he's just reading wikipedia. >> then turns out paul did another speech lifted from the wikipedia page. the senator declined repeated requests to comment on these discoveries. then he appeared on the fusion network and was forced to face the music. >> as a journalist i have to ask you this question. msnbc accused you of plagiarism on monday. they accused you of stealing four lines from wikipedia for your speech. is this true? and they're saying that you borrow lines from wikipedia entry about the movie gatica. so what happened? >> yeah. we did. and i let people know that -- >> you did? >> well, we borrowed the plot lines from gatica. it's a movie and i gave credit to the people who wrote the movie. i think they're arguing about whether or not things are properly footnoted and there are technicalities to this. but nothing i said was not given attribution to where it came from. >> totally not true. he became blaming there what he called political enemies for this story. jorge ramos was ready with the follow-up. here he is. >> the rest of it's making a mountain out of the mole hill from p

. >>> here is what wikipedia says about plagiarism. "plagiarism is the wrongful appropriation and purloining and publication of another author's language, thoughts, ideas or expressions and representation of them as one's own original work." you will notice i cited wikipedia as i read from it, and you know why? because i'm not a plagiarist. i communicate to people for a living association it's pretty damn essential that people know when the words i'm saying are mine and when i'm quoting someone else. something i'm noticing in the series of plagiarism scandals that tend to pop up from time to time in american pop culture is it's hard to find examples of people who just plagiarize once, because you either are a person who cares about citing correctly and giving credit where credit is due, or you're not. remember former "the new york times" journalist david blair, accused of deception and just making things up, snowballed into one of the biggest scandals in the paper's his. it didn't take long for people to pull the thread on jason blair'

wikipedia, he was copy and pasting wikipedia. i want to represent for all internet journalists and say we don't copy/paste, it doesn't count. it's not about lifting information, it's about lifting word for word, as andrew reported. i think the problem is, he wants to cast himself as a serious guy. and serious people do not lift their speeches from wikipedia. i mean, he is just making himself look like he's just not substantial. >> andrew, you've obviously done a lot of major reporting on this. how serious a story -- we're laughing and challenging rachel maddow to a dual. how serious is this for paul? >> i don't know how damaging it's going to be to paul. we are -- the republicans really haven't hatched on and attacked paul for it. we -- democrats are, you know, having fun with paul plagiarizing wikipedia, and, you know, i reported there is plagiarism in the book which is a lot more serious than plagiarizing from the internet some plot lines. but i don't know if this is going to be damaging to paul necessarily in the long run. i t

. >> from wikipedia. ethan hawke's character, quote, assumes the identity of jarome morrow who had been injured in a car accident leaving him parolized. hit it, senator. >> he assumes the identity of jerome morrow. a world class swimming tar with the genetic profile said to be second to none. but he's been paralyzed from a car accident. >> this is weird. he's reading wikipedia off the teleprompter. >> remember hit this messenger. when his real enemy is the search engine. >> i think i'm being unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters. i'm not going to put up with people casting aspersions on my ka rkt. >> they're like drone miss ls. tham come looking for you. they've got the words. they've got the -- what do you call it? the parameters. they know where you are. and it seems to me that his problem is he's like pushing off, swatting away what's going to keep coming back at him. the wording used appeared elsewhere earlier. and that's always a problem. >> i just like his defense that he's against people

. >> from wikipedia. ethan hawke's character, quote, assumes the identity of jerome morrow who had been injured in a car accident leaving him paralyzed. hit it, senator. >> he assumes the identity of jerome morrow. a world class swimming tar with the genetic profile said to be second to none. but he's been paralyzed from a car accident. >> this is weird. he's reading wikipedia off the teleprompter. >> remember hit this messenger. when his real enemy is the search engine. >> i think i'm being unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters. i'm not going to put up with people casting aspersions on my character. >> they're like drone missiles. they come looking for you. they've got the words. they've got the -- what do you call it? the parameters. they know where you are. and it seems to me that his problem is he's like pushing off, swatting away what's going to keep coming back at him. the wording used appeared elsewhere earlier. and that's always a problem. >> i just like his defense that he's against pe

