The more interesting thing to me is the inconsistency of the Trump campaign's reporting about the writing of the speech. Melanie Trump told Matt Lauer that she only practiced the speech once because she "mostly wrote it" herself, and so she knows it so well. However, info from Trump's people indicated that several speechwriters had worked with her over several weeks on the speech. So which is it? And, if that speech was "several weeks'" worth of work, then someone needs to lose a job because that was really not an impressive bit of rhetoric.
Of course, the justifications and the dismissals are becoming silly at this point. Trump sycophant Chris Christie - who looks more like a dupe every day - told the Today Show that the speech wasn't plagiarized "when 93% of the speech is original." Like that makes sense. Uh, Chris, people aren't taking exception to the parts that weren't copied. But if you note that 93% is original, then you are conceding that 7% wasn't. And those were not just "common words" and ideas. When arranged in the same order and used in the same context, we call that plagiarism.
In reality, I think this is simply a matter of a woman tasked with a "HUGE" speech to give, and she "researched" it by watching previous speeches of prospective First Ladies. It wasn't malicious or intentional - I don't think she really understood the rules in that regard. She watched Michelle's specch and she used some parts that she thought would work well with her message. It won't matter to GOP voters at this point, but similar situations have derailed political careers. I think it's all just a bit sad. And, I am much more worried about the idea of a First Lady with this in her past.