Melania Trump - An Apology

Source: Daily Mail Online
Published: Apr 12, 2017
Author: Daily Mail and Mailonline
Post Date: 2017-04-12 20:40:45 by cranky
Views: 3147

The Mail Online website and the Daily Mail newspaper published an article on 20th August 2016 about Melania Trump which questioned the nature of her work as a professional model, and republished allegations that she provided services beyond simply modelling. The article included statements that Mrs. Trump denied the allegations and Paulo Zampolli, who ran the modelling agency, also denied the allegations, and the article also stated that there was no evidence to support the allegations. The article also claimed that Mr and Mrs Trump may have met three years before they actually met, and "staged" their actual meeting as a "ruse."

We accept that these allegations about Mrs Trump are not true and we retract and withdraw them. We apologise to Mrs Trump for any distress that our publication caused her. To settle Mrs Trump's two lawsuits against us, we have agreed to pay her damages and costs.

Post Comment   Private Reply

#1: Tooconservative    To: cranky (#0)

I read elsewhere they will pay her $3 million.

Tooconservative posted on 2017-04-12 20:45:04   Reply   Private Reply

#2: cranky    To: Tooconservative (#1)

I read elsewhere they will pay her $3 million.

The daily news sez 2.9 mil and they claim it's a massive payoff by brit standards.

I say that was one of the crappiest court ordered apologies I've ever read.

cranky posted on 2017-04-12 21:27:51   Reply   Private Reply

#3: Tooconservative    To: cranky (#2)

Even so, she won. And no other country has a court system like ours. She's very lucky to have won in Britain IMO.

You have to wonder if they were looking over Melania's shoulder, not wanting to anger Trump at England.

It reminds me of how Scottish courts let the Lockerbie bomber out of prison on "compassionate parole". British courts can be pretty corrupt is the point I'm making.

Tooconservative posted on 2017-04-13 09:45:41   Reply   Private Reply

#4: cranky    To: Tooconservative (#3)

Even so, she won.

And, imho, she won a better apology than was forthcoming from the dm.

At the very least, something along the lines of 'and the daily mail hangs its head in shame'.

If it wasn't for steerage, the dm would have no class at all.

cranky posted on 2017-04-13 10:32:36   Reply   Private Reply

#5: misterwhite    To: cranky (#2)

"Mrs. Trump denied the allegations and Paulo Zampolli, who ran the modelling agency, also denied the allegations, and the article also stated that there was no evidence to support the allegations."

Yet ... we ran with it anyways.

This is responsible journalism? This is the mainstream media? These are the people we're supposed to trust?

I've seen obscure Internet blogs that were more factual.

The Daily Mail doesn't deserve first amendment protection. If we issued first amendment publishing licenses like we issue second amendment concealed carry licenses, I'd vote to revoke theirs for wanton and reckless abuse.

misterwhite posted on 2017-04-14 13:26:49   Reply   Private Reply

#6: misterwhite    To: Tooconservative (#1)

"I read elsewhere they will pay her $3 million."

She sued for $150 million. $3 million? That should cover her legal fees. Maybe.

misterwhite posted on 2017-04-14 13:29:19   Reply   Private Reply

#7: Tooconservative    To: misterwhite (#6)

$3 million? That should cover her legal fees. Maybe.

I think it was to cover her legal fees. What she was after was the apology.

Tooconservative posted on 2017-04-14 13:52:26   Reply   Private Reply

#8: misterwhite    To: Tooconservative (#7)

"What she was after was the apology."

An apology and $150 million. She ended up with an apology and legal fees.

Which is better than a sharp stick in the eye, but the Daily Mail got away with the absolute minimum. They should have been made to squeal just a bit.

misterwhite posted on 2017-04-14 14:42:04   Reply   Private Reply

#9: Tooconservative    To: misterwhite (#8)

Trump will declare victory and walk away. And any other Melania gossip will no longer surface as long as Trump is prez. At least, not in NATO countries.

So we shouldn't care too much either IMO.

Tooconservative posted on 2017-04-14 14:44:23   Reply   Private Reply

#10: misterwhite    To: Tooconservative (#9)

Use this as a springboard to overturn New York Times Co. v. Sullivan which requires a public figure to prove that the publisher acted with actual malice. In other words, eliminate the higher standard for a public figure.

Trump did talk about this on the campaign trail.

misterwhite posted on 2017-04-14 14:55:24   Reply   Private Reply

#11: Tooconservative    To: misterwhite (#10)

Use this as a springboard to overturn New York Times Co. v. Sullivan which requires a public figure to prove that the publisher acted with actual malice. In other words, eliminate the higher standard for a public figure.

I wouldn't. You end up with a system like the one in Britain that most often defends the rights of the guilty.

It was a major victory to win this in a Brit court. Hence my suggestion that fear-of-Trump may have played a role.

I kinda think Melania would have lost the lawsuit if Trump hadn't won the WH.

Tooconservative posted on 2017-04-14 15:31:32   Reply   Private Reply

#12: misterwhite    To: Tooconservative (#11)

"I kinda think Melania would have lost the lawsuit if Trump hadn't won the WH."

Perhaps. Then again she could point to loss as due, in part, to the Daily Mail article -- entitling her to additional compensation.

misterwhite posted on 2017-04-14 18:58:46   Reply   Private Reply