Melania Trump showed her Trump bona fides early in her quasi-political career.

She heard something she didn’t like in the 2016 campaign. We are not going to give her a hard time for “not liking” what was said about her. Being publicly called a prostitute doesn’t normally enhance one’s career unless you write for a living. If you write for a living, it is understood you’ll do anything for cash.

Where was I? Yes, of course, the part Melania didn’t like. In September of 2016, The Daily Mail said Melania engaged in prostitution in her first years in the United States. Up with that, Melania would not put. Like Trumps everywhere, she threatened to sue.

But, to her credit, Melania set out on her own, breaking with Trump tradition, and unlike her husband, actually did sue the Daily Mail in the United Kingdom, for $150 million. Do keep in mind, that libel laws are far far stronger in the U.K., what with the Royals and all. It is probably good to also keep in mind that just months after Melania sued, her husband happened to win the presidency.

Plaintiffs that are the spouse of the United States president often find themselves at a distinct advantage and it wouldn’t matter if the case was filed in a Greenland court.

In April of 2017, about 3 months after Trump took office, Melania “settled.” The specifics of the settlement remain under seal.

An agreed statement was read out to Mr Justice Nicol in court 14 of the Royal Courts of Justice in London on behalf of both parties. Trump will receive damages and legal costs understood to be less than $3m (£2.4m). The precise amount was not disclosed in the hearing.

Now, because the blog’s readers are highly astute, surely you’ll note that “less than $3 million” is the exact same amount as my annual salary, your loyal servant.

I am not even sure why “less than $3 million” is noted in the article, but I have a good guess. Neither camp could reveal the exact sum, but Melania’s side had serious motivation to scare any party who might consider not “being best” to Melania. Thus, Melania’s camp leaks a non-answer “less than $3 million” with the hope that few notice the “less than” or assume it was just a “little less than” the stated amount. Happens all the time in law.

All of this is water under the bridge, and Melania has not had to actually sue anyone again, but of course, she has no hope of winning even “less than $3 million” in the United States. Indeed, if she sued in the U.S., she is far more likely to end-up having to pay “over $3 million” to the defense attorneys. You will note that such reality sort of defeats the purpose of the whole thing, feel me?

But Melania remains convinced she deserves only the best flattery and still does not like references to her and prostitution in the news media. As an aside: In my mind, sex workers deserve no shame at all, and I am tired of people who do cast judgment. It is far more honest work than anything Donald Trump ever did. Unlike Trump’s, at least Melania’s clients knew from the beginning they were going to get …

My point is, any shame in the whole sex-worker thing should go to the guy who has to pay to be best on any given night. Of course, we are thinking of no one in particular. Regardless, Melania certainly did take exception to the reference and has once more been talking lawsuits. Emboldened by her success in the U.K., she renewed her pledge to sue anyone who might bring up the admirable success she seems to have had in her past employment history.

Twitter, however, has no time for litigious threats and let Melania know exactly where she could put her threats. From IBT with the backstory:

Three years later, Twitter users are still not over Melania’s actions. The issue has resurfaced, with some criticizing the FLOTUS for taking legal action and some mocking her that “it doesn’t change the fact that she has looked and behaved” like one.

And without further ado, we give you the Twitter world’s response to Melania reverting back to her litigious self (Perhaps she has run out of the “less than $3Million” she banked, I know I do, frequently.). Twitter is not known to fear libel suits, and they let it show:

Cheap & common would be a good alternative. After all, she couldn't even afford clothes in those pictures.

— Dar Andrews (@BluesyBlonde) January 5, 2020

I am told there are many pictures of Melania sans clothing. Obviously, I have never seen them, but they purportedly exist. I have also read that she engaged in soft-core porn with another worman. Once again, I say that this is honest work and I don’t hold it against her. I really want that clear. I see no shame in it, and would prefer her to ignore it or deal with it in a small joke, diffusing everything. As for evangelical hypocrisy, that’s their (and her) problem. She picked her side.

I wonder if retweeting #MelaniaTrumpIsAnExHooker will get me sued?

— The Ghost of Baron Baltimore says (@RickCalvert) January 5, 2020

Highly unlikely. In the United States, for Melania to win, she would have to definitively prove both that she was not a prostitute (it’s all in the definition, I suppose.) and that the person lied about it, knew it was false, and published it solely to hurt her. I am also an attorney, and it comes in handy once in a while. All three would be extremely difficult to prove. I also suspect that Melania doesn’t want to have to gather evidence illustrating what all went into the job description as a sub-par modeling contract.

Some were – in my mind – unnecessarily mean. Just because Melania’s not a victim, doesn’t mean it’s very nice to be so blunt.

She’s an ex-hooker. Sue me, Melanie.

— Jeremy Joel (@GoForJJ22) January 5, 2020

And finally, there may or may not be truth to this, again, I wouldn’t know. I sure wouldn’t go looking. If I happen to stumble across “nude pictures” of anyone, and take that risk around the house, I try to make it worth sleeping on the couch for a few nights.

But but, all those nudie pics all over the internet??😉

— Carolyn Charlton (@ccharlamb8) January 5, 2020

All of this leads me to conclude with an old adage.

If one is bothered by accusations that aren’t true, it is usually pretty easy to diffuse the situation. Let’s pretend she heard an accusation about prosecution. The most effective response is not “I’ll sue you,” but to laugh and say: “Ha! No, that’s not true, I assure you. (Big smile and wink) Do you think there is a man out there who can afford what I’m worth.” Smile, giggle, move on as if she never heard the question and never bring it up again.

Zing.

Takes the sting out of the question. Anyone who previously thought there was truth to it would have to do some serious recalculation. It didn’t get to her. She must not be defensive.

People make such accusations to sell copy, and see what reaction they get. If the reaction is a soft self-deprecated joke about the accusations, it won’t sell a lot of copy. But if the reaction is fury, and an insistence that the accusation cost her $150M, well at that point, one begins to think she doth protest too much, less than $3 million to much

The fact is, anyone with her background as a struggling model and immigrant would have – in my mind – nothing to apologize for if her situation made it such that she worked in her own self-interest, just like the men that pay for that type of thing.

It is not like I am on Melania’s side, but I otherwise would be, if she wasn’t out front, lobbing ridiculous litigation threats. As far as I’m concerned, Melania has far far more to apologize for with respect to the role she has played in f**king people over at the side of her “husband,” commanding in chief of the Johns.

Damn it. We’re getting sued, y’all.

And that’s your “checking-in with Melania” installment for this month.

****

Peace, y’all

Jason, [email protected]