Clinton,” Washington Post, 10/16/98.

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

[44]             Author interview.

[45]             See Case Study # 1: “Oh, Paula (Jones)! Ann Coulter’s Betrayal,” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[46]             Ann Coulter, “Spikey and Me,” George, May 1999.

[47]             See Daniel Borchers, Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

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.