On Thursday, lawyers representing the Melania Trump, wife of U.S presidential hopeful, Donald Trump, filed a lawsuit for $150 million in damages against the Daily Mail in Maryland state court.
Melania Trump is not only suing the Daily Mail but also a blogger, Webster Tarpley. The Daily Mail incurred the wrath of the Trumps’s when they published in August rumors that Melania Trump had worked as an escort in the 1990s.
The article had also once again raised up questions of Melania Trump’s immigration status after they published allegations that Trump came to New York a year earlier than she has claimed.
Already last month the lawyer’s had announced while calling the rumors “100% false”, that Trump was considering a suit. In a statement made after filing the suit this month, Charles Harder, Trump’s lawyer had this to say;
“These defendants made several statements about Mrs. Trump that are 100% false and tremendously damaging to her personal and professional reputation [and] broadcast their lies to millions of people throughout the US and the world – without any justification.
Their many lies include, among others, that Mrs. Trump supposedly was an ‘escort’ in the 1990s before she met her husband. Defendants’ actions are so egregious, malicious and harmful to Mrs. Trump that her damages are estimated at $150m.”
Webster Tarpley, on her end had published a blog post (which has now been retracted) claiming, per the suit, that “it is widely known Melania was not a working model but rather a high-end escort” and that Melania Trump had a “mental breakdown” after the plagiarism controversy over her Republican national convention speech.
Daily Mail published a retraction to the article on Friday where they stated that;
“We did not intend to state or suggest that these allegations are true, nor did we intend to state or suggest that Mrs. Trump ever worked as an ‘escort’ or in the ‘sex business'”
They also added that their article had included denials from a Trump spokesperson and the owner of the modeling agency in question. Charles Harder, however, when asked if the retraction would take care of the suit, replied in the negative even though the lawsuit had noted that while the article had been removed from the Daily Mail’s website, the newspaper had yet to apologize or formally retract.