This week on Trump, we explore the Melania Trump lawsuit, the Donald Trump 'War on Courts,' and the Ivanka Trump vs. Nordstrom war.
First, on Melania…
Melania Trump marks a first for the FLOTUS with a lawsuit against Daily News, refiling her libel lawsuit of $150 million for defamation. The accusation stems from a collection of allegations made through publications in the Daily News, where it was reported that Melania Trump apparently worked as a high-profile escort in Milan. Upon the initial opening of this lawsuit in August 2016, a month after a statement published by Melania Trump and her lawyer, the Daily Mail retracted the article and issued an apology, but the lawsuit was reopened in New York after rejection in Maryland.
What is more concerning, however, is the hopeful language used in the description of the lawsuit, where it was promptly claimed that Melania had the opportunity to launch a multi-million-dollar corporation for various products. This indicated a distinct desire to profit from the position of the First Lady, which can be highly problematic. It is very unprecedented.
Next, Ivanka…
Ivanka Trump has not left out her fair share of drama with corporate business. After the removal of Ivanka Trump’s merchandise from Nordstrom’s shelves, it has stirred up quite a lot of commotion in the political and economic sphere, particularly after the tweet from Donald Trump defending her stance. The implication drawn by the majority of news sources, as well as the public, is that Donald Trump is attempting to defend his family assets and businesses. This is a very problematic position for a President to be in, considering his oath to place his businesses in a blind trust (which he rather invested in his children with a promise that he would not act upon the interests).
As if it could not get any worse, Kelly Anne Conway’s statement was somehow much worse, not only providing no defense of the actions that were taken by Ivanka and Donald, but rather merely listing Ivanka’s perceived public image and accolade, and then following it up with an endorsement for her products, desperately dodging the question entirely. Sean Spicer’s follow-up statement appears to show that Kelly Anne Conway is being reprimanded for her action, but given what’s going on with the Trump Administration, it would not be a surprise if the “punishment” is not lessons for better and more subliminal product placements.
And finally, the Donald…
Donald Trump has obviously had some hand in a few of the earlier controversies, but he has a full repertoire of his own. After listing out countless tweets against the Seattle judge, he has further added to his repertoire of “alternative truths” and over-exaggerated claims with tweeting out a reference to a statistic that stated that 77 percent of immigrants were allowed into the United States since the ban overhaul. The study he references from The Washington Times does indeed show that, of the 1462 refugees entering the United States since the reprieve of the ban, 1,049 were from the seven countries upon which the ban was instated. However, despite the value of the number alone, the increase in a comparative nature only shows an increase of 100 immigrants.
Now, let’s analyze.
Glazing over Donald Trump’s potential inability to properly process the words presented in front of him, this series of controversies should raise some serious eyebrows for the general populace, due to not only the potential foreshadowing of what the anticipated actions of the Trump administration and family may do in this position of power, but also due to how dishonest they are being to the American people. Despite constant defensive claims about no financial ties, Donald’s continuous return to his family business is incredibly concerning, as his lack of desire to put his assets on a full blind trust and then following up on defensive statements about the business dealings of his children, to whom he entrusted his financial assets, just prove that they potentially have something to gain from the Presidency.
In terms of politics, apart from over-exaggerating statistics, his claims of the legal system being broken once again shows the sensitivity to opposition equivalent to that of a toddler. This is given the series of reactions that appeared to the decision of Judge James Robart of Seattle, the judge who made the active statement to incentivize the suspension of the immigration ban from the 7 predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East. Apart from complaints on Twitter, though, there has not been any major and rapid action against it, standing as a representation of the inaction that is to come for the next 4 years of the first term of the Trump presidency in the United States.
I honestly no longer have an idea of what to expect.
