Here is part 2 of 5 of Daniel Borcher's trecherous experiences by the far right of exposing Ann Coulter's plagiarism in her 1998 book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors. See the link at Part 1 below for the full story. The remaining parts will be posted once every few days. Also, be sure to check out Media Matters'
latest article of Ann Coulter's plagiarism of her newest book, Godless.Ann Coulter's Plagiarism Story: Part 1Ann Coulter's Plagiarism Story: Part 2Ann Coulter's Plagiarism Story: Part 3Ann Coulter's Plagiarism Story: Part 4Ann Coulter's Plagiarism Story: Part 5
* * * * * * * * * *
Human Events’ Coulter Cover-up Continues
Editor Outs Their “Porn Queen”
By Daniel Borchers
Dan Borchers – 7.
Human Events – 0.
Current Status: No Apology. No Retraction.
On July 10, 2006, Human Events published an online defamatory essay
in order to discredit critics of Ann Coulter. Following a lengthy series of emails proving that it was false in sum and substance, that slanderous essay was removed – but not retracted. Indeed, no hint of apology has ever been given. My correspondence with Human Events Online Editor Robert Bluey
is especially enlightening.
In Part I of this series, I refuted several bogus claims.
· They claimed that my amply-documented essay
exposing Ann Coulter’s plagiarism in her first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, was “ridiculous,” when, in fact, it was accurate in every detail.
· They claimed that I attempted to enter CPAC under “false pretenses.” – FALSE
· They claimed that I made “phony press passes.” – FALSE
· They claimed that I used “fake names.” – FALSE
In Part II of this series, I refute additional phony claims made by Lisa De Pasquale and “verified” by Robert Bluey:
· They claimed that I “may” have “copyright issues.” – FALSE
· They claimed that I distributed “pornographic photos.” – FALSE
· They claimed that I doctored photos of Coulter. – FALSE
This second set of corrections took even longer to obtain, taking an entire series of emails to accomplish (portions provided here by topic). I wrote:
I am surprised, perplexed and dismayed to see that the following (wholly inaccurate and misleading) paragraph remains intact on Human Events’ website:“Pornographic Photos”
“However, Borchers may have a few copyright issues himself. At the 2002 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) I witnessed Borchers distributing folders filled with his rants against Coulter and pornographic photos that were meticulously cut-and-pasted so that her face replaced the female faces in the photos.”
I provided detailed specifics in my email to Bluey, who, in turn, engaged in Orwellian Newspeak and doublethink to justify those lies. I reminded him:
As I wrote earlier, Human Events’ published account of my personal and professional behavior is entirely without merit – factually-flawed, fabricated and fallacious. For instance, Ms. De Pasquale falsely claims that I distributed “pornographic photos” and suggests I “meticulously” doctored them. Wrong on both counts.
First, if those two photos contained in my CPAC 2002 press kit were really “pornographic,” then most mainstream magazines must be called pornographic as women in bikinis are now the norm. Indeed, Ms. Coulter herself would then become a porn peddler as she provided the Westchester WAG with a bikini photo.
By the way, both photos still reside on the Ann Coulter Fan Club website: (Summertime Ann
) and (Fantasy Lingere
Bluey, without recourse to either logic or his legal department, again verified a falsehood and deliberately misapplied a legal definition to justify a lie:
As for the incident with the photos, Ms. De Pasquale witnessed it firsthand. The definition of “pornographic” is “sexually explicit.” Based on the information (and photo links) you shared with me, I believe this definition holds true.
But logic and truth were overpowering, as I responded:
As for those photos being “pornographic,” are you now calling Ms. Coulter a porn queen? Please see http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=annblack.jpg.
Secondly, the “pornographic” content ascribed to my press kit is nonexistent. If my photos are “pornographic,” then Ms. Coulter is a “porn queen” based on that photo from her own website.
Bluey quickly repudiated his earlier definition of “pornographic.”
And I never said Ann was a “porn queen.” I was merely offering a definition of pornographic (meaning “sexually explicit”).
Bluey’s “definition” obviously does not apply to those photos – he deliberately misapplied a legal definition to misidentify those photos – and, thus, discredit me.“Doctored Photos”
I also reminded Bluey of the source of those photos:
Secondly, those photos were taken un-doctored directly from the Official Ann Coulter Fan Club website. Both full-page photos in my press kit included the source URLs from that website. Moreover, those photos frequently reappear on Free Republic courtesy of Ms. Coulter’s fans. At least one populates the Internet today (http://cpl.net/~carville/ann_coulter-lingerie.jpg).
Bluey continued to obfuscate:
No one ever said you doctored the photos.
