Home | About | Donate

Why Melania Trump’s Plagiarism Matters


Why Melania Trump’s Plagiarism Matters

Jeffrey C. Isaac

Two paragraphs from Melania Trump’s speech last night before the Republican National Convention were almost word for word the same as two paragraphs from Michelle Obama’s 2008 speech. This is a fact. Such verbatim quoting without attribution is called plagiarism. Plagiarism is widely recognized as a kind of cheating, indeed as a kind of theft. A plagiarist is someone who steals the words of others and makes believe that they are his or her own words. Plagiarism is a violation of common sense standards of integrity.


The first and most important reason why this _____ matters is because of what it demonstrates about the ethics, or rather the lack of ethics, of the _____ campaign itself: that the campaign plays fast and loose with the truth, and consistently acts as if it can say or do whatever it wants, simply deny responsibility, and then angrily maintain that its critics are always wrong and the fault is theirs. _____ is always right. [His/Her] critics are always evil. The brouhaha over this _____ is simply a blatant example of this. Just deny the obvious, defensively maintain innocence, and then blame those who point out the obvious wrong-doing, claiming that they are liars, they are evil, they are self-interested. On this logic, it’s all _____’s fault! In any other sphere of life such behavior would be regarded as transparently self-serving and juvenile. And yet this is the modus operandi of the _____ campaign. The campaign rests on lies and innuendoes and provocations.

vote Jill Stein 2016.

[edit: sorry if there was originally ambiguity]


Are you saying this article was plagiarized from Jill Stein?


First and foremost it indicates the state of GOP - clueless about pretty much everything, yet not caring and feeing confident enough with such lapses . They know the vote will be theirs no matter what they do.

I do not blame Melanie. She, most likely, did not write it the same way as Obama did not ( Michelle has a higher chance of writing it though ). Most likely it is an assistant responsible for such tasks as they do not have time but amazing part is assistants do not care !


I don't care about Melania's plagiarism. In her case, imitation probably is the sincerest form of flattery.

What I care about is that Hillary Clinton has been plagiarizing Bernie Sander's positions for months, in order to mislead and deceive.


"We are talking about a bunch of people (Trump's chldren) in their thirties, who were raised with silver spoons in their mouths, and who have all risen to “success” as acolytes of their wealthy father."

True, but then we have Chelsea Clinton, whose resume is entirely based on reaping the benefits of her parents' successful influence peddling.

Chelsea's first job, at age 23, was landed through the good offices of a Clinton friend; base salary, $120,000, at McKinsey & Co. Then Chelsea joined Clinton friend Marc Laery's $13 biilon hedge fund. Then NYU President John Sexton, a friend of Bill's, appointed Chelsea as an Assistant Vice-Provost. After that, Chelsea joined the board of media company IAC, owned by billionaire Democratic insider Barry Diller; Chelsea's pay is $300,000/year plus stock options. Chelsea also worked as a part-time "Special Correspondent" at NBC; $600,000/year.

When Chelsea's husband needed $400 million to start a new hedge fund, Clinton friends including Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, helped him out.

Chelsea's parents "helped" her buy her first apartment, for $10 million. And now Chelsea is Vice-Chairman of the Clinton Foundation, and gets $65,000 for speaking engagements.


Is Melania a US citizen. Oh I forgot the Donald is her anchor baby.


In fact, in my circles, parents are dumbfounded with relief and joy if one of their college-educated, hard-working sons or daughters is lucky enough to land a job with a salary, however modest, and medical insurance. It's like winning the lottery. But we aren't members of the 1%, and Clinton and Trump are. #StillSanders


No. This doesn't matter at all. It is entirely a diversion. I have no time for this kind of garbage and won't waste my time reading an article like this. What the hell is wrong with CD posting stuff like this?


On occasion I've noticed a particular phrase of mine or unique allusion lifted and similarly passed off without any attribution. And I've spoken up about it.

