tracylynn
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,870
Jun 26, 2014 22:49:09 GMT
|
Post by tracylynn on Feb 7, 2017 22:54:55 GMT
Coming back with my opinion.
I have no problem with her suing them for defamation of character (or whatever the legal term is), that's unethical and they shouldn't have done it.
But the loss of a once-in-a-lifetime chance to cash in? Her husband's taking care of that all by himself. It's only defamation if it's not true. My understanding is there are lots of things to point to the fact that it is in fact true.
|
|
|
Post by icequeen on Feb 7, 2017 22:56:55 GMT
I'm sure when they've left the WH, Melania will be able to make $$$$ as an ex-FLOTUS. I don't think suing today for potential loss of income for being famous is a priority. It's not like she needs the money now. Or is she building a nest egg to fly the coop in four years?
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Feb 7, 2017 23:05:32 GMT
Coming back with my opinion.
I have no problem with her suing them for defamation of character (or whatever the legal term is), that's unethical and they shouldn't have done it.
But the loss of a once-in-a-lifetime chance to cash in? Her husband's taking care of that all by himself. It's only defamation if it's not true. My understanding is there are lots of things to point to the fact that it is in fact true. Oh I see. In that case....
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Feb 7, 2017 23:55:39 GMT
I'm sure when they've left the WH, Melania will be able to make $$$$ as an ex-FLOTUS. I don't think suing today for potential loss of income for being famous is a priority. It's not like she needs the money now. Or is she building a nest egg to fly the coop in four years? If she doesn't act or represent as FLOTUS, in my opinion, she shouldn't be paid for it. She has no intention to be FLOTUS in any way except name. She may not even live in the WH at all from what I've heard. Why should she get paid for doing nothing?
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Feb 7, 2017 23:58:34 GMT
Elise, from what I read, they settled the blog post out of court. The blogger retracted as ordered and paid.
This has nothing to do with anything but bitching that her line can't be sold through the White House and while Trump is President I believe.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Feb 8, 2017 0:07:12 GMT
Coming back with my opinion.
I have no problem with her suing them for defamation of character (or whatever the legal term is), that's unethical and they shouldn't have done it.
But the loss of a once-in-a-lifetime chance to cash in? Her husband's taking care of that all by himself. If she was never an escort/prostitute, she has every right. This, however "”Plaintiff had the unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as an extremely famous and well-known person…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,” the Manhattan suit says." Ridiculous! Just because I am a woman, does not mean I should support this part of the lawsuit. The biggest problem is her husband. There's giant backlash against buying anything Trump.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Feb 8, 2017 0:33:05 GMT
I need help here. Talk to me like I'm five.
Is it Mrs. Trump's claim that the blogger's words affected her reputation so drastically that it prevented her from these commercial pursuits?
And when did the blogger write this?
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 8, 2017 0:46:54 GMT
I need help here. Talk to me like I'm five. Is it Mrs. Trump's claim that the blogger's words affected her reputation so drastically that it prevented her from these commercial pursuits? And when did the blogger write this? Blogger Tarpley posts about Melanie in August 2016. She filed suit against blogger and corporation that publishes blog in Maryland. Suit against corporation disallowed in Maryland as no standing there but suit against blogger allowed to continue. Blogger issues retraction and apology and undisclosed financial settlement. Melanie refilled against corporation in New York as that is where their offices are located. As part of libel or defamation suit you must have damages. She claims the erroneous allegations damaged her ability to make money as a celebrity.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Feb 8, 2017 0:55:21 GMT
I need help here. Talk to me like I'm five. Is it Mrs. Trump's claim that the blogger's words affected her reputation so drastically that it prevented her from these commercial pursuits? And when did the blogger write this? Blogger Tarpley posts about Melanie in August 2016. She filed suit against blogger and corporation that publishes blog in Maryland. Suit against corporation disallowed in Maryland as no standing there but suit against blogger allowed to continue. Blogger issues retraction and apology and undisclosed financial settlement. Melanie refilled against corporation in New York as that is where their offices are located. As part of libel or defamation suit you must have damages. She claims the erroneous allegations damaged her ability to make money as a celebrity. Thanks. I wonder how one proves damage to ability to make money as a celebrity. Especially when the source of one's celebrity/notoriety changed so remarkably in the intervening months since the offense.
