I'm still amazed that this issue is still an issue and I guess I'm part of it.
I went out to the web and searched for the two speech comparisons again and found (as I said before) that in no place could I find a word-for-word copying. Which is an equally thought provoking act. Why?
Because it seems that whoever did the "plagiarizing" knew how to change the wording around just enough to technically keep it from being plagiarism but still allow it to stick out like the proverbial sore thumb.
If someone can disprove this I would like to know, also was there an ulterior motive for this or was it something sinister, dumb or what.
Something doesn't seem right, but I can't put my finger on it.
Also, while doing the scanning, the bad mouthing of Melania I encountered was horrendous.
It's unethical to take someone else's speech (article, book, treatise, etc.) and pass it off as if it is your own. Especially when it is not an accident, but deliberate. Doubly so when the candidate brags that he surrounds himself with only the best people.
Maybe some false equivalence?
(Though Melania's admiration for Ms. Obama is worth noting.)
One incident involves 60-70 words in a speech that has thousands.
The other involves thousands of unsecure e-mails, including dozens of very sensitive security items.
After one, the perpetrator admits carelessness, apologizes, and offers to resign, all within 24 hours of the incident.
After the other comes months of stonewalling and misinformation, the FBI declares the conduct to have been very careless, and the follow-up is no remorse and a request for promotion.
About as equal as the little tremors that occasionally rattle dishes in New England, and the 1964 Alaska quake.