I wasn't sure if she was guilty or not but after that speech I am.
post
That entire family is so fucking gross.
this is the first time i heard her talk and probably the last and I can't be the only one. she must know about something that will come out and thankfully handled it like an absolute troglodyte so we all know now to pay close attention
something that will come out
Anti-SLAPP suit is gearing up very soon: https://feddit.dk/post/20969245/19914002
Come ON, we're SUPPOSED to stop talking about it!!
The thing about the Epstein files that a lot of people don't realize is that the fact it's a scandal means that there's an opportunity to get justice at some point if in the future even if the system is broken. In a lot of places around the world, this shit is legalized and nobody cares. For example, in my home country of Iraq all of this is legal and a lot of powerful religious clerics do the same shit as these criminals, and nobody bats an eye. We live in a depraved world that's governed by the wicked.
First thing I thought was whose got the story and when is it going to drop
Is she even in the files? Besides the photos we've all seen?
I didn't know there was a debate about her relationship with Epstein or how she ended up in the US. Now I do. All she's done is draw attention to herself.
I used to think she was a clever gold digger but now all I see is a narcissistic moron. Same as her shit-scented husband.
My speech on me not being a sex trafficker has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my speech on how I'm not a sex trafficker
-- Melania, probably
Ivana his 2nd wife who's burried on the golf course is. She was a recruiter. Also Don Jr, Eric and Ivanka's mom.
Makes sense Melania is the same
lol the new joke is they waged a war on Iran to make people forget about Epstein but the war was such a catastrophe that they put Epstein back on the table to make people forget about the war
Finally, a unique speech not copied from Michelle Obama.
Turns out, Michelle and her husband were never on Epstein's island, so nothing to deny.
None of the other first lady's HAD TO MAKE a speech about not being a sex trafficker...
Neither did she. Apparently she just felt the need to do it for reasons unknown to anyone.
Maybe she's poking the bear; getting Epstein back in the news cycle. She probably detests Donald a lot and would love to see him put down.
Do you think she plagiarized it or used chatgpt
If I had a nickel for every time a first lady did this I'd have one nickel. It's not a lot but it's odd that it's that high.
"theres nothing more suspicious than diddling kids, if you make a song about"not" diddling kids"- MAC. in this case it was a press conference.
"She's a movie star" yeah, we know. Lesbian stuff, right? How do you think Jeffrey found her for his boy Donny?
I still don't know what story she was denying. What were the images that she was saying were fake?
Muddy waters here
From what I've gathered
- There may be photos being released soon, and her legal team is trying to preempt it by denying it.
idk how law works, but I don't know what preempting it is meant to do
- there is supposedly a (plausibly deepfaked) image floating around the boomer side of the internet:
I haven't seen it nor tried to find it. Last time I checked Facebook, I learned several horrific slurs for ethnic groups I did not even know existed
- Maybe, she finally caught wind of her name being mentioned alongside Epstein
I've met people who just check the news and/or the internet once per year, if ever
- Some other Trump administration political strategy
I'm legit not intelligent enough to understand nor recall the explanation there
Probably a legal thing. Photos/Documents may be releasing soon
If not, yeah...
Just more bizarre
Like if I announced:
"I did not rinse my unwashed genitals in the spahetti after I cooked it"
In the middle of a family dinner.
No one knows what story she's denying, or what images she's claiming are fake. The most likely possibility is that someone is preparing to release a story on the links between her and Epstein. It's standard practice in journalism to contact the subject of a piece, inform them of the contents of that piece, and offer them an opportunity to comment. A request for comment on an upcoming story seems a likely trigger for this reaction. The entire speech strikes me as a thinly veiled threat, essentially saying "If you publish your story I will sue you for defamation."
Can't sue for defamation if the commentary is either true or had reasonable belief to be so
That's... not how it works. They absolutely can sue, but they're not supposed to be able to win (or the case ought to be thrown, not completely sure). With all the current bullshit I'm not sure what would happen, though.
