The following podcast contains explicit language.

It's Monday, April 5, 2017, from slated to the gist I, Mike Pascha.

When it came to the Supreme Court nomination of Neil Gorsuch, the Democrats

had a pile of case law to point to. There was the case of the frozen trucker,

the case of the evasive jurist, and of course the case of the stolen seat.

But nothing stuck. So now, to quote the Bible's primary source, and John Madden,

his secondary source, they're going for the Hail Mary plagiarism.

Plagiarism was the case. Large passages of Gorsuch's euthanasia book were parallel

in structure and form and language to a legal article.

The author of the legal article says she doesn't see the plagiarism.

Academics do say it was plagiarism in this example and in some others of Gorsuch's writings.

But let's take the euthanasia book. There was the part when Gorsuch and the original article,

both say, asoffalgeal atrizia with trakeo-a-sophagol-fistula,

means the esophageal passage from the mouth to the stomach ends in a pouch

with an abnormal connection between the trakeia and the esophagus.

They both say that. But of course he could have said this in so many other ways.

For instance, just describe it as if someone once did on the internet as a series of pipes.

But don't even say the esophagus. Say the food tube.

The old food tube. If Gorsuch had written that the food tubes connected to the breath tube,

but it's a little scurry-lurry if you ask me, and he'd be in the free and clear.

This has become a divisive divisive issue where both sides vehemently disagree while at the same

time actually agreeing. Bloomberg headline, Gorsuch plagiarism is worthy of embarrassment.

...