Plagiarism charges against Paul pile up

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) faces more allegations of plagiarism after reports found whole pages of his 2013 book were lifted from a conservative think tank report. 

Buzzfeed reported Saturday night that portions of Paul’s book Government Bullies were copied word for word from a case study from the Heritage Foundation. 

{mosads}The news outlet uncovered another instance in the book where sentences appear similar to a report in National Wetlands Newsletter, written by Mark Moller, a fellow at the Cato Institute. 

Paul cited both reports in the notes of his book; however, whole sentences appear word for word in the book without quotations, running three pages. A Paul advisor said the endnotes clearly define the sourcing of the book. 

“In no case has the senator used information without attribution. There were 150 endnotes and cites including the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute. This is a witch hunt and grasping at straws,” Doug Staffond, who co-wrote the book, told Buzzfeed. 

In the notes and sources portion of the book, Paul points out “many of the stories told and information reported represents work already done by others. Rather than endlessly noting multiple sourced items … we have included here other sources of information for the stories presented.” 

Both conservative think tanks said they did not mind Paul’s publication.

The allegations pile on top of other reports that some of Paul’s speeches have whole lines taken from Wikipedia or other sources.

Paul, a potential GOP candidate for president in 2016, addressed some charges of plagiarism Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” but he was not asked about the new instances in his book. 

During the interview, Paul defended himself by saying the spoken word is different from published text. 

“So I think the spoken word shouldn’t be held to the same sort of standard that you have if you’re giving a scientific paper,” He said. “I’ve written scientific papers. I know how to footnote things.”

He admitted that sometimes his citation has been sloppy or not correct. But he again defended himself by saying he has never intentionally lifted other people’s work without citation. 

“I take it as an insult, and I will not lie down and say people can call me dishonest, misleading or misrepresenting,” he said. “I have never intentionally done so. And like I say, if, you know, if dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know, it would be a duel challenge. But I can’t do that, because I can’t hold office in Kentucky then.”