TES, but only if the entire TRUTH comes out. She looks as hard as nails. I wonder if that "doctor" who wrote about tRump's excellent health was one of her clients, now being blackmailed to do as he is told?

So THAT is how he is paying for the campaign!

Won't they have to produce the evidence for the articles? Maybe those statements are true.

than will effect the election. This is probably how he's going to get around her having that promised press conference explaining her immigration (probably illegal) process. Now they can say they can't say anything because of "ongoing court case". She obviously can't come up with the paperwork to prove she didn't work while she was not supposed to be working.

Of the two... the daily mail is far worse
They are the definition of cage liner and rag
And they seem to be proud of it

I can't speak for the paper as I don't read it. I don't know how much hype may be part of their coverage. I notice NO other outlet has been sued over any similar commentary regarding her past employment or her visa history, ie: Huffington Post, NYT, SALON, WaPO, etc.

Was the Daily Mail outrageously exaggerated in its coverage of these questions? Or does this suit serve notice to other Media outlets?

I wonder if any of this may also be some kind of back and forth between Lord Rupert's universe of awful fantasy and his scandal sheet competition at Daily Mail with the Trumps acting proxy for Murdoch/Fox spews/ the SUN et al?

demand the purveyor prove the truth of its statements. In the U.S., the "victim" of defamation has to prove the falsity.

The Daily Mail may be a rag journalistically, but I'm guessing it has qualified legal counsel who looked at the documents before the paper published the story about Melania Trump. It's ready for court.

doesn't that make it the other way around? And won't there be discovery?

This could backfire on them.

Congress banned those requirements in 1970 in Section 202 of the Voting Rights Act (Amendments).

Back when the voting age was 21. 1970-21=1949.

Which would make you at least 28 years *older* than 47.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8139981

In the Sullivan decision, the Supreme Court spelled out that there were different libel standards for public and non-public figures.

For public figures: For a public figure to prevail, they must prove "actual malice" which can be a significant challenge.

For non-public figures, the bar is far lower.

In Ms. Trump's case, they probably felt that they had sufficient evidence to prove meet the "actual malice" requirement.

profession. How much do you have to sell your soul to work for Trump?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

She certainly seems to have an overinflated ego of her worth. Then again... it seems to run in the family.

But I doubt it.