What shade of crazy did United Press Syndicate cake over its eyes? We're guessing it's well beyond rouge with its assertion yesterday that its prize columnist, Ann Coulter, is not guilty of plagiarizing.

In a statement sent to E&P, Universal President and Editor Lee Salem said: "Last week a software program company official ran Ann Coulter's columns through a 'match-text' program, frequently used by teachers to detect original work. The New York Post cited two columns in which some text matched other published materials and also mentioned three snippets in her book, 'Godless: The Church of Liberalism.'

"In addition to looking at the columns mentioned in the New York Post story, we also reviewed a sampling of other columns that have been mentioned in the media. Like her book publisher, Crown, Universal Press Syndicate finds no merits to the allegations of plagiarism brought by the software company executive. There are only so many ways you can rewrite a fact and minimal matching text is not plagiarism.

Sure, there's the obvious bit about "it depends what your definition of 'minimal' is." And then there's the part about "rewriting a fact that's surrounded by the same points of reference, descriptors, and tone."

Universal Says It Doesn't Think Coulter Plagiarized [Dave Astor, E&P]
Earlier: Ann Coulter vs. New York Post: Somehow More Incendiary Than Coulter vs. New York Times
Related: All Ann Coulter Coverage