if you look at craig's list and we have wikipedia and we have piers that are the top 50 website that are not going to win beauty contests. but as long as you prio priorite content and if someone hits the front page and see something valuable. even kraition craigs list can be force it is. and wikipedia can be the force it is because it's providing content. >> i hop have a lot of starred d it would be really hard to see our first page of red it. read it. you can find inspiration easier than you could back in '05. >> we have geeks at home that wt are they saying. >> there is a question i'm curious about. in your book you talk about the sesecret to start up success. i wonder if you could share something that is particularly important. >> sure the one thing that probably hoped u helped us the s that understanding that we were not necessarily going to know what we are doing at all times but we are going to do what is boast fobest for the users. think about how all of these other sites grew. we didn't want to flood our users inboxes we wanted to make sure that the content was easily accessi

if you look at craig's list and we have wikipedia and we have piers that are the top 50 website that are not going to win beauty contests. but as long as you prior prioritize content and if someone hits the front page and see something valuable. even kraition craigs list can be force it is. and wikipedia can be the force it is because it's providing content. >> i hop have a lot of starred d it would be really hard to see our first page of red it. read it. you can find inspiration easier than you could back in '05. >> we have geeks at home that wt are they saying. >> there is a question i'm curious about. in your book you talk about the sesecret to start up success. i wonder if you could share something that is particularly important. >> sure the one thing that probably hoped u helped us the most is that understanding that we were not necessarily going to know what we are doing at all times but we are going to do what is boast fobest for the users. think about how all of these other sites grew. we didn't want to flood our users inboxes we wanted to make sure that the content was easil

the other thing is citing wikipedia ya, i've worked with younger people and tell them you can go to wikipedia to start, but that's not original source material. there's a wikipedia page out on me that says i was born in virginia, which i was not and i can't even change it. as a journalist you don't use wikipedia as a source. >> no, you don't. and publications have a responsibility to making sure what we write is well sourced and we credit the right people. but i do think that if you're a college student and you've grown up with free television, free movies, free music, you might think, well, this whole idea of owning intellectual property is a little old fashioned. >> it does strike me if you think you're going to run for president this level of scrutiny is nothing compare today what happens in a presidential campaign. >> absolutely. you know, most college students do know that it's not right. and so, yeah, you'd hope that someone with aspirations to be a leader within their party will have an idea about that. >> just sayin. and if not i think he's probably learned his lesson now that even "t

but anybody in their right mind understands half of what you read on wikipedia isn't true. and so to quote it is foolish. and he went up and read it. so it's his staff's fault but his fault for reading it, frankly. >> and more interesting than stealing the words from wikipedia, what the words actually were. why is he talking about eugenics? >> i think what rand paul has is a problem squaring a circle between his so-called libertarian values and his need to appeal to the christian right. to win a presidential primary. and so he's got to get there through a back door in some ways. he doesn't want to talk about, you know -- he wants to talk about personal sovereignty except for when it comes to women. and that's why he goes off on this eugenics thing. that's a problem that's going to dog him for years, i think. >> hogan, rand paul and ted cruz battle -- continue to battle for the extreme right of the republican party. but aren't we looking at the same situation we saw in 2012, where the far right and more moderate right have an all-out battle in the primary and leaves the nomi

. >> so it's not just wikipedia anymore, it's also the associated press. and what was kind of a high-profile speech for him. the other example politico discovered is from howard university in april. senator paul appears to have plagiarized a passage of that speech from a conservative group called focus on the family. so wikipedia multiple times, the associated press, and now the conservative press, it was their newsletter, that's the tally so far that we know of. now rand paul is no longer saying this is just a bunch of nonsense from rachel maddow, that hater. which is what he said on wednesday. staffers for senator paul are now saying, quote, going forward he will be more cautious in presenting and attributing sources, even though they are still not admitting any blame. right around the same time rand paul's staff finally started to concede that maybe they will do something different in the future, mysteriously the rachel maddow is a plagiarist and has a war on women thing came down off of the drudge report where it has been prominently featured for a few