|
|
|
Post by gulfcoastgirl on Feb 8, 2017 1:07:26 GMT
I find myself amazed at the commentary here. The blogger said Melania served as an escort. She did not. She sued to clear her name. It was cleared. I promise you that if anyone had done this to Michelle Obama and she had sued, you would have been on fire in defense of her. GOOD for Melania for not standing for this. I feel sorry for her. Even on this list of liberals who insist they are tolerant she is tarred all the time with her husband's brush. I don't blame her for fighting back. Look at what happens on this very list. Even with the frequent insistence that her past should not be brought up and as a woman she should be empowered to do whatever she likes, almost every thread with her name in it results in the reminder that she posed for "soft porn" photos. Even though it was YEARS ago and even though in Europe this isn't even a blip on the radar. I do not blame her one bit for fighting back since her whole character is blackened all the time for those photos--imagine what would happen to her if people really believed she was a former escort. We are supposed to be SUPPORTING each other as women! Isn't that what the women's march was all about. Oh, dear. We're not being UGLY, are we?
|
|
|
Post by annabella on Feb 8, 2017 1:12:33 GMT
I find myself amazed at the commentary here. The blogger said Melania served as an escort. She did not. She sued to clear her name. It was cleared. I promise you that if anyone had done this to Michelle Obama and she had sued, you would have been on fire in defense of her. GOOD for Melania for not standing for this. I feel sorry for her. Even on this list of liberals who insist they are tolerant she is tarred all the time with her husband's brush. I don't blame her for fighting back. Look at what happens on this very list. Even with the frequent insistence that her past should not be brought up and as a woman she should be empowered to do whatever she likes, almost every thread with her name in it results in the reminder that she posed for "soft porn" photos. Even though it was YEARS ago and even though in Europe this isn't even a blip on the radar. I do not blame her one bit for fighting back since her whole character is blackened all the time for those photos--imagine what would happen to her if people really believed she was a former escort. We are supposed to be SUPPORTING each other as women! Isn't that what the women's march was all about. Here's the thing, people say false stuff about celebrities all the time. What about the Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio affairs? I watched Beyonce's movie and she was pissed people thought she had a surrogate carry her child, that's why this time around she posted skin pictures of her pregnant belly. The fact of the matter is the blogger retracted his statements and apologized, as did Rosie about Barron. The only other person nasty enough to drag a lawsuit out against a rumor mill was Tom Cruise and the gay rumors. Where there's smoke there's fire. Vanessa Williams had to give up her Miss America crown, the pageant that was owned by Donald Trump. We are not in Europe, we are in a country where women of a certain caliber don't pose nude. Rumors about being an escort would never even circulate around educated women like Michelle and Laura Bush. But Michelle did have plenty rumors out there, that she never sued over. There were plenty of people at the march with signs asking Melania to blink if she needs help. But since when are women supposed to support all women? I don't support KellyAnne Conway or a woman who is married to the worst possible thing that happened to our country or his daughter's fashion line with my wallet.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 20:37:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 1:12:49 GMT
I find myself amazed at the commentary here. The blogger said Melania served as an escort. She did not. She sued to clear her name. It was cleared. I promise you that if anyone had done this to Michelle Obama and she had sued, you would have been on fire in defense of her. GOOD for Melania for not standing for this. I feel sorry for her. Even on this list of liberals who insist they are tolerant she is tarred all the time with her husband's brush. I don't blame her for fighting back. Look at what happens on this very list. Even with the frequent insistence that her past should not be brought up and as a woman she should be empowered to do whatever she likes, almost every thread with her name in it results in the reminder that she posed for "soft porn" photos. Even though it was YEARS ago and even though in Europe this isn't even a blip on the radar. I do not blame her one bit for fighting back since her whole character is blackened all the time for those photos--imagine what would happen to her if people really believed she was a former escort. We are supposed to be SUPPORTING each other as women! Isn't that what the women's march was all about. Maybe if Michelle ("OMG her arms are bare!!!!) Obama had had pictures taken buck naked, spread legs, w/her hand covering her PU**Y, your comparison of their situations had it been alleged that they had both served as escorts would have merit. Til then, spare me!
