That article is so flawed. I don't understand why you're not seeing my point. It reads like it's written by a three-year-old with a crayon.

I'll try to explain this again, but that's it. If you or someone else doesn't get it, I doubt I'll be able to do any better than what I'm doing now. Here goes.

The article begins with:

BAYVILLE, N.J. (AP) — Yes, it turns out, there is something that chafes at the unflappable Ivanka Trump.

It also states that it was published 38 minutes ago which would have been yesterday, Nov 15th. It rambles on about trashing this tax plan (can you tell this is more an editorial than actual objectively sourced article?), and then it veers into crazy time.

Trump also was thrown into the chaos last week. She happened to be exiting meetings at the Capitol when word first broke that Roy Moore, the Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama, had been accused of sexual misconduct with teenage girls during the late 1970s, when he was in his 30s. She brushed off reporters’ shouted questions, saying, “Guys, I’ve been here all day.”

Okay, the patchwork of a paragraph starts out with stating "LAST WEEK". That the Roy Moore story broke LAST WEEK and that LAST WEEK she was "thrown in the chaos". So LAST WEEK, she brushed off questions by stating, "I've been here all day."

Obviously English is not this reporter's first language since it's never explained how Ivanka was thrown into "the chaos"? It can't be because reporters asked a question? That doesn't seem to chaotic to me so if readers didn't understand before, they should now. This is propaganda and a hit piece since there is nothing said that would justify using that terminology. As if that isn't bad enough, it gets worse. Next paragraph:

Trump weighed in on the scandal to the AP, saying: “There’s a special place in hell for people who prey on children. I’ve yet to see a valid explanation and I have no reason to doubt the victims’ accounts.” She did not call for Moore to exit the race.

Notice that there's no time frame or context given for the "weighing in". Does the reporter mean that Ivanka didn't last week, and that she was yesterday because that's not what it says. I guess you're just supposed to ASSUME this happened? Or is the reporter blurring past with present? It's hard for me to assume when the reporter was not being concise in terms of when events happened and statements were made. This could have all been avoided by the reporter writing, "TONIGHT Trump weighed on the scandal ..." TONIGHT. Was it that night? In the present? Or were lines and days blurred? Was this statement made last week when the story broke? Or some other time?

Remember that when the ALLEGATIONS broke (and they are allegations of a scandal -- not a SCANDAL), they included the story of a fourteen-year-old being molested. The other three women? There was nothing illegal about any of it, but the molesting of the fourteen-year-old is a HUGE deal. If the allegation were true, he should step down, and hide in a cave before being arrested, but here's the thing.

But to return to this quote, I'm not sure WHEN this was said. More importantly, I sure as hell don't know the context or why Ivanka said what she said. Again, all that could have been avoided by the reporter writing, "TONIGHT she weighed in on the scandal. In response to the question: "QUESTION GOES HERE", she said, "There's a special place in hell ...." Do you understand? There is no CONTEXT! The question could have been: "Ivanka, if you won't give a statement on Judge Roy Moore, can you tell us what do you think of child predators?" or "Ivanka, what do you think of someone that would do that to a child?"

As I said, I'm not going to get any clearer than this so if you don't understand what I'm saying, it's fine.