maybe rand paul wrote the wikipedia entry? i mean, for pete's sake, i don't know what else they do in the senate and how dare, rachel maddow, you besmerch this man's great name, rand paul is not a prajerrist. he is the junior united states senator for kentucky, a member of the republican party, a graduate of the duke university school of medicine, paul began practicing ophthalmology in bowling green, couple, so show a little bit of respect rachel maddow, who the hell do you think you are? an american television host, political commentator and author? >> we are going to talk about the long storied political plagerism. we will try to avoid using wikiped why. so stay with us. ak it, break it. (dad) just like i showed you. dad, you didn't show me, you showed him. . ian sausage. and everybody loved it. and you're definitely proud of that. johnsonville. served with pride since 1945. you see the gray. try root touch-up by nice 'n easy. just brush our permanent color matching creme right where you need it. then rinse. in ten minutes z

maybe rand paul wrote the wikipedia entry? i mean, for pete's sake, i don't know what else they do in the senate and how dare, rachel maddow, you besmerch this man's great name, rand paul is not a prajerrist. he is the junior united states senator for kentucky, a member of the republican party, a graduate of the duke university school of medicine, paul began practicing ophthalmology in bowling green, couple, so show a little bit of respect rachel maddow, who the hell do you think you are? an american television host, political commentator and author? >> we are going to talk about the long storied political plagerism. we will try to avoid using wikiped why. so stay with us. ak it, break it. (dad) just like i showed you. dad, you didn't show me, you showed him. . ian sausage. and everybody loved it. and you're definitely proud of that. johnsonville. served with pride since 1945. [announcer] ...every wish for a bed that could feel perfect under every part of your body... [man]ask me about our tempur-pedic. [announcer] they're sle

lo que están diciendo es que usted tomó líneas de wikipedia sobre la película gattaca ¿qué pasó? >> bueno, lo hicimos, le dijimos a la gente, nosotros sacamos el argumento de gattaca como referencia. también hemos tomado algunas frases de ray bradbury y le hemos dado crédito. la discusión no es si las cosas se han citado apropiadamente o no, hay tecnicismos en esto, pero película amparada por derechos de autor y yo le di crédito a ese argumento. el resto de todo esto es tratar de hacer un escándalo donde no lo hay, básicamente uno tiene adversarios políticos. >> pero parece que no fue la primera vez que lo hizo. en el sitio de internet buzzfeed dice que usted tomó varias líneas, también de wikipedia, para un discurso en junio para una organización latina, en este caso sobre la película stand and deliver. >> nuevamente, hay un desacuerdo en cómo se hacen las citas. la gente lo hace de manera diferente en un documento académico que lo que se hace en un discurso, pero si ustedes fueran a publicar cualquiera de estos discursos, sería, pero en un discurso, la gente no

. >> rand paul's speech today was ripped off wikipedia. this is weird up there reading wikipedia off the teleprompter. >> followed by buzzfeed, adding items to the plagiarism file including other speeches where rand paul's speech writers listed word for word, lifted word for word from wikipedia and reports showing entire sections of a "the washington times" op-ed writ be in rand paul were lifted word for word from an article written just one week earlier. yesterday, "the washington times" announced the paper and rand paul mutually agreed to end his weekly doll up. buzzfeed found evidence that three pages of rand paul's latest book were directly lifted from conservative think-tank's documents. another entire section of the same book was lifted nearly word for word from a forbes article. last week, rachel fleeted the theory that rand paul maybe doesn't know what plagiarism is. this is not the first or last time we will be faced with this question. is rand paul lying? or is he just not quite, you know, smart enough off to understand the issue