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Feb 8, 2017 1:30:34 GMT
I promise you that if anyone had done this to Michelle Obama and she had sued, you would have been on fire in defense of her. GOOD for Melania for not standing for this Again you can't make ANY point without bringing the previous administration into it? Ever? Plus you always make an assumption about something that DID NOT HAPPEN. It's not a valid point to compare something that did happen to something that did not happen and claiming you know exactly what anyone or everyone would have said about the thing that did not happen. FFS, can you ever say anything that isn't " IF Obama/Clinton did it then YOU WOULD HAVE..." Michelle Obama never posed nude, there are no pictures of her boobs and barely covered vulva in GQ magazine nor are there any photos of her nude with her arms wrapped around another nude woman or with her legs apart and her hands covering her pussy. When there are - then you can legitimately compare the reaction of people to the two women...but until those images of Michelle Obama exist then you are not able to make any legitimate comparison. You can't "promise" anyone anything about this - it's all just a little fantasy scenario in your own head and not a valid point. *If* she didn't work as an escort then fine, she should seek to have that corrected publically and she should expect a public apology. However submitting a multi-million dollar law suit for damages for money she thinks she could have made being first lady is avaricious and in my opinion not something befitting of position of First Lady. She shouldn't be there thinking about how much money she can make out of this. That just lowers her even further in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by anonrefugee on Feb 8, 2017 1:40:31 GMT
Like any third world dictator would do. This must be your least presidential President (and first family) ever? It's a civil suit - I don't understand your or terri comments. Darcy, you're holding us to the facts I see terri has already replied, so my comment might be irrelevant. I equated her comment to Trumps exploiting every opportunity, for fame, notoriety or cash- not literally that it would be tax dollars. But I admit I'm going over the edge. I've always been someone believing we should hope for the best for our president. This one is making that difficult, I don't believe he is doing the same for us, or US. But maybe I need to step back. Sorry. Devos appointment has discouraged me. I thought 1-2 republicans would step up.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Feb 8, 2017 1:52:18 GMT
I find myself amazed at the commentary here. The blogger said Melania served as an escort. She did not. She sued to clear her name. It was cleared. I promise you that if anyone had done this to Michelle Obama and she had sued, you would have been on fire in defense of her. GOOD for Melania for not standing for this. I feel sorry for her. Even on this list of liberals who insist they are tolerant she is tarred all the time with her husband's brush. I don't blame her for fighting back. Look at what happens on this very list. Even with the frequent insistence that her past should not be brought up and as a woman she should be empowered to do whatever she likes, almost every thread with her name in it results in the reminder that she posed for "soft porn" photos. Even though it was YEARS ago and even though in Europe this isn't even a blip on the radar. I do not blame her one bit for fighting back since her whole character is blackened all the time for those photos--imagine what would happen to her if people really believed she was a former escort. We are supposed to be SUPPORTING each other as women! Isn't that what the women's march was all about. You are missing the point(s). She is suing someone because she isn't able to take advantage of her status as FLOTUS. THAT is a problem. She shouldn't be going into this using it as a money maker. This has also been a concern of many in regards to her husband. This lawsuit makes it even more of a concern that he is more concerned about his own businesses than the people of the US. Second, I find it extremely hypocritical (although really, what isn't with this administration?) that she is suing someone for saying negative things about her when her husband has attempted to ruin the lives of many individuals and companies just in the last year. Heck, wasn't he caught on tape doing as much just today?
|
|
|
Post by silverlining on Feb 8, 2017 1:59:41 GMT
If you want false news to go away, the last thing you want to do is sue after you're the FLOTUS when the whole case will be heavily covered, and many people who never saw the original article will become aware of it.
I really wonder who is advising her.
And why oh why would her own legal team bring up the fact that she could make lots of profits in the time window that she is the First Lady???
