Melania Wins Libel Case Against UK Newspaper

[mudwhistle]

The UK doesn't have the same laws we currently enjoy in the US. Dishonest journalists are protected in America when they go too far. Not so in the UK.

Melania won a lawsuit against the Daily Telegraph.

January 26, 2019
Melania Trump wins ‘substantial’ libel settlement for a British newspaper article based on a Trump-hating American journalist’s new book
By Thomas Lifson
There are quite a few news articles this morning about Melania Trump’s second libel triumph over a conservative British newspaper that published false derogatory tales about her past in Slovenia. But very few mentions of how the Daily Telegraph, known as a the “quality” conservative broadsheet in the UK got into such trouble.

Not the New York Times nor USA Today, nor Bloomberg, for example, ventured to explain what source led the Daily Telegraph to end up repudiating so many of its contentions, and paying a lot of money, plus attorney’s fees, to Mrs. Trump and publish this:

Following last Saturday’s (Jan 19) Telegraph magazine cover story “The mystery of Melania”, we have been asked to make clear that the article contained a number of false statements which we accept should not have been published. Mrs Trump’s father was not a fearsome presence and did not control the family. Mrs Trump did not leave her Design and Architecture course at University relating to the completion of an exam, as alleged in the article, but rather because she wanted to pursue a successful career as a professional model. Mrs Trump was not struggling in her modelling career before she met Mr Trump, and she did not advance in her career due to the assistance of Mr Trump.

We accept that Mrs Trump was a successful professional model in her own right before she met her husband and obtained her own modelling work without his assistance. Mrs Trump met Mr Trump in 1998, not in 1996 as stated in the article. The article also wrongly claimed that Mrs Trump’s mother, father and sister relocated to New York in 2005 to live in buildings owned by Mr Trump. They did not. The claim that Mrs Trump cried on election night is also false.

We apologise unreservedly to The First Lady and her family for any embarrassment caused by our publication of these allegations. As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs.​

Official portrait

But from the British tabloid The Express, we learn that the source for the now-disappeared Telegraph story was: “Golden Handcuffs: The Secret History of Trump’s Women by Nina Burleigh.” Ms. Burleigh already attained journalistic immortality of a sort by offering to perform oral sex on Bill Clinton in return for keeping abortion available.

“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

Under American libel law, public figures such as the first lady are almost unable to win libel cases, but the UK is quite different in that regard. So, why she is not immunized from worry over a similar suit here, she probably has little to worry about from a court. It is not exactly a sales tool to have your claims be repudiated and apologized for by a major newspaper in another country.
​

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...umphating_american_journalists_new_book_.html

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It should become habitual in the US to take the lying press into court for damages for EVERY infraction.

Change the libel/slander laws.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The UK doesn't have the same laws we currently enjoy in the US. Dishonest journalists are protected in America when they go too far. Not so in the UK.

Melania won a lawsuit against the Daily Telegraph.

January 26, 2019
Melania Trump wins ‘substantial’ libel settlement for a British newspaper article based on a Trump-hating American journalist’s new book
By Thomas Lifson
There are quite a few news articles this morning about Melania Trump’s second libel triumph over a conservative British newspaper that published false derogatory tales about her past in Slovenia. But very few mentions of how the Daily Telegraph, known as a the “quality” conservative broadsheet in the UK got into such trouble.

Not the New York Times nor USA Today, nor Bloomberg, for example, ventured to explain what source led the Daily Telegraph to end up repudiating so many of its contentions, and paying a lot of money, plus attorney’s fees, to Mrs. Trump and publish this:

Following last Saturday’s (Jan 19) Telegraph magazine cover story “The mystery of Melania”, we have been asked to make clear that the article contained a number of false statements which we accept should not have been published. Mrs Trump’s father was not a fearsome presence and did not control the family. Mrs Trump did not leave her Design and Architecture course at University relating to the completion of an exam, as alleged in the article, but rather because she wanted to pursue a successful career as a professional model. Mrs Trump was not struggling in her modelling career before she met Mr Trump, and she did not advance in her career due to the assistance of Mr Trump.