he's plagiarized something accurately, it does appear, at least in this case, wikipedia got it right on the films. he's not particularly relying on any reliable standard for what he's saying. i think that's fine. rand paul should stick with it in all his speeches and we'll just, you know, take it with a grain of sand knowing it may be true, it may not be true. >> apparently it's not just speeches. as buzz feed reported, raul, apparently he lifted whole portions of heritage foundation report for his book. so it's more -- that's a pretty big -- that's not just saying, oh, i maybe just didn't use the right citation in my speech. when you lift something out from, you know, a report to your book, and then you get so sensitive about it, how does he think he's going to survive a presidential campaign? >> let's keep it totally real for one second. if you are a ninth grader or a college freshman, you know it is not okay to go to wikipedia and then just copy, cut, paste it on to your own paper. everybody knows that. that is an indefensible position. he needs to just apologize and move on. you

which is, you can't take something from wikipedia and claim it as your own. he personally makes a distinction, that he just got a little sloppy. >> what if somebody else wrote your speech for you and somebody else was worse than sloppy, was he worse than sloppy in managing his staff? where does the sloppiness not turn to character? >> well, we don't know what the inside is, we don't know how they're going to change it. the problem is he is trying to bring focus on the foot notes on the bottom of the page. that is not what people are talking about, they're talking about the rest of the page. >> you know what? i think he is trying to protect somebody else, senator rand paul is saying he will fix the problem, he is promising to fix the problem nobody else accused him of having. he keeps going off the ball here, here he is. >> what do you do, senator, to make sure something like that doesn't happen again? >> we're going to be much more specific and foot note it as if it were a college paper. i am working on a speech, for the citabel, 90% of my speeches never had

entry. >> paul dismissed that and a second allegation involving wikipedia as a technical matter, criticized maddow and he let loose on abc's "this week." >> do you concede at least this is pretty sloppy? >> the footnote police have been dogging me for the last week. i will admit that. and i will admit sometimes we haven't footnoted things properly. i take it as an insult and say people cannot call me dishonest, misleading or misrepresenting. i have never intentionally done so. if dueling were illegal, but i think i'm being targeted by hacks and haters. >> but then another issue, the website washington times reporting that some of the language had been verbatim lifted from "the week" magazine. mandatory sentencing began in response to a growing endemic. america's prison population has tripled to 2.4 million. america now jails a country, including china and iran, at a staggering cost of $08 billion a year. here is what senator rand wrote. america's prison population has quadrupled to 2.4 million. america now jails a higher percentage of its citizens than any other country, including china and

you will find in the relevant wikipedia entry, yes wikipedia entry, the visualization of routing paths for a portion of the internet. what makes the picture uncanny is it might easily be mistaken for a cross-section of the brain .. the life substance of the companion world in cyberspace. mind and invasive expedition in the name of commerce or government surveillance. for the use of corporations, and excited police departments, you can call it quantify indication. it in the 'out of we called it reification. kind of dehumanizing and so it turns out that the story for all of this, oddly enough, is the eviction story from the bronze age telling of the consequences coming from eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. so like all world, it comes with the heaven and the hell. what does u this mean for all of us in this room? we writers and our publishers? we don't want to give up the presumably inconvenient thing we do. something as old as paginated written narrative. we don't want to lose heart in frank norris, the author of "naturalistic works of fiction" in the '60s. norris despaired

. >> he apparently lifted several lines of his speak directly from wikipedia. >> in the movie gatica in the too distant future eugenics is common -- vincent freeman is conceive and born the old fashioned way without the aid of genetic screening. >> jon: i'm going to pretend here that the thing we're supposed to be concerned about is that rand paul is supposed to be warning people -- he's warning the imunt a threat from an ethan hawke movie. they need rookie cops and for one day a year crime is legal and where -- um -- [laughter] days are broken. [ laughter ] and a world -- [laughter] (bleep). where the finest things come from brooklyn and i have no (bleep) idea. i don't know. i never -- how many of these -- all right. a lot of movies i haven't seen yet. as far as plagiarism goes and i'm sure there's a reasonable explanation. >> i think the spoken word shouldn't be held to the same sort of standard that you have if you are giving a scientific paper. 98% of my speeches are exthem prain us in. >> jon: that means only 2% of his speeches are plagiarized and most of those are just taylor s

