October 30, 2013

Rand Paul took to the airwaves on Fusion, ABC/Univision's new network venture, to not address the charges, by Rachel Maddow and others, that he had obviously plagiarized whole passages from wikipedia pages. I wrote 'not address' because he went into a long spiel about crediting screenwriters, who, as far as I know, don't sit around and make up wikipedia pages years or decades after their movies come out.

Check out this gibberish:

RAND PAUL: “It’s a disagreement over how you footnote things, and I think people footnote things different in an academic paper than they do in a public speech, but if we were going to present any of these speeches for publication they’d have footnotes in.”

Rand Paul even had the cheek to call Rachel Maddow a "hater" with a "political axe to grind", who's been after him for years (presumably from this infamous interview on her show in May 2010).

The old saying, if you don't have a believable defense then attack the messenger applies here, in spades.

Idiot.

Rachel called his explanation "inexplicable".

Rachel2

Can you help us out?

For 17 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.

Discussion

We are currently migrating to Disqus

On May 14, 2022, we started migrating our comments from Insticator back to Disqus. During this transition period, some posts will have Insticator and some Disqus. For more information on the transition, as well as information regarding old C&L accounts, please see this post.


We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.