Melania Trump’s bombshell statement yesterday on the Jeffrey Epstein affair needed subtitles. As she spoke it was all so odd. There had to be a subtext. Her choice of words and tone was so loaded it felt like there was another shadow statement underneath, and her shock appearance was just act one of this drama, prefiguring a much bigger statement to come.
It was so astonishing for her to deny allegations that most of us had never heard about. We were left wondering what she was really trying to say.
Her statement raised questions that hadn’t ever been asked before, and now we’re all wondering what the answers are
When she said that the rumors about her “need to stop,” did she mean the rumors about Trump and Epstein, or did she mean something else? When she said she was not a victim, did she actually mean she was one? Statement analysts went bananas online, but here is what occurred to me as she spoke.
“The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today.” Well, you cannot really demand an end to lies, so what are you demanding an end to? Are you hinting at the end of something related to your marriage?
“The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility, and respect. I do not object to their ignorance, but rather, I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation.” Why don’t you object to their ignorance? If someone were being ignorant about me I’d object.
“I have never been friends with Epstein… To be clear, I never had a relationship with Epstein or his accomplice, Maxwell.” Now, hang on a minute. We all know that since Bill Clinton denied having “sexual relations with that woman” that saying you haven’t had a relationship can be code for accepting you had something else. What on earth has gone on, we ask ourselves, if she is denying she had a “relationship,” rather than simply denying they were friends?
But the dynamite of the statement is about to come. She continued:
“I am not Epstein’s victim.” What the hell? This is just an unbelievably explosive thing to say. No one has said, at least that I know of, that she was Epstein’s victim. So by denying it before it’s been said, she is putting that out there. There’s getting ahead of the curve if something is coming and there’s setting a hare running.
It only serves to make me think: is she somehow, in some way, however far removed, Epstein’s victim? And while that thought may be completely wrong, she herself is the one who put it in my mind. And she must know that would be the effect.
Why would she do such a thing? She denies everything, admits nothing, while introducing shocking ideas we never had until she said them.
“Numerous fake images and statements about Epstein and me have been circulating on social media for years now. Be cautious about what you believe.” A strange thing to say. Should she have been more cautious about something?
“I have never had any knowledge of Epstein’s abuse of his victims. I was never involved in any capacity – I was not a participant, was never on Epstein’s plane, and never visited his private island.” Again, we never said you were. But this is all so specific that I suppose I am now wondering, if you weren’t on the plane, Melania, what was your relationship with him?
“I have never been legally accused or convicted of a crime in connection with Epstein’s sex trafficking, abuse of minors, and other repulsive behavior.” Once again, I wasn’t aware anyone was saying otherwise. But I am now.
“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.” How must they stop? Might you stop them by distancing yourself from your husband, for example?
“My attorneys and I…” not me and my husband’s attorneys “…have fought these unfounded and baseless lies with success and will continue to maintain my sound reputation without hesitation.” She comes across as fighting in a separate capacity to her husband.
Sound, meanwhile, is an oddly restrained choice of word to describe one’s good name. It’s not a very effusive or flattering way for her to defend herself. Sound means secure, so does she mean that until now she had the whole thing nicely nailed down?
“Now is the time for Congress to act. Epstein was not alone. Several prominent male executives resigned from their powerful positions after this matter became widely politicized. Of course, this doesn’t amount to guilt, but we still must work openly and transparently to uncover the truth.” Is this a threat? Is she saying she will say more of something she knows about these prominent executives if people aren’t careful?
“I call on Congress to provide the women who have been victimized by Epstein with a public hearing specifically centered around the survivors. 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. Then, and only then, will we have the truth.”
The truth about what? With this long impassioned speech about the victims, it seems as if she is identifying with the victims so much, it makes one wonder why? Why the impassioned empathy with these women?
Overall, this wasn’t just a statement that begged more questions than it answered, it was a statement that raised questions that hadn’t ever been asked before, and now we’re all wondering what the answers are.
Comments