To which I replied:
Finally, the clear implication carefully created by Ms. De Pasquale’s description was that I had doctored them (by “meticulously” cutting and pasting). The entire sentence structure and imagery was designed to invoke a particular portrayal of me – one which is wholly unjustified.
Please do what should have been done a week ago and delete that false paragraph.
In the end, they had to delete the entire article.“Copyright Issues”
At the same time, I also addressed the bogus copyright charge. Bluey was unable to grasp the basics of copyright law and again declined to check with his legal staff on this issue. I wrote:
While you investigate the matter of the so-called “pornographic photos,” it would be well to note – again, contrary to her claims – that there arise absolutely no “copyright issues” regarding their inclusion in my press kit. I’m sure your legal department can easily confirm that for you.
Permit me to simply state the obvious: 1) there are no “copyright issues” pertaining to the distribution of photos from a website, 2) those photos were not “pornographic,” 3) I did not create them (“meticulously cut-and-pasted”) and 4) the original source was Ms. Coulter’s own official fan club website on yahoo (Internet files available upon request).
Bluey’s reply was typically short – and inaccurate: “As you admit in this e-mail, you did not own the photos distributed in altered form in your press kit, which, of course, raises the issue of possible copyright violations.” Obviously, Bluey did not follow my advice, did not review the facts in light of the law, as I again encouraged him to do.
Frankly, this is nonsense. Have you checked with your legal department, as I asked? You should have checked before publication. They will tell you – as will any copyright attorney – that there are no copyright issues involved. Please correct accordingly.
I would have thought, given your vast experience as a journalist, that you would have come across at least one press kit containing Xeroxed newspaper clippings and Internet printouts. (Perhaps an intern can help you.) While you review the bogus “copyright issues” claim, bear in mind the other errors contained in that essay.
Bluey continued to obfuscate:
Are you endorsing copyright infringement? I’ve know many people who go to great lengths – myself included – to avoid inappropriate use of others’ work, including seeking permission in advance. The fact that some people use others’ work inappropriately does not make it right.
Clearly unfamiliar with the concept of either “public domain” or the definition of “sexually explicit,” Bluey again went on the offensive with more ill-considered attacks. I made another appeal to common sense:
Have you checked with your legal department yet regarding alleged copyright issues? They will tell you that those photos – which were not doctored by me – are in the “public domain,” hence there are no copyright issues in play. (Public domain – what a novel concept.)
Finally, Ms. De Pasquale said you “may” have copyright issues, not that you “do” have copyright issues.
Of course, I restated the obvious:
First, it was obvious from the beginning that I do not have copyright issues. There is no “may” about it. Her statement was, is and remains wrong.
All of these false charges and bald-faced lies had one singular purpose: to assassinate my character and thereby discredit the truth of my criticisms of Coulter.Political (Not Prurient) Purpose
Lisa De Pasquale deliberately distorted the reason for including those two photos in my press kit, purposefully portraying my press kit photos as prurient, not political. Other, more sinister motivations were implied in her words. But the truth again emerged, as I wrote:
Finally, the political point made by the inclusion of those two non-pornographic photos, as noted in my press kit, was to highlight the extent to which Ms. Coulter uses her sexuality to further her career.
Nevertheless, Ms. De Pasquale chose to portray those photos in the most ominous fashion as if they were my creation despite the fact that they actually originated with Ann Coulter’s official fan club website.
Remember, the Internet is filled with photos and websites devoted to the perceived pulchritude of Ann Coulter. Numerous fan clubs post scores of Coulter photos. The most popular photos are the ones in which Coulter is most scantily clad or most sexually provocative. These are not inventions; they are reality. Here is just a small sampling of photos for which Coulter posed:
As my two CPAC (non-pornographic) press kit photos clearly demonstrated, Coulter uses her sex appeal to promote herself and her views. Is she a “porn queen,” as Bluey unwittingly implied, or merely an outrageous self-promoter and provocateur? To what extent does Coulter’s image as “The Official Babe of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” enhance her conservative celebrity status? What, exactly, do the (self-styled) drooling fans at Free Republic admire in their “conservative goddess?” And what does all this tuff and nonsense have to do with political punditry? But, then, who is posing for those prurient (though non-pornographic) photos and who is so enraptured by them that they will tolerate any extreme?
In their desperation to salvage the reputation of their five-time best-selling author, Human Events defamed a fellow conservative. They jettisoned truth and integrity for profit. And they have done a disservice to Conservatism and to themselves. In Part III, we will plumb the depths of their duplicity and discover the identity of the real culprits.
[Daniel Borchers is the Editor of BrotherWatch
and the President of Citizens for Principled Conservatism
. He can be reached at PrincipledConservative@yahoo.com