FLASH
Shkruar nga Adalgisa Marrocco
A surprise statement read by the White House brings back into the spotlight a scandal that the Trump administration seemed to be trying to put behind it. Amidst hypotheses about a preventive move and political calculations, the dilemma over the timing of this intervention remains open...
Melania Trump rarely speaks in public. And when she does, it's usually limited to the bare minimum. That's why, when the First Lady appeared before the cameras at the White House to read a lengthy statement focused entirely on Jeffrey Epstein, Washington was stunned and the media and public attention was immediately ignited.
The wife of the US President denounced what she called "baseless lies" and "slander", stating that she "was never aware of his abuses". She also rejected any claim that the financier had mediated her acquaintance with Donald Trump.
"I met my husband at a party in New York in 1998," she clarified. And then she underlined: "I was never involved in any way. I never got on his plane and I never visited his island."
Direct and blunt words, which nevertheless raise an inevitable question: why now? The speech came without warning, at a moment that many analysts considered to be the "cooling off" phase of the Epstein case.
After the recent media frenzy surrounding the release of new documents by the Department of Justice, the scandal seemed to gradually fade from the center of public debate. Other issues have moved to the forefront of the political agenda, above all international tensions and the conflict in Iran.
Sources cited by Axios suggest that it is a personal choice. The US First Lady "felt the need to intervene directly", having until now left the response to rumors and insinuations to her legal team.
Thursday's surprise was universal, surprising even journalists closest to the conservative camp. Jacqui Heinrich, Fox News' White House correspondent, acknowledged that there was no clear explanation for the move.
"We're trying to figure out if this is a reaction to something that's already public, or an attempt to preempt a story that's coming out," she said. The latter is seen as the more plausible hypothesis.
According to Corey Alpert, a political analyst and former member of the Biden-Harris administration, it appears that Melania is "trying to get ahead of what she believes will be the next wave of media coverage surrounding that scandal."
The recent publication of an email exchange (with names anonymized), suggesting contact between Melania Trump and Ghislaine Maxwell in 2002, may have accelerated the decision for the latter's exit.
"My response to Maxwell was nothing more than casual correspondence. It was simply a formal and banal reaction," the US First Lady emphasized in her statement.
This has fueled suspicions that Melania is trying to build a defensive line against possible new revelations. However, there is also a more political interpretation. The Epstein case continues to cast a shadow over the Trump presidency, while the electoral calendar is increasing the pressure on her husband.
According to Alpert, if Democrats take back Congress in November, it is possible that the investigation into the Epstein files will intensify significantly. Therefore, this statement could serve as a preliminary positioning in the face of such a scenario.
So Melania's sudden intervention aims to publicly establish a version of the facts before other actors, political or judicial, do so. And it seems no coincidence that in her speech, she called on Congress to hold public hearings to "give a voice" to survivors of Epstein's abuse.
A move that, on the one hand, reinforces the rhetoric of transparency and, on the other, shifts the focus from the personal to the institutional dimension. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has stated that he was unaware of his wife's interference.
A version that contradicts some other reconstructions of events, according to which he was at least informed of its intention. It is difficult to imagine that such a delicate statement from the White House was not coordinated with the highest levels of the administration.
Even if this has not happened, the very emphasis on a distance - real or staged - between the President and the First Lady remains an important element for analysis. In the end, the most sensitive issue remains: the impact on public opinion.
The first critical reactions from some victims of Epstein and Maxwell show the limitations of this strategy. The attempt to control the narrative risks having the opposite effect: reigniting controversies instead of extinguishing them, reopening wounds that are still unhealed./ Pamphlet from “Huffington Post Italia”
Po kjo paska qene ne haremet e Epsteinit. Çfar shkuesie i paska bere Donaldit! E bukur ka qene atehere,pasi edhe dhendrri pak I thyer ka qene, por kurioziteti eshte kush ja sygjeroi Epsteinit ti propozonte kete perri Doni Trumpit? Me kurioze eshte kush eshte ideatori dhe sponsorizuesi i gjithe asaj perandorie te felliqur te Epsteinit!
Ti moj nuse ke shkele ligjin per emigracionin. Ke qendru ne SHBA mbas perfundimit te vizes. Por tashti atij BOLES burrit tend i kane shku’ pordhet ne planc. Po e zhvendos vemendjen nga EPIC FAILURE dhe FURY WORLD FAILURE ne probleme KURVASH. Hahaha…..