Here’s what CNN just published, claiming Harris lifted language from a Republican attorney when she testified in front of Congress in 2007:
Experts CNN spoke with said that the instance, first reported by conservative news outlet the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday, raises concern but does not constitute a serious example of plagiarism.
The instance occurred when Harris was district attorney of San Francisco. She testified at the time before the House Judiciary Committee in support of the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007, which would have created a student loan repayment program for state and local prosecutors and public defenders.
Her prepared testimony lifted paragraphs from the prepared testimony of Paul Logli, then a Republican state’s attorney from Illinois and chairman of the board of the National District Attorneys Association, who testified before the Senate two months earlier. The paragraphs use the same survey and nearly identical language to each other.
Here’s what really happened.
The “Republican attorney” was actually chairman of the board of the National District Attorneys Association, which drafted the testimony. Harris was also on that board, and used the same pre-drafted testimony two months later — because the statement was written for either of them to use. Harris testified before the House, while Republican Paul Logli testified before the Senate.
Logli told the Free Beacon that he remembers the organization researched and drafted his opening statement. He said the organization likely used similar statements to be consistent with its positions.
“Kamala Harris represented California state prosecutors as a member of the Board of Directors of NDAA and was testifying in that capacity two months later before the House Judiciary Committee,” he told the Beacon. “I believe she also relied on NDAA staff support for her opening statement.”
And yet, CNN still used this headline:
Harris lifted language from Republican attorney in her 2007 congressional testimony
Just in case you ever wonder just how seriously to take their political coverage.