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 8, 2017 2:10:54 GMT
i've said it before and i'll say it again---they are capitalizing on this Presidency. they will milk it for generations to come. they don't give a crap about the country. the next four years is just an opportunity for him and his rich friends to gain inside government info that will enrich themselves in the long run. This x 1,000,000,000
|
|
|
Post by M~ on Feb 8, 2017 2:58:06 GMT
I find myself amazed at the commentary here. The blogger said Melania served as an escort. She did not. She sued to clear her name. It was cleared. I promise you that if anyone had done this to Michelle Obama and she had sued, you would have been on fire in defense of her. GOOD for Melania for not standing for this. I feel sorry for her. Even on this list of liberals who insist they are tolerant she is tarred all the time with her husband's brush. I don't blame her for fighting back. Look at what happens on this very list. Even with the frequent insistence that her past should not be brought up and as a woman she should be empowered to do whatever she likes, almost every thread with her name in it results in the reminder that she posed for "soft porn" photos. Even though it was YEARS ago and even though in Europe this isn't even a blip on the radar. I do not blame her one bit for fighting back since her whole character is blackened all the time for those photos--imagine what would happen to her if people really believed she was a former escort. We are supposed to be SUPPORTING each other as women! Isn't that what the women's march was all about. I distinctly remember some board members on the right side of the aisle making fun of Michelle Obama's figure and clothing choices. If I recall correctly, there was even a post of her backside and that of other politician's wives. The chickens have have come home to roost. So to speak. The liberals are the ones who get to sharpen the knives for some delicious chicken soup. And OH BABY. Karma. It doesn't knock. It hunts you down.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Feb 8, 2017 2:58:44 GMT
Okay, I think I finally get it. I was still struggling with the word salad about earnings and celebrity.
So, she wants to be made whole because the escort claim will interfere with potential earnings from any commercial ventures - earnings that she should expect to be substantial because of her present-or-past fame as First Lady. She can still launch those ventures but argues she will earn less because of the escort claim.
Yes?
(Am I the only one who didn't know about this escort claim?)
(Also, I can't help it, but I'm kinda' a prude about those photos - and I'm rather surprised they're dismissed so cavalierly by some here. Somebody was arguing last week that they're "art photos." Now that I see them, that would not be my first description, whether American or European. Her body/her choice, of course, but I would be amazed if previous First Ladies would get the same acceptance.)
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Feb 8, 2017 3:10:32 GMT
Yes, she seems to think she can earn $150 million dollars in commercial ventures while being the First Lady, and that the claims of her being an escort have/will jeopardise that earning potential.
Therefore she is suing for that amount...(that she hasn't actually earned and probably wouldn't...but never mind on that small detail).
I've heard about the escort claim several times.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Feb 8, 2017 3:20:06 GMT
Okay, I think I finally get it. I was still struggling with the word salad about earnings and celebrity. So, she wants to be made whole because the escort claim will interfere with potential earnings from any commercial ventures - earnings that she should expect to be substantial because of her present-or-past fame as First Lady. She can still launch those ventures but argues she will earn less because of the escort claim. Yes? (Am I the only one who didn't know about this escort claim?) (Also, I can't help it, but I'm kinda' a prude about those photos - and I'm rather surprised they're dismissed so cavalierly by some here. Somebody was arguing last week that they're "art photos." Now that I see them, that would not be my first description, whether American or European. Her body/her choice, of course, but I would be amazed if previous First Ladies would get the same acceptance.) I personally don't care about the photos. But I care about the hypocrisy. People flipped their lids over Michelle Obama's bare arms and what not - yet shrug off these pictures. And I'm getting a kick out of the fact that I marched to support these two capitalizing on their positions to line their pockets at the expense of the American people. Funny she is so concerned about her potential earnings - yet the taxpayers are paying a ton of money because she won't move to the White House. If she isn't even nominally filling the role of FLOTUS, I'm not sure how she can even argue that her earnings from being FLOTUS will take a hit.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Feb 8, 2017 3:27:02 GMT
Yes, she seems to think she can earn $150 million dollars in commercial ventures while being the First Lady, and that the claims of her being an escort have/will jeopardise that earning potential. Therefore she is suing for that amount...(that she hasn't actually earned and probably wouldn't...but never mind on that small detail). Okay, got it. In that case, I would understand her suing to defend her name/honor, but I'm more than a bit put off by the financial argument. Of course, maybe there's some legal reason she had to do it that way, but it appears wincingly mercenary to this unlegal mind. And the reminders upthread about the untrue claims both she and her husband have made about others also rankle.
