First lady Melania Trump filed a third lawsuit against the Daily Mail after it accused her of being an escort and argued the allegations cost her once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity of cashing in on her husband Donald Trump’s presidency.
It’s unbelievable how thick-headed the Trump family is that, despite the fact the issue of conflict of interest has come up again and again, they refuse to be deterred from their own selfish agendas.
To top it all, now Trump wants compensation for that false allegations that she argues cost her her very own fashion brand.
”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,” her Manhattan lawsuit states. “These product categories would have included, among other things, apparel, accessories, shoes, jewelry, cosmetics, hair care, skin care and fragrance.”
The first lady is asking for $150 million in damages from the Daily Mail — that’s restitution for something that is already unethical in the first place.
It seems out of the entire Trump family, Tiffany and Barron Trump are the only ones who have not yet been charged with using their father’s new-found power for personal gains.
First daughter Ivanka Trump tried to advertise her fashion brand multiple times during Trump’s presidential campaign. Once her father was elected, she once again tried to cash in by auctioning off a coffee date starting from $50,000. Thankfully, that was canceled.
In fact, the new president himself has, not once but multiple times, tried to profit from his presidency. His latest attempt involved raising the membership fee of his exclusive Mar-a-Lago resort, which he often visits, from $100,000 to $200,000.
Even though he says he has given the reigns of his business to his sons and will no longer be involved in the running of his real estate businesses, ethic experts are skeptic because his close relationship with his children, nevertheless, is helping him profit indirectly.
Banner/Thumbnail credit: Reuters