Vice President Kamala Harris and her campaign have been blindsided by yet another major scandal that could affect the outcome of her race against former President Donald Trump.

Harris is facing new scrutiny for allegedly plagiarizing a speech, adding another chapter to her ongoing plagiarism saga. Earlier this month, reports surfaced detailing several instances in which she purportedly used material from various sources without proper attribution.

She is now also accused of copying remarks made by Republican district attorney Paul Logli during congressional testimony in 2007.

A report by The Washington Free Beacon claimed that Harris plagiarized significant portions of Logli’s 2007 congressional testimony. An independent investigation by Newsweek corroborated these findings.

When Harris, then the district attorney of San Francisco, addressed the House Judiciary Committee in support of a bill aimed at facilitating student loan repayments for state and local prosecutors, she echoed much of Logli’s earlier testimony presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Harris’s testimony, which was ostensibly focused on addressing the exodus of prosecutors to higher-paying private sector jobs due to burdensome law school debts, closely mirrored around 80% of Logli’s content. This included identical language, structural elements, and even shared typographical errors.

The comparison revealed that out of Harris’s 1,500-word statement, approximately 1,200 words were directly taken from Logli’s testimony, including entire paragraphs emphasizing the need to retain experienced prosecutors through student loan relief.

Following the release of the report, Logli explained to the Free Beacon, “Kamala Harris represented California state prosecutors as a member of the Board of Directors of NDAA and was testifying in that capacity two months later before the House Judiciary Committee. I believe she also relied on NDAA staff support for her opening statement.”

He remembered that the National District Attorneys Association had researched and written his initial remarks.

Logli proposed that the similarity in their statements might have been intentional, saying, “The similar content of our statements was an effort by NDAA to be entirely consistent in the positions we presented to both Houses of Congress on behalf of the 3500 state and local prosecutors we represented on a national level.”