Three Problems with the Melania Trump Plagiarism Admission

For the second day in a row, the biggest news at the Republican National Convention, in Cleveland, is not about Donald Trump’s ideas for the country or even his case against Hillary Clinton.

Instead, the campaign story of the day—as Trump arrives on the shore of Lake Erie in his helicopter, and his running mate, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, gets ready for his début tonight—is how several sentences from Michelle Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2008 made their way into the speech that Melania Trump gave on Monday night.

This afternoon, the Trump campaign released a letter from Meredith McIver, a speechwriter for the Trump Organization, that explains what happened. McIver wrote,

In working with Melania on her recent First Lady speech, we discussed many people who inspired her and messages she wanted to share with the American people. A person she always liked is Michelle Obama. Over the phone, she read me some passages from Mrs. Obama's speech as examples. I wrote them down and later included some of the phrasing in the draft that ultimately became the final speech. I did not check Mrs. Obama's speeches. This was my mistake, and I feel terrible for the chaos I have caused Melania and the Trumps, as well as to Mrs. Obama. No harm was meant.

No, this is not Watergate, but episodes like this can tell us something about the character of a campaign. It is notable that, until McIver’s letter appeared, the Trump campaign and an army of surrogates repeatedly denied accusations of plagiarism.

"There's no cribbing of Michelle Obama's speech," Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman,

Somewhat more colorfully, Sean Spicer, the Republican National Committee's communications director, pointed out that the language in question was so common that Twilight Sparkle, from “My Little Pony,” and Kid Rock had said similar things.

It's unclear whether Manafort and Spicer knew the real story before they went on TV with their claims. If they did, then they knowingly did not tell the truth. If they didn't, then the Trump campaign sent them out to tell lies and has now thrown them under the bus.

The second issue raised by McIver's letter concerns the continued mixing of Trump's business and political organizations. McIver works for the Trump Organization, and her letter was on Trump Organization letterhead. If she did in fact contribute to Melania Trump’s speech, then her time working for the campaign could be considered an in-kind donation. The Federal Election Commission has clear rules about combining one's business and campaign assets, but all signs point to the fact that there is no clear line separating these two Trump entities.

Finally, McIver's explanation for what happened serves Melania poorly, putting her at the center of the plagiarism scandal rather than making her an innocent victim of her staff. It was Melania who sought out Michelle Obama's speech for inspiration. It was Melania who plucked passages that she admired from the 2008 speech. It was Melania who gave those passages to her speechwriter. How could Melania not recognize those exact lines when she received the final draft?

Of course, Melania is not an author or academic. She might be unaware of how seriously people in the press and at universities take plagiarism. And perhaps she simply didn't remember that the lines came from a speech she had admired. But, whatever the case, McIver’s letter makes clear that it was Melania herself who first lifted Michelle Obama's language.

By releasing the letter, the Trump campaign might have thought that it was putting the plagiarism story behind it, but it has just created a bigger mess.