While you are pedantically correct, I was speaking with the understanding that frivolous lawsuits can be ignored. Like, you could sue a person you've never met for stealing your intellectual property that you don't have with absolutely no evidence or for wearing a blue shirt but no one would reasonably count those as actual suits.
Defamation requires falsehoods based on precedent and case law so a suit that alleges defamation when the person spoke no lies is not a reasonable suit and doesn't really count
Well, no, frivolous lawsuits absolutely cannot be ignored. That will result in a summary judgment against you. In fact, the orange shithead became infamous for illegally refusing to pay contractors, then overwhelming them with frivolous lawsuits which would force the victim to back down because they couldn't afford the legal fees to defend themselves.
Whether the allegation is reasonable or not is irrelevant. If you don't defend yourself, you lose. If you can't afford decent representation, you lose. Objective truth doesn't even count. The wording of the law, whatever precedent exists from previous cases (even if it's obviously bullshit), and correctly following obtuse rules in how you present your argument are all that matters.
So, call it pedantic if you want, whatever; our legal system just does not work the way you're implying. At all.
Edit: Even if a lawsuit should obviously be thrown out, the judge generally cannot just do that - your lawyer has to file a motion requesting dismissal. Ignoring it WILL bite you in the ass.
Since it seemed to have still passed under the radar, let me rephrase: they can be ignored when discussing statistics and viable law.
Ofc any actual lawsuit must be literally dealt with through the court system.
But when you're talking about laws and suits, they do not need to be accounted for on the same level as legitimate cases
Lol
Changing the goalposts? Whatever
I was clarifying my point, not moving goalposts. I can't help if you assumed the goal was in a different place and argued based on that false assumption. That's why I clarified my point since you seemed to have consistently missed it.
My point has not changed nor has the context in which I made it.
Can't sue for defamation...
...I was speaking with the understanding that frivolous lawsuits can be ignored.
...they can be ignored when discussing statistics and viable law.
Edit: Oh, and I love the finishing touch of gas lighting, BTW. Real solid debate skills you got there! 🙄
You cannot win a defamation case if they used truthful statements or statements they had reasonable belief of it being true. Sorry I used "can't sue" as a layman way of saying "can't win" because it's obvious that anyone can physically sue for any reason and it's equally obvious that anyone who is being sued must go through the court system no matter the suits legitimacy.
The fact that I had to spell all that out explicitly is wild. They should be taken as contextually assumed so we could discuss more interesting bits instead of "but what about obvious thing? And other obvious thing?"
So you agree with me? 🙄
Bruh. I don't even know what your point is. All you've done is "well actually"'d through this whole back and forth while I've clarified my point.
It's like I said the sky is blue and you came back with well it's really clear but the defraction of sunlight through the atmosphere disperses the color blue more than other colors due to its shorter wavelength making it look blue. It's a net zero contribution to the conversation other than to make you feel smarter for saying it that way
I contradicted your initial statement. You doubled down. I again pointed out the factual error in your statement. You then changed your argument entirely (moving the goal posts). You then made a false claim about what you said (gas lighting). I called you on it. Then you restated my argument as your own. I mocked you for the continued gas lighting. You finally accused me of "well, actually".
My point is simple: the enforcement of laws is not based on truth, it's based on debating within a rigid structure intentionally designed to reward the rich and punish the poor. Yes, it is true the law is written the way you claim. It is not enforced in the way your arguments suggested.
My goal was only to point out the dichotomy. Well, my first two comments were. I got annoyed with the dishonest methods of debate, and yes, at that point I decided to mess with you for a bit. For what it's worth, I believe the oversimplified way your initial comment was stated is dangerous. Approaching legal matters as a matter of recognizing truth can result in horrible personal consequences.
That all aside: it would seem that our views on this matter are actually far more similar than either of us realized. Truce?
The dichotomy of actual law vs the subjective reality is definitely an issue that should be discussed, I agree. My only issue is that you posed it as a rebuttal and degrading my statement. I could have been less lazy in my wordage and assumed that people would understand the meaning behind it.
It wasