Melania Trump slams 'lies' linking her to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
First lady Melania Trump shreds those 'lying' about her and calls out 'smears' about alleged ties to Epstein.
First lady Melania Trump delivered a rare, brief statement Thursday afternoon at the White House, coming out swinging at those who have linked her to Jeffrey Epstein, calling them "devoid of ethical standards."
The remarks lasted roughly three minutes and did not include questions from the press.
"The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today," she said. "I do not object to their ignorance, but rather I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation."
A White House official told Fox News ahead of the event that the appearance would be a "statement" rather than a formal announcement.
Trump clarified the history between herself, her husband, President Donald Trump, and Epstein, during her remarks.
"I [have] never been friends with Epstein. Donald and I were invited to the same parties as Epstein from time to time. Since overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach," she said.
President Donald Trump spoke with MS NOW on the first lady's remarks, reportedly saying he didn't "know anything about" the statement beforehand.
He added: "[Melania] didn't know him," referring to Epstein, before hanging up with the journalist.
The first lady went on to reference several named accusers, including Democrat insider James Carville and The Daily Beast, as those who publicly apologized after linking Trump to Epstein.
"To date, several individuals and companies have been legally obligated to publicly apologize and retract their lies about me, such as The Daily Beast, James Carville and Harper Collins, UK," Trump said. "The false smears about me from mean-spirited and politically motivated individuals and entities looking to cause damage to my good name, to gain financially and climb politically, must stop. My attorneys and I have fought these unfounded and baseless lies with success and will continue to maintain my sound reputation without hesitation."
The Daily Beast pulled a story about Melania Trump being "very involved" with Epstein, based on an interview with Michael Wolff, last July after the outlet said the "article did not meet our standards."
Mrs. Trump further clarified the historical record in her statement, explaining that she met Epstein in 2000, two years after she met her husband, Donald.
"I am not Epstein's victim," Trump said. "Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump. I met my husband by chance at a New York City party in 1998. This initial encounter with my husband is documented in a detail in my book 'Melania.' The first time I crossed paths with Epstein was in the year 2000 at an event Donald and I attended together. At the time, I had never met Epstein and had no knowledge of his criminal undertakings."
The first lady also cautioned Americans concerning 'fake images' on social media related to the matter.
"Numerous fake images and statements about Epstein and me have been calculating on social media for years now," Trump said. "Be cautious about what you believe. These images and stories are completely false."
The first lady called on Congress to act on Epstein's circle, saying 'each and every woman' should have her moment to share testimony.
I call on Congress to provide the women who have been victimized by Epstein with a public hearing specifically centered around the survivors," she said. "Give these victims their opportunity to testify under oath in front of Congress with the power of sworn testimony. Each and every woman should have her day to tell her story in public if she wishes, and then her testimony should be permanently entered into the Congressional Record."
"First Lady Melania Trump spoke out now because enough is enough. The lies must stop," Mrs. Trump's senior advisor Marc Beckman told the New York Post. "It is time for the public and media to focus on her incredible achievements as First Lady, the lives she has positively impacted, and her commitment to our nation."
Melania's office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for additional comment.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Fox News Digital's Brian Flood contributed to this reporting.
Jasmine Baehr is a Breaking News Writer for Fox News Digital, where she covers politics, the military, faith and culture.
Tags
Who is online
68 visitors
Well Melania, many news organizations and social media sites ran with that shit.
It is time for lawsuits.
Did Donald tell Melania to get out there and distract from his disastrous "peace deal" ?
What peace deal? I understand there is a cease fire and negotiations will start face to face on Friday.
They have no idea.
Parroting talking points...nothing more
Hillary Clinton never met Epstein, Malaria did, so why shouldn't she have to testify under oath?
Melania is a Trump and Trumps are 'ENTITLED.'
Well, that's just it. She wants to have it out. She can testify and reporters and others who put out stories will also have to testify and if they knowingly put out or allowed false stories, they will be subject to charges of defamation.
Dumping on Melania just because she married a Trump, isn't that like dumping on a person just because of the color of their skin or their sexual preference?
So she married a man the left hates, BFD.
That has to be one of the most retarded claims I've heard yet. How do you not meet somebody your husband held in such high regard and that attended your daughters wedding?
She applied for a job for him and was turned down.
I have considered your. . . statement. . . and I find it lacking. . . care to tell me what relationship (no matter how slim) you see between me "dumped on" as black and/or homosexual has to do with Melania?
First off, I did not tell Melania to use the White House as a front (even if her 'home') in an attempt to draw on its strength to garner attention (eyeballs). She did that.
Second, she has a right to properly defend herself. . . to which end as she elaborated she has sued relevant "parties" over this very matter in the recent past. Why not do the same with these other critics seeking. . . to agitate or demystify her association with Epstein? Contact each participant in her discomfort individually or collectively.
Third, where is her context? She is. . . angry. . . that is clear. Thus, she is 'biting' off the ends of her words as she delivers this 'hasty' monologue (I listened to it) and her haste is EVIDENT that she complains about something being said about her without stating what is right or wrong about her 'critics' statements or activities. It is a 'blanket' denial of everything. . . in which case, experience tells us that there is always a kernel of truth involved in dumping someone . . . she dealt with none of the details in this hasty monologue.
Four, she turned on her. . . heels. . . rather arrogantly. . . and dismissed the assemblage disrespectfully. . . nevermind what they had to stave off, reschedule, or leave incomplete to attend her. . . 'NEEDS' to hold a presser.
Finally Snuffy, as you may or may not know. . . I do not fault first ladies' for being married to presidents. . .or monsters that lead us. She put herself out there in the spotlight. . . in the process making this about the country's business as much as her own. She stood behind a seal, a symbol of the state. . .our state. . . and spoke about Epstein and her personal 'problems.' Her own husband, the president, is on record saying he did not know about her ADDRESS TO THE NATION!
Therefore, again, tell me what this has to do with color "dumping" or "homosexuals" as I do not see how you got 'there' from Melania's passionate denial!
Go back and reread your comment of 1.2.1. It's your comment where you dumped on her because she's married to Trump and as you say, all Trumps are 'entitled'. Your words were very clear. That's dumping on a person not because of what she has done but because of who she married. So it's a simple question, if it's ok to dump on her because of her last name then you cannot object to anybody dumping on a person because of race or sexual orientation. And why do I say so, because in any of those cases you were not hurt by their actions or desires (or names).
You didn't provide any context or reasoning for your action, you made it clear that it was only because of her last name. You don't try to show how she hurt you (which I suspect she didn't but you don't seem to care about that), you just jump on the bandwagon because of her name.
What I find lacking from your statement is basic humanity. She has done nothing to you other than marry a person you don't like, and that marriage has put her firmly into the public eye. I don't know her any more than you do, but I don't dump on people just because. I try to be a better person than that.
I have no clue what your 'beef' here is. Melania is a Trump - plain and simple. Don't believe me - Ask her! Go ask her! She sleeps "Trump." She will be in history for her speech on this matter as a "Trump."
I have no clue what your beef is.
Then you dare to compare her Trump lifestyle to my experiences - perceived and lived - as a black and homosexual person going through GOP "denials of service" on a cyclic basis (the GOP right this instance is somewhere in this country . . . even foreign countries through its religious affiliations with white evangelicals, Southern Baptists ministries, and 'local' adjacent politicians, trying to sanction blacks and homosexuals over any and all advancement or achievement that makes being black and/or homosexual whole.
Do not even attempt to tell me to wait for the suppression to manifest (again) before speaking out against it.
AND YOU DARE TO INSULT ME and Others over a. . . woman. . .living a successful life through family connections and the American public writ large whom only interest is in the good name. . . not the victims surrounding this 'affair'?
Snuffy, some people's lives can not be summed up in a conservative fantasy world where there is no pain or suffering. . .if a conservative is not objectively experiencing it. Our lives, our suffering, the sh-t we show up here to 'say' on a daily basis is real and it is lived and 'felt' deeply in our being.
Recognize it even as you dare to speak on what you 'know' not!
Yes, I know what her last name is and I know the person she married. And I also know from what I read that you dumped on her because of her last name and not from anything else.
Nope, never compared her lifestyle to yours or her experiences to yours. All I said was that if you are ok at tearing down a person just because of their last name then you really have no position to be upset when other people complain and tear down others based on determinations that other people don't like such as skin color or sexual preference. I know you're black and homosexual, you've stated that clearly for several years. And I don't care one way or the other, it's your life and you get to live it the best way you can. That's life. However you have no idea who I am, what my race is or what my preferences are as I have never stated any of that on this site. I am a more private person who keeps their lifestyle choices private. You assume I'm living a "conservative fantasy world where there is no pain or suffering", but you have no clue as to who or what I am.
As far as insulting you, all I said was your statement lacked basic humanity. If that's an insult to you, then maybe it says more about your world view than you want it to.
I can only hope that you can understand what you actually wrote and understand what's behind it. I doubt if that will happen but there's always hope.
Okay. Whatever floats the 'boat' for you.
Why, she's just going to lie like Maxwell. What's the point?
really? Not if it's a jury trial. Have you seen the number of photos of the gang? The cards, letters and emails between the two?
If that isn't friendship, then what is?
The only thing it does is deflect to what she meant by "there are more "
Like Donald?
Bondi?
Congress?
You do not know what you are talking about, being neither black American or homosexual (unless you are). And yes, you can speak about either one if you wish, and if/when you do at least try to get it right!
If Melania Trump does not wish to benefit from association with the name Trump or from carrying the Trump name. . .get a divorce. . . change her last name back to Knave or Knauss - whichever she prefers, and pack and leave the White House.
This has nothing to do with race or sexuality, despite the 'urgency' you feel to exploit us one again for some 'reverse' gain that MAGA folks can't validate.
Well Snuffy, I did not "live as a black America or homosexual as best I could" - here's why: Conservatives of varying stripes since 'way back when' have been a forever pain in the lives of minorities collectively meddling, lying, looking for 'angles' to screw us over as a class, traveling the world telling people to hate us, mocking us, spitting on us, injuring us physically, psychologically, emotionally, mentally, financially, stigmatizing us, suppressing us, and ultimately killing us.
You say you do not care (about it) one way or another. . . well, booey for you, I wish I had the luxury not to care about it either. I do not. It's a daily episode in a livelong running 'book' for each one of us-including those clueless 'queens' living high on the proverbial hog in conservativeland because they otherwise provide some benefit to 'THE TEAM" - - it's peculiar. As for the black conservatives, well many of them are just selfish individualist until their 'sh-t' finally flies up high enough for white conservatives to kick them off 'The Team.' One thing is clear, "The Team" won't change one thing it is for either group. . . so guess who between the collective you and them does the changing. Guess.
We can have a "basic humanity" debate any time you wish. Let me know when and where, please. When you do, I will start with just how -basic humanity - Trump is. I trust/hope you won't be grieved when I do.
I do not believe you doubt anything. You write with such 'authority' -I've observed about the meanings of me and mine. . . maybe you should be 'our' site mentor and counselor!
you'd think that somebody who'd overstayed her tourist visa, illegally worked here on it half of her life ago, got knocked up by a scam artist, and eventually become first bimbo, would speak English a lot better ...
I think Melania just had her first victory:
An Ohio man is believed to be the first person in the nation convicted under the Take It Down Act, a law that prohibits the publication of nonconsensual intimate images and AI-generated forgeries, according to the Department of Justice.
James Strahler II, 37, of Columbus, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court to cybercrimes involving both real and AI-generated sexually explicit images, as well as threats of violence against multiple victims, officials said.
Feds: Ohio man becomes 1st in nation convicted under new law targeting AI-generated images
Vic, can you tell us a few reasonable details of how this relates to Melania? (Because she sure did not indicate the details in her speech the other day.)
show me how she was involved in that but what about deflection ...
She isn't personally involved in the case, but it absolutely relates to what she is fighting for: An end to scum on social media smearing people.
Well, could have fooled me. . .why did she 'step in this sh-t in the white house again?! Do tell us what you can about it! Wait. . . okay
.
Now, now, why are you complaining about people on social media saying something when you are <<here>>everyday?! Curious.
I wasn't trying.
Now, now, why are you complaining about people on social media saying something
You can express an opinion, but you should be able to slander people even public figures.
That is Melanias' point.
Then she should prove it is slander. To do that properly: Go to court! Not address the public in a official first lady status for purely personal matters. . . especially if she does not wish to answer (media) questions at a Presser! Or answer to the public!
She can't prove it because it wasn't slander. That's what's so hilarious about this whole thing, no one was making any claims of wrongdoing by Melania and she just comes out and volunteers this like a child who thought they got caught with frosting all over their hands and is now trying to make excuses for it. No one said she had cake on her hands and yet here she is proclaiming loudly that anyone claiming she had cake on her hands is a liar!
Amazing that you pen this while supporting the most prolific slanderer of public figures alive today.
1. First lady Melania Trump addressed 'lies' linking her to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein during a statement delivered from the White House on Thursday afternoon. - This article.
2.
Melania Trump denounces 'lies' connecting her with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein in White House event
'I am not Epstein's victim' the first lady remarked in her prewritten statement
Notice that above, "lies" is in scare quotes (
). . .is it really lies or 'lies'?! Even the article writers, plural, are not certain what to make of this?!
Also, who ever thought that Melania Trump was victimized by Epstein? What a 'reach'!
The Russia hoax was a conspiracy theory for people with an IQ above 100
Epstein/Trump conspiracy is for those with one below 85.
Democrats are really dumbing it down.
Except only those below that IQ believe it a hoax. Everyone else knows Russia did interfere in the election on behalf of Donald Trump as the Republican led senate investigation found.
Yeah, it would take sub 85 IQ to believe Trump had nothing to do with Epstein after riding on his plane 8 times and being accused of raping a 13-year-old together and having his name show up in Epstein's files thousands of times. Is that proof he raped kids? Nope, but the guilt by association is thicker than molasses in winter.
"devoid of ethical standards."
Sure hit the nail on the head.
Critics should not go after Melania. She almost certainly would not approve of Epstein's pedophilia, etc. And she is not the problem. Her husband is the problem.
But what strikes me as ironic is this:
She is married to someone who personifies the lack of ethical standards and likely did indeed engage in Epstein's 'festivities'.
Interesting that she called " on Congress to provide the women who have been victimized by Epstein with a public hearing specifically centered around the survivors," she said. "Give these victims their opportunity to testify under oath in front of Congress with the power of sworn testimony. Each and every woman should have her day to tell her story in public if she wishes, and then her testimony should be permanently entered into the Congressional Record."
Makes sense to me. Melania likely genuinely wants this to occur. She is married to a scoundrel, but that does not make her one.
The problem with that is the survivors can start dropping manhole covers on the actual perpetrators. Some of whom would be "conducting" the hearing. The really sad part is, the left and Democrats don't want to hear about that. For them it's all about ONE person and they don't even care if the survivors all come out and exhonerate him, in their little minds he's guilty.
Interesting thing that has not been brought up. Unless Melania hates her husband she must really believe he was not involved or she would not be insisting for their testimony
That's because he is guilty of so many other things like being found guilty of the sexual assault of Jean E Carol and guilty of 34 felonies and his charity being shut down and fined millions for fraud, his business found guilty and fined for tax fraud, his obvious attempt to keep multiple porn stars quiet by paying them off during his first Presidential campaign, his own words admitting he is a sexual predator, "I don't even wait" "You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything".
Since he has already been proved guilty of so much, it's not hard to believe accusers like when he was accused of raping a 13-year-old along with his admitted friend Jefferey Epstein. It's not like the 13-year-old is accusing the Pope or some other righteous figure that would be hard to believe, Trump is a known sexual predator who even said some sick shit about his own daughter and how if he wasn't her father he'd probably be dating her. That's fucking sick.
So, no one needs to be a Democrat or even take any political sides to despise the piece of human garbage that is Donald J Trump. I do believe Trump raped that 13-year-old. I don't have proof other than the girl was willing to go to court at least twice to try and prove it and just because it was tossed out for lack of physical evidence 20 years after the alleged incident doesn't mean it didn't happen.
If some Americans have no problem worshiping and voting for a serial adulterer, known liar, convicted felon and accused child rapist that is their right, though it certainly says a lot about what kind of people they really are. Birds of a feather no doubt.
I could give a damn about the politicians, celebrities, whatever. . . surely, it will come as a sad surprise (already has in some cases) that some big names sought out sex with under-legal age individuals. . . .and yet accountability is EQUITY (evening of the playing field) in this 'game' these powerful people permitted themselves field of play. Own it. Endure it. Get through it.
Has nothing to do with proper politicians, celebrities, and what/whomevers that are not in this.
I want to see all of them come into the light from the darkness - whether it is good, bad, or indifference shown them after doing so!
Well, assuming she sleeps with him. . .breaths his breath. . . and listens to his 'pillow-talk' and advises him too—she can ask him everything and have sufficient time to listen to his answers. She certainly could have heard from him that many times over about this. So that is on her too—either way!
No she is only interested in her well-being and everybody else can just 'swing.' Apparently, suing her alleged accusers is not getting her the results or 'relief' for her reputation soon and sufficient enough. . . so she comes to the White House and abuse it. . . giving it a go. She appears to (not) give a "I really don't care, do you?" as her first-term coat attire stated!
I don't really have a problem with that. I'm fairly sure that there's no evidence of any actual crimes in all the documents that have been released or are still hidden away, if there had been then I believe due to the partisan changing of the guard that has happened in Washington over the years that someone would have been brought up on charges. If someone verbally states and someone loses influence because of it, I'm ok with that. I don't believe the victims will ever get true justice for this.
On the other side, I don't know how many victims would be willing to expose themselves again into all of this as a public hearing will put their names and faces out to the public and force them to relive it. I don't know that I would care to do that if I had been one of those victims.
The survivors are free to talk anywhere, anytime about what happened. They’ve spent a decade taking to lawyers desperate to find people to sue and the fbi.
I suppose if you are an extreme partisan who believes everything that reinforces your desires, it would be easy to believe a crazy criminal whose claims about Trump and Epstein make no chronological or geographic sense.
Mrs. Trump could support the victims before and now—if she wanted/cared to do so. Instead, for her part, she comes out and demands to be taken out of the occasion. . . without realizing that if she actively spoke to her husband (Donald) in pillow-talk, she could get all the information NEEDED OUT - OUT. Or, should we suspect that she has no pull over her husband to get him to do what is RIGHT?
Answer that question. Do you think Melania should have spoken up to her husband, the man, and requested he right the wrong done these other women like unto herself? (Remember: Melania, by her actions in giving this curt (terse) speech, confirms she knows a similar angst and reputational harm as these girls - now women.
So rather than actually respond to what I posted, you turn it to again dumping on a woman who has (to the best of my knowledge) done nothing to you. The only issue that you seem to point out is that of her last name.
As for your question, I was in favor way back when that ALL the Epstein documents be released and let the chips fall where they may. I wish that Trump had actually forced the DOJ to do that but he didn't.
And now you answer my question. Why do you not respond to what is posted rather than continuing to belittle someone solely because of who she married?
Who the hell is "Sweet pea" and why does Maxwell feel comfortable enough to use a pet name with Melania (who says its a casual relationship) and "Give me a call" - about what if they are not associates with something to share together? Melania can't wait to see Maxwell. . . why? Is it a PROFESSIONAL call between competitors? Why "Sweet Pea"?
Melania Trump appeared to the public with her so-called account/answer. . . and then curtly (or smartly) walked off without even attempting to supply us with any answers whatso ever.
So yes, I think she is full of it. . . and since you may not remember this, I have a STANDING personal policy not to bash first ladies. They did not ask to 'serve' and come with their man -the president. Still, she decided to speak from the White House as FLOTUS and not as Melania Trump-the citizen. That means she clearly intended (and probably was advised by her staff) that she be perceived as First Lady for her private purposes and the power of the office. Therefore, her get off my back protest remarks can and are subject to review and questions. . . which she turned around and walked away without any attempt to square with the public sitting in front of her symbolically as the Press/Media .
And since we are on the subject, has anybody questioned if "Sweet pea" had anything to do with Maxwell's prison transfer. . . why are conservatives. . . the alleged "law and order" self-righteous-not complaining from the rooftops and long-form about it. Rhetorical question.
Ok lets break that down.
Civil courts do not find guilt. Additionally the burden of proof is almost nothing compared to a criminal trial. Now, why did she not push for a criminal trial before the statue of limitations expired? Could it be that nothing happened and Carol is just another idiot puppet? That's plausible.
You mean the SINGLE charge split 34 different ways that, nobody has ever been charged with in the past, and was past it's statute of limitations. Not to mention the conflicting instructions given by a TDS judge. This whole thing will more than likely be overturned on appeal.
That's his business. Not him. You're reaching. Not that anybody is surprised.
