First Lady Melania Trump is determined to squeeze every penny she can out of the Daily Mail after it published an untrue story during last year’s presidential campaign that suggested she once worked as a high-end escort.
New court documents filed by the First Lady’s personal attorney claim she lost out on a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to makes hundreds of millions of dollars because of the bogus gossip report, which was later retracted.
Related: The First Lady’s cause: Herself! (No, seriously. It really is.)
The libel lawsuit claims that, prior to the article being published, Melania was very much looking forward to a “unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as an extremely famous and well-known person, as well as a former professional model, brand spokesperson and successful businesswoman, to launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple product categories, each of which could have garnered multi-million dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during which plaintiff is one of the most photographed women in the world.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
But because of those untrue escort claims, that rare opportunity, which was supposed to include a clothing line, accessories, jewelry, cosmetics, hair care and fragrance, was stripped away from her. And that is why she wants the Daily Mail to fork over millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.
Melania also filed a $150 libel lawsuit against blogger Webster Tarpley for reporting on the rumors, but on Tuesday, her lawyer, Charles Harder, said she had settled with Tarpley after he apologized (for a second time) and agreed to fork over “a substantial sum as a settlement.”
Related: Melania Trump granted permission to sue blogger for $150 million for calling her an escort
Richard Painter, President George W. Bush former ethics advisor, tells the Los Angeles Times that Mrs. Trump’s lawsuit is “an unprecedented, clear breach of rules about using her government position for private gain.”
“This is a very serious situation where she says she intends to make a lot of money,” he says. “That ought to be repudiated by the White House or investigated by Congress.”
But Melania’s lawyers vehemently disagree. Harder insists “the first lady has no intention of using her position for profit and will not do so. It is not a possibility. Any statements to the contrary are being misinterpreted.”
Oooookay. So what’s this multi-million lawsuit then?
Related: Melania Trump has no plans to live in the White House, but she’s still going to redecorate it
Jack Meoff
This must be Melania’s last ditch effort for financial independence in order to get away from the Trump prison she finds herself in.
Paco
And now her husband has blasted Nordstrom on twitter for dumping his daughter’s clothing line. Why are the conflicts of interest being ignored by the Republican Congress? Absolutely no ethics.
KanoChris
When you are gold digger who marries for fame and fortune and he turns out to be a douchbag; Ya get what ya get!
PRINCE OF SNARKNESS aka DIVKID
She needs to sue whoever botched her eyes before she goes after anyone else
captainburrito
“filed a $150 libel lawsuit against blogger Webster Tarpley”
That would be news given the legal fees would be more than $150. lol I think that is missing “million”.
whatevz
this dumb escort and now poor picked-on Ivanka, stores rushing to get rid of all the toxic Trump name crap, why don’t they just start selling lube, they could call it DADDY’S FAVORITE! that’s about all their inbred homeschooled supporters could afford…
He BGB
Have we ever had anyone in the White HOUSE SUE anyone? That seems so trashy. I miss classy people like the Obamas
paul dorian lord fredine
my words to her, tough shit.
DuMaurier
I don’t know if Melania was or is planning to make a ton of money off being First Lady, but her denials are actually consistent with the language in the lawsuit. It’s her attorney’s job to come up with specific ways she was or could have been ‘damaged’ by the parties she’s suing, and in a case like this, hurting current or potential business deals is an obvious route to take. The part that’s hard to comprehend is that no one realized how this would sound if it were made public.
ScaryRussianHeather
Exactly. Of course all the arm-chair lawyers here have no clue what a defamation complaint requires. If your Complaint isn’t for Defamation per se, you have to cite damages.
They’re walking a fine line because she hasn’t exactly BEEN damaged yet, but “future” damage may hold up depending on the case law.
Regardless, they’ll settle again, just to prove a point that the DM admits they were in the wrong. That’s really all she want’s, obviously.
I see Sullivan v NYT in the horizon and personally can not WAIT because it’s long overdue to replace the case law on “malice” and the B.S. affirmative defenses of third party…when everyone knows the media just keeps repeating defamation because they know the original source can usually never be ascertained.
ChrisK
This is a slapp lawsuit. The only requirement for defamation is that it has to be damaging and false. Escorting is about sex for $. You could argue she is one based on that. No one here believes she’s with him for anything but $.
ChrisK
Bloggers are idiots though. Call her what she is. An adulterer and a gold digger. Never print what you can’t prove.