In the same way the Trump team comes down on any who dare to state the obvious--that there was obvious plagiarism in Mrs. Trump's speech--the individual mentioning the trespass is treated as The Problem. That's exactly what happens in this forum. And it's likely done by Trump supporters whose only moral precept is that "Might makes right" and/or that dominators can do whatever they damned please, no laws need apply to them.


What you say about Chelsea Clinton is true. However, the article is specifically about ONE thing: plagiarism.

It's amazing how many dismiss it either in the Trump campaign or inside this forum.

And it's interesting that in both instances it's Trump supporters. This group doesn't even understand its own tunnel vision or the ramifications of that blindness. It's too busy playing team sports that involve NOTHING but focusing on the other team's weaknesses.

CAN you see outside of the stadium?


That speech which made all the news and loads of comments was probably written by some writer that failed to realize or actually stole the speech itself. What's more striking is that this is what's talked about instead of the lack of any policy that would help normal Americans. We get more policy to put religious prejudice in public policy. Cuts to social programs, banning pregnancy terminations, increasing the already astonishingly immense military budget, cutting taxes to the wealthy, etc. This country is on the verge of collapse and all we get are more, failed-in-the-past policy. I'm voting Green and wash my hands of this clown car of an election cycle and hope we don't see the beginning of the end.


It's being grabbed onto as something that can be made an issue of in a campaign against Candidate Trump. There isn't much. He has never held any public office while Hillary Clinton has been a Senator and a Secretary of State and in those capacities has even committed acts said to be criminal even though Bill was able to sweet talk the female attorney general into telling the head of the FBI that her bad acts weren't bad enough to bother about things like indictments, prosecutions, and spending time in a comfortable minimum security prison.

Trump can only be gone after for things he has said he would do: the Mexican wall, not allowing any followers of Mohammed to enter the country, reauthorize the use of torture to quickly make terrorism begone. They are all things that should lose him the election except he can always go the "I'm just sayin'" route. No one seems to eager to demand that he defend everything he has said and explain in detail how he will manage to do all he has said he will do. He can be gone after on his corporate bankruptcies, but those can be brushed aside as "old news." It can be pointed out what a completely Caucasian crowd the nominating delegates were, but that will be looked on as a good thing by the white voters (I didn't watch the entire delegate roll call but the only people I saw with any alternative ethnicity were the group from the Northern Mariana Islands). He can be criticized for blaming organized minorities for causing all the nations troubles, but the people I saw on TV at the Republican Convention didn't appear to be folks whom that would much bother. They seemed more like they were celebrating a White Restoration Renaissance.

It looks like the race is Trump's to lose.


"CAN you see outside of the stadium?" Sure. I can hear the people sing, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5vpabMb62g . They are singing a song of peaceful revolution.

The problem is that neither the Dems nor the Repubs can see outside of the stadium, and the Dems are doing their best to stamp out the song that so many are singing. As JFK once pointed out, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." As we see here, from Les Miserables: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMYNfQlf1H8 .


Yesterday, walking, passed a space cadet Cadillac,
Parked beside a basement poker hall it scowled,
I'm richer than you! Ears ringing I past,
looking back read a perfectly placed bumper sticker:
Apparently, America ain't great enough,
for some sumbich poker jokers.


Certainly, all the institutional papers (NYT, WaPo, et al.) will be criticizing Mrs. Don, echoing the author here.



Thank you T12. Posting inconvenient facts as this got me booted from another "progressive" site.
You likely know that all three Clintons speechify on behalf of the Peterson Foundation. He's the former Sec of Commerce hack under (of course) Reagan, who wants to privatize Social Security.


I doubt she watched the speech. More likely got the text from her staff or google. Perhaps bits from other first ladies. Would have been better if she had stuck to Nancy Reagan, although giving attribution would have been called for even then.
Trump is likely furious because it was specifically from the Obama family.

More fun theory is that there is an infiltrator in the campaign doing dirty tricks.
Or maybe Malania is seriously fed up with Donald and did this on purpose.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Has the ring of truth all right.