We accept that Mrs Trump was a successful professional model in her own right before she met her husband and obtained her own modelling work without his assistance. Mrs Trump met Mr Trump in 1998, not in 1996 as stated in the article. The article also wrongly claimed that Mrs Trump’s mother, father and sister relocated to New York in 2005 to live in buildings owned by Mr Trump. They did not. The claim that Mrs Trump cried on election night is also false.

We apologise unreservedly to The First Lady and her family for any embarrassment caused by our publication of these allegations. As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs.​

Official portrait

But from the British tabloid The Express, we learn that the source for the now-disappeared Telegraph story was: “Golden Handcuffs: The Secret History of Trump’s Women by Nina Burleigh.” Ms. Burleigh already attained journalistic immortality of a sort by offering to perform oral sex on Bill Clinton in return for keeping abortion available.

“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

Under American libel law, public figures such as the first lady are almost unable to win libel cases, but the UK is quite different in that regard. So, why she is not immunized from worry over a similar suit here, she probably has little to worry about from a court. It is not exactly a sales tool to have your claims be repudiated and apologized for by a major newspaper in another country.​

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...umphating_american_journalists_new_book_.html

I cant see the link to that book. Maybe its me but I cant see it.

 

[Marion Morrison]

It should become habitual in the US to take the lying press into court for damages for EVERY infraction.

Change the libel/slander laws.

There used to be some, not super-long ago either.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Melania won a huge judgment last year against the Daily Mail for calling her an escort.

The lies persist. The US is a nation of liars and those who believe them no matter how much truth is presented.

 

[mudwhistle]

It should become habitual in the US to take the lying press into court for damages for EVERY infraction.

Change the libel/slander laws.

I guarantee that if the Democrats ever take total control they'll change the constitution so that the press won't be free anymore.
That's really why they're doing this.
They create the problem.....and the left blames the problem on conservatives.....and then they call for ending freedoms.

 

[K9Buck]

The UK doesn't have the same laws we currently enjoy in the US. Dishonest journalists are protected in America when they go too far. Not so in the UK.

Melania won a lawsuit against the Daily Telegraph.

January 26, 2019
Melania Trump wins ‘substantial’ libel settlement for a British newspaper article based on a Trump-hating American journalist’s new book
By Thomas Lifson
There are quite a few news articles this morning about Melania Trump’s second libel triumph over a conservative British newspaper that published false derogatory tales about her past in Slovenia. But very few mentions of how the Daily Telegraph, known as a the “quality” conservative broadsheet in the UK got into such trouble.

Not the New York Times nor USA Today, nor Bloomberg, for example, ventured to explain what source led the Daily Telegraph to end up repudiating so many of its contentions, and paying a lot of money, plus attorney’s fees, to Mrs. Trump and publish this:

Following last Saturday’s (Jan 19) Telegraph magazine cover story “The mystery of Melania”, we have been asked to make clear that the article contained a number of false statements which we accept should not have been published. Mrs Trump’s father was not a fearsome presence and did not control the family. Mrs Trump did not leave her Design and Architecture course at University relating to the completion of an exam, as alleged in the article, but rather because she wanted to pursue a successful career as a professional model. Mrs Trump was not struggling in her modelling career before she met Mr Trump, and she did not advance in her career due to the assistance of Mr Trump.

We accept that Mrs Trump was a successful professional model in her own right before she met her husband and obtained her own modelling work without his assistance. Mrs Trump met Mr Trump in 1998, not in 1996 as stated in the article. The article also wrongly claimed that Mrs Trump’s mother, father and sister relocated to New York in 2005 to live in buildings owned by Mr Trump. They did not. The claim that Mrs Trump cried on election night is also false.

We apologise unreservedly to The First Lady and her family for any embarrassment caused by our publication of these allegations. As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs.​

Official portrait

But from the British tabloid The Express, we learn that the source for the now-disappeared Telegraph story was: “Golden Handcuffs: The Secret History of Trump’s Women by Nina Burleigh.” Ms. Burleigh already attained journalistic immortality of a sort by offering to perform oral sex on Bill Clinton in return for keeping abortion available.

“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

Under American libel law, public figures such as the first lady are almost unable to win libel cases, but the UK is quite different in that regard. So, why she is not immunized from worry over a similar suit here, she probably has little to worry about from a court. It is not exactly a sales tool to have your claims be repudiated and apologized for by a major newspaper in another country.​

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...umphating_american_journalists_new_book_.html

Wasn't this announced last June or before?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The UK doesn't have the same laws we currently enjoy in the US. Dishonest journalists are protected in America when they go too far. Not so in the UK.

Melania won a lawsuit against the Daily Telegraph.

January 26, 2019
Melania Trump wins ‘substantial’ libel settlement for a British newspaper article based on a Trump-hating American journalist’s new book
By Thomas Lifson
There are quite a few news articles this morning about Melania Trump’s second libel triumph over a conservative British newspaper that published false derogatory tales about her past in Slovenia. But very few mentions of how the Daily Telegraph, known as a the “quality” conservative broadsheet in the UK got into such trouble.

Not the New York Times nor USA Today, nor Bloomberg, for example, ventured to explain what source led the Daily Telegraph to end up repudiating so many of its contentions, and paying a lot of money, plus attorney’s fees, to Mrs. Trump and publish this:

Following last Saturday’s (Jan 19) Telegraph magazine cover story “The mystery of Melania”, we have been asked to make clear that the article contained a number of false statements which we accept should not have been published. Mrs Trump’s father was not a fearsome presence and did not control the family. Mrs Trump did not leave her Design and Architecture course at University relating to the completion of an exam, as alleged in the article, but rather because she wanted to pursue a successful career as a professional model. Mrs Trump was not struggling in her modelling career before she met Mr Trump, and she did not advance in her career due to the assistance of Mr Trump.

We accept that Mrs Trump was a successful professional model in her own right before she met her husband and obtained her own modelling work without his assistance. Mrs Trump met Mr Trump in 1998, not in 1996 as stated in the article. The article also wrongly claimed that Mrs Trump’s mother, father and sister relocated to New York in 2005 to live in buildings owned by Mr Trump. They did not. The claim that Mrs Trump cried on election night is also false.

We apologise unreservedly to The First Lady and her family for any embarrassment caused by our publication of these allegations. As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs.​

Official portrait

But from the British tabloid The Express, we learn that the source for the now-disappeared Telegraph story was: “Golden Handcuffs: The Secret History of Trump’s Women by Nina Burleigh.” Ms. Burleigh already attained journalistic immortality of a sort by offering to perform oral sex on Bill Clinton in return for keeping abortion available.

“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

Under American libel law, public figures such as the first lady are almost unable to win libel cases, but the UK is quite different in that regard. So, why she is not immunized from worry over a similar suit here, she probably has little to worry about from a court. It is not exactly a sales tool to have your claims be repudiated and apologized for by a major newspaper in another country.​

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...umphating_american_journalists_new_book_.html

Wasn't this announced last June or before?

No. That was the successful lawsuit against the Daily Mail.

 

[S.J.]

Opinions are one thing but disguising them as actual news reporting is quite another. This kind of deception should not be tolerated and FCC rules should be strengthened to insure more accuracy in the flow of information to the American people.

 

[mudwhistle]

The UK doesn't have the same laws we currently enjoy in the US. Dishonest journalists are protected in America when they go too far. Not so in the UK.

Melania won a lawsuit against the Daily Telegraph.

January 26, 2019
Melania Trump wins ‘substantial’ libel settlement for a British newspaper article based on a Trump-hating American journalist’s new book
By Thomas Lifson
There are quite a few news articles this morning about Melania Trump’s second libel triumph over a conservative British newspaper that published false derogatory tales about her past in Slovenia. But very few mentions of how the Daily Telegraph, known as a the “quality” conservative broadsheet in the UK got into such trouble.

Not the New York Times nor USA Today, nor Bloomberg, for example, ventured to explain what source led the Daily Telegraph to end up repudiating so many of its contentions, and paying a lot of money, plus attorney’s fees, to Mrs. Trump and publish this:

Following last Saturday’s (Jan 19) Telegraph magazine cover story “The mystery of Melania”, we have been asked to make clear that the article contained a number of false statements which we accept should not have been published. Mrs Trump’s father was not a fearsome presence and did not control the family. Mrs Trump did not leave her Design and Architecture course at University relating to the completion of an exam, as alleged in the article, but rather because she wanted to pursue a successful career as a professional model. Mrs Trump was not struggling in her modelling career before she met Mr Trump, and she did not advance in her career due to the assistance of Mr Trump.