|
|
|
Post by annabella on Feb 8, 2017 3:42:10 GMT
I personally don't care about the photos. But I care about the hypocrisy. People flipped their lids over Michelle Obama's bare arms and what not - yet shrug off these pictures. And Michelle wearing long shorts at the Grand Canyon and Barack setting a new precedent for being the only President to expose his toes in flip-flops, remember that scandal? Or the time that Barack wore a khaki summer suit, that was big news! I was just thinking these new pics of him kiteboarding, exposing his armpit hair is kind of racy. Never seen that for any other politician. lol Meanwhile Melania naked, not a peep.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Feb 8, 2017 4:09:43 GMT
It's a civil suit - I don't understand your or terri comments. Darcy, you're holding us to the facts I see terri has already replied, so my comment might be irrelevant. I equated her comment to Trumps exploiting every opportunity, for fame, notoriety or cash- not literally that it would be tax dollars. But I admit I'm going over the edge. I've always been someone believing we should hope for the best for our president. This one is making that difficult, I don't believe he is doing the same for us, or US. But maybe I need to step back. Sorry. Devos appointment has discouraged me. I thought 1-2 republicans would step up. Hey, it's ok, some of this stuff can get emotional for all of us. Put on your jammies, get some ice cream & binge-watch COPS. Or whatever show floats your boat.
|
|
scrappinghappy
Pearl Clutcher
“I’m late, I’m late for a very important date. No time to say “Hello.” Goodbye. I’m late...."
Posts: 4,306
Jun 26, 2014 19:30:06 GMT
|
Post by scrappinghappy on Feb 8, 2017 4:11:47 GMT
I keep looking for the words "The Onion"
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Feb 8, 2017 4:12:15 GMT
I was just thinking these new pics of him kiteboarding, exposing his armpit hair is kind of racy. Never seen that for any other politician. lol Lucky you! This is Tony Abbott our ex Prime Minister, we saw plenty of pictures like this while he was still in office:
As much as I like Obama, I really wouldn't want to see this much of him either...
|
|
|
Post by snowsilver on Feb 8, 2017 4:17:25 GMT
Annabella said:
You know, Annabella, if Melania poses nude while she is FIRST LADY I promise you you'll hear thundering criticism from me. I never once criticized either of the Obamas for their attire and neither did MOST of the conservatives. Yes, there were a FEW who said something, but it was not the majority.
And yet, YOU, think it's fine to make a disparaging comment about Melania and her "squinty' eyes. And not one of the liberals on this board had a problem with that at all. Not even the well respected ones that I personally enjoying discussing things with. Can you all not see the hypocrisy with this?
|
|
used2scrap
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,036
Jan 29, 2016 3:02:55 GMT
|
Post by used2scrap on Feb 8, 2017 4:40:25 GMT
Where is the thundering criticism of the millions of dollars she is costing taxpayers as FIRST LADY? Perhaps she is seeking at least $150 million in damages to pay the taxpayers back, not because on the day her husband was inaugurated her QVC line of jewelry was noted on the White House website (since removed, but why was it ever there to begin with?).
And can you not see the hypocrisy in complaining about commentary on her looks (she's a model, occupational hazard right?) when her husband, the POTUS, is given free reign to judge women as flat chested ugly less than 10s, and grab them by the pu**y if they actually are tens? Where was the thundering criticism when candidate Trump called a former Sec of State, Presidential candidate a "nasty woman"?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 20:37:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 5:16:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Feb 8, 2017 5:19:39 GMT
Melania Trump's attys argued in court that a perk of being First Lady is all of the multi-million dollar business relationships she wants reap. While the statement from the WH is that she “has no intention” of using her public position for personal gain. Which translates into the lawsuit and "I'll just get $150 million payout for doing absolutely nothing"
|
|