which is, you can't take something from wikipedia and claim it as your own. he percentasonally makes a distinction, that he just got a little sloppy. >> what if somebody else wrote your speech for you and somebody else was worse than sloppy, was he worse than sloppy in managing his staff? where does the sloppiness not turn to character? >> well, we don't know what the inside is, we don't know how they're going to change it. the problem is he is trying to bring focus on the foot notes on the bottom of the page. that is not what people are talking about, they're talking about the rest of the page. >> you know what? i think he is trying to protect somebody else, senator rand paul is saying he will fix the problem, he is promising to fix the problem nobody else accused him of having. he keeps going off the ball here, here he is. >> what do you do, senator, to make sure something like that doesn't happen again? >> we're going to be much more specific and foot note it as if it were a college paper. i am working on a speech, for the citabel, 90% of my speeches never

those are the lines nearly identical to a "gattaca" plot summary on wikipedia. let's talk about this with dana bash, who's on the phone with me. we're learning these changes in his office, quoting a spokeswoman, restructuring the approval process. what does that mean? >> that means in layman's terms, they're going to try to get their act together in senator rand paul's office, in his world. most importantly and specifically among the people who write the material he used. not just in speeches but in op-eds. information has come out in the past few days that an op-ed he wrote in september was -- reports were that word for word parts of it had appeared in a magazine. parts had been lifted from some place else. senator paul gave an interview to "the new york times" where he was really defiant and also explaining this new process saying they're not going to fire anybody, no one is going to lose their job, but, quote, if it will make people leave me the hell alone, we're going to do that, meaning the process, like college papers, meaning they're going to put footnote

it turns out wikipedia isn't his only ones. his response to the state of the union, his remarks had the exact same words from the associated press. and he makes only minimal changes in his delivery. >> under president obama the ranks of america's poor have swelled to almost one in six people. we are now at an all time high in long-term unemployment. millions of americans are struggling and out of work. >> that looks pretty similar to me. and in a speech that paul gave at howard university earlier this year, politico says he borrows language from the conservative magazine citizen link to tell a story about d.c. student named ronald holisi. >> he was failing most of his class. through school choice he was able to attend a catholic school here in d.c. there he learned that he had a natural gift for composing music. before that he wasn't even reading. >> rand paul has a lot of explaining to do. -- something this trivial. going forward he will be more cautious in presenting and attributing sources. he'll be more cautious. what? what

now, paul, as you mentioned, wolf, apparently lifted an entry from wikipedia from a speech he gave at liberty university. there he is going up to the podium. he referenced the 1997 movie "gattica" we pulled a bit from the speech. we'll see the excerpt >> in the the movie >> we reached out to the publish center street, about the book and the apparent plagiarism there. any response back for them on that, heritage foundation, which pout out the study that he apparently lifted the paragraphs did not get to us yet, but they told buzzfeed, they don't care about this alleged plagiarism. >> what is he saying in his own defense? >> rand paul was not available to speak to us on camera. we have tried to do that today, but in an appearance with abc news, he said, quote, i take it as an insult and will not lay down and say people can call me dishonest or intentionally disleading. his staffer issued a statement regarding the speech part of all of this. quote, senator paul has always tried to accurately attribute any stories or facts in his speeches, 98% of his speeches are extemporaneous and none h

. >> so it's not just wikipedia anymore. it's also the associated press. that looks pretty similar to me. and in a speech that paul gave at howard university earlier this year, politico says he borrows language from the conservative magazine citizen link to tell a story about d.c. student named ronald holisi. they are saying going forward he will be more cautious even though they are not admitting any blame. mysterious the rachel mad dough is a plagiarist, came down. this is called running for your mistakes. you cheated you stole stuff from wikipedia. high school students do it and they go to detention. there's no detention for senators. instead, you say, aw, shucks. blame an intern, dude. senator paul at first disappeared and refused to comment to anybody, including his hometown newspaper. then he started smearing the person who brought it to life. rand paul seems to have a pension from plagiarizing from all sorts of people. road closed? there's a guy... excuse me? glacier point? follow me! ♪ follow me! keep up, keep up, keep up. ♪ look he's right the