We accept that Mrs Trump was a successful professional model in her own right before she met her husband and obtained her own modelling work without his assistance. Mrs Trump met Mr Trump in 1998, not in 1996 as stated in the article. The article also wrongly claimed that Mrs Trump’s mother, father and sister relocated to New York in 2005 to live in buildings owned by Mr Trump. They did not. The claim that Mrs Trump cried on election night is also false.

We apologise unreservedly to The First Lady and her family for any embarrassment caused by our publication of these allegations. As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs.​

Official portrait

But from the British tabloid The Express, we learn that the source for the now-disappeared Telegraph story was: “Golden Handcuffs: The Secret History of Trump’s Women by Nina Burleigh.” Ms. Burleigh already attained journalistic immortality of a sort by offering to perform oral sex on Bill Clinton in return for keeping abortion available.

“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

Under American libel law, public figures such as the first lady are almost unable to win libel cases, but the UK is quite different in that regard. So, why she is not immunized from worry over a similar suit here, she probably has little to worry about from a court. It is not exactly a sales tool to have your claims be repudiated and apologized for by a major newspaper in another country.​

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...umphating_american_journalists_new_book_.html

Wasn't this announced last June or before?

This is the second case she won.
The American press is lucky to be in this country.
And they support a political party that wants to take this freedom away eventually......so they won't have to bribe these corrupt assholes.

 

[Penelope]

The UK doesn't have the same laws we currently enjoy in the US. Dishonest journalists are protected in America when they go too far. Not so in the UK.

Melania won a lawsuit against the Daily Telegraph.

January 26, 2019
Melania Trump wins ‘substantial’ libel settlement for a British newspaper article based on a Trump-hating American journalist’s new book
By Thomas Lifson
There are quite a few news articles this morning about Melania Trump’s second libel triumph over a conservative British newspaper that published false derogatory tales about her past in Slovenia. But very few mentions of how the Daily Telegraph, known as a the “quality” conservative broadsheet in the UK got into such trouble.

Not the New York Times nor USA Today, nor Bloomberg, for example, ventured to explain what source led the Daily Telegraph to end up repudiating so many of its contentions, and paying a lot of money, plus attorney’s fees, to Mrs. Trump and publish this:

Following last Saturday’s (Jan 19) Telegraph magazine cover story “The mystery of Melania”, we have been asked to make clear that the article contained a number of false statements which we accept should not have been published. Mrs Trump’s father was not a fearsome presence and did not control the family. Mrs Trump did not leave her Design and Architecture course at University relating to the completion of an exam, as alleged in the article, but rather because she wanted to pursue a successful career as a professional model. Mrs Trump was not struggling in her modelling career before she met Mr Trump, and she did not advance in her career due to the assistance of Mr Trump.

We accept that Mrs Trump was a successful professional model in her own right before she met her husband and obtained her own modelling work without his assistance. Mrs Trump met Mr Trump in 1998, not in 1996 as stated in the article. The article also wrongly claimed that Mrs Trump’s mother, father and sister relocated to New York in 2005 to live in buildings owned by Mr Trump. They did not. The claim that Mrs Trump cried on election night is also false.

We apologise unreservedly to The First Lady and her family for any embarrassment caused by our publication of these allegations. As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs.​

Official portrait

But from the British tabloid The Express, we learn that the source for the now-disappeared Telegraph story was: “Golden Handcuffs: The Secret History of Trump’s Women by Nina Burleigh.” Ms. Burleigh already attained journalistic immortality of a sort by offering to perform oral sex on Bill Clinton in return for keeping abortion available.

“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

Under American libel law, public figures such as the first lady are almost unable to win libel cases, but the UK is quite different in that regard. So, why she is not immunized from worry over a similar suit here, she probably has little to worry about from a court. It is not exactly a sales tool to have your claims be repudiated and apologized for by a major newspaper in another country.​

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...umphating_american_journalists_new_book_.html

Like anyone cares.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Opinions are one thing but disguising them as actual news reporting is quite another. This kind of deception should not be tolerated and FCC rules should be strengthened to insure more accuracy in the flow of information to the American people.