It come to light during his campaign. And this is not an uncommon occurance. Especially when you look at how many politicians pay out in the same fashion. But, you all ignore all that in your tantrums.
You should really do some research and find the whole quote instead of what the partisan hacks have told you.
The sad thing is, basic research can keep you from looking like the fool. Instead you opted to skip the research part.
Yet here you are throwing a tantrum over a politician / celebrity with absolutely nothing to back up your claims.
And hopefully they all come forward and start dropping names.
‘It come to light during his campaign. And this is not an uncommon occurance. Especially when you look at how many politicians pay out in the same fashion. But, you all ignore all that in your tantrums.’
It has also come to light that Congress has a slush fund to pay off people that has caused harm to someone, including sexual assault and misconduct.
Would be interesting how the payments break down by ideology.
From what we have seen lately, very good possibility democrats hold that crown.
I think that's an understatement. But they did have a bipartisan vote to hide those names.
Yes they did but all of those names need to come out along with what they paid to avoid
That is what I wrote up to the period, in context. I don't know what that has to do with what you wrote.
The survivors could talk, and if/when they do it will prove the point about the kiss-asses that support power over righteous treatment of women. These women can 'do it all by themselves. . . makes some of us wonder what we have CONGRESSIONAL CONSERVATIVES - you know the ones, the big sh-ttalkers about what standardized morality OUGHT to be. . .until they find themselves on the wrong side of the truth demarcation line and then they double-down on ass-covering for themselves and their associates.
Just "AI" the (interesting) question (already).
Just being a 'friend.'
Why not. We would love to see a proper list in all its infamous 'gOry.'
Why?
Why not? The girls - now women - want justice. . .do you wish them to have it or do you think Epstein's "men" should be excused?
You talking to yourself?
Have fun with that fantasy.
Nope. I thought it smart to repeat in context. . .to aid missed comprehension.
Ditto.
... uh, ... pretty sure that went away immediately after the magazine pictorial of her scissoring another eastern block bimbo ...
... soft hands, firm grip, with an anything goes attitude on a private jet fetish.
Now she wants "the women" to talk publicly. And yet she complains about "ethical standards" when she can not even communicate to her husband. . . the leader of the free world what lack of ethical standards he displays—freewheeling it in the presidential services of his nation. Mind you, not an 'adopted' nation for which he can excuse himself as not understanding the nuances involved in leadership, respect of others, and justice for all. . .
Melania, just go ahead-sue. You're a Trump and it is what Trump's do. I suspect everyone (and their mommas) have heard of and seen it enough times to be 'ready' as they can be for the act to begin!
As for the victims, I discern that you could care less about them. . . except for the need to take the focus off yourself—for self-indulgence reasons. What a deal can't be had while your 'rep' is under duress? What about the people who have nothing and will continue to be nothing while you 'skate' through. . . in Trump fashion?!
As usual. . . it is clear. . .the Trumps are entitled.
For Melania, these sound like fightin' words. Notice she didn't duck, dodge, or disseminate. Facts are facts and that's what she presented.
The most interesting aspect was the back-handed slap at the Dept. of Justice. Congress is the only body that can put the truth before the American people. And Melania's steady focus on the victims rather than the victimizers was more Presidential than we've heard from the other half of the marriage.
MELANIA FOR PRESIDENT
Trump and the White House sent Melania out to run interference for them.
Here's Melania Trump advocating for guess who: Melania Trump. She is clearly not even at this late date. . . advocating for anybody other than herself. She just wants to excise herself (her "reputation") from the situation. Because her husband, Donald, is in charge of the MAGA GOP/conservatives. . . and even as she whispers, 'sweet nothings' in Donald's ear. . . she might could try to move him to advocate for the victims. . . she does NOT !
How 'bout some FACTS to support your meandering logic - which seem to be missing.
Telling the women to go 'heal themselves' when she could advocate with the GOP/Conservative policy-makers, or remind DOJ to do its proper job after congress authorized them to do just that would be logical. Instead Trump's wife, the First Lady, comes to a microphone in the white house under a seal of government. . . attempting to claim her liberty from whomsoever (real or imaginary) is vexing her.
The miserable part of this is some MAGA supporters still 'front' their party as "law and order". . . And they INSIST they follow the law/s as written down line by line. And yet, they are found 'wanting' as women citizens are told to go somewhere, anywhere, else! If you know what I mean.