It would close down most of the extreme right news outlets. There is a reason that infowars doesnt exist in the UK.

 

[S.J.]

Opinions are one thing but disguising them as actual news reporting is quite another. This kind of deception should not be tolerated and FCC rules should be strengthened to insure more accuracy in the flow of information to the American people.

It would close down most of the extreme right news outlets. There is a reason that infowars doesnt exist in the UK.

Not likely. It's consistently been outlets like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. that have been repeatedly called out on their propaganda. Infowars is a weak example of "right wing" news outlets. Most conservatives don't follow them, and they're not considered a "news outlet" anyway.

 

[caddo kid]

It should become habitual in the US to take the lying press into court for damages for EVERY infraction.

Change the libel/slander laws.

libel laws in the US are written by individual states so, good luck with your idea

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It should become habitual in the US to take the lying press into court for damages for EVERY infraction.

Change the libel/slander laws.

libel laws in the US are written by individual states so, good luck with your idea

Your point?

 

[caddo kid]

It should become habitual in the US to take the lying press into court for damages for EVERY infraction.

Change the libel/slander laws.

libel laws in the US are written by individual states so, good luck with your idea

Your point?

my point is right there in print. Lose your glasses?

Here; I will 'bold' it (all) for you.

Can you see it now?

 

[mudwhistle]

It should become habitual in the US to take the lying press into court for damages for EVERY infraction.

Change the libel/slander laws.

I guarantee that if the Democrats ever take total control they'll change the constitution so that the press won't be free anymore.
That's really why they're doing this.
They create the problem.....and the left blames the problem on conservatives.....and then they call for ending freedoms.

Opinions are one thing but disguising them as actual news reporting is quite another. This kind of deception should not be tolerated and FCC rules should be strengthened to insure more accuracy in the flow of information to the American people.

It would close down most of the extreme right news outlets. There is a reason that infowars doesnt exist in the UK.

You're an idiot.
The reason rightwing news doesn't exist in your country is because you don't have the 1st Amendment, DUMBASS.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It should become habitual in the US to take the lying press into court for damages for EVERY infraction.

Change the libel/slander laws.

libel laws in the US are written by individual states so, good luck with your idea

Your point?

my point is right there in print. Lose your glasses?

Here; I will 'bold' it (all) for you.

Can you see it now?

States cannot change their laws? That's news to me.

 

[Godboy]

Opinions are one thing but disguising them as actual news reporting is quite another. This kind of deception should not be tolerated and FCC rules should be strengthened to insure more accuracy in the flow of information to the American people.

It would close down most of the extreme right news outlets. There is a reason that infowars doesnt exist in the UK.

Not likely. It's consistently been outlets like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. that have been repeatedly called out on their propaganda. Infowars is a weak example of "right wing" news outlets. Most conservatives don't follow them, and they're not considered a "news outlet" anyway.

THANK YOU!!!!! I cant fucking stand InfoWars. Only weirdos go there.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

It should become habitual in the US to take the lying press into court for damages for EVERY infraction.

Change the libel/slander laws.

I guarantee that if the Democrats ever take total control they'll change the constitution so that the press won't be free anymore.
That's really why they're doing this.
They create the problem.....and the left blames the problem on conservatives.....and then they call for ending freedoms.

Opinions are one thing but disguising them as actual news reporting is quite another. This kind of deception should not be tolerated and FCC rules should be strengthened to insure more accuracy in the flow of information to the American people.

It would close down most of the extreme right news outlets. There is a reason that infowars doesnt exist in the UK.

You're an idiot.
The reason rightwing news doesn't exist in your country is because you don't have the 1st Amendment, DUMBASS.

No.Its because we have libel laws that give a citizen the right to redress. You can lie all you want but there may be a reckoning. Having said that most of our media is right wing including the two papers that Melania spanked.

Melania isnt the first to kebab the Daily Mail and she wont be the last . The Telegraph is a bit surprising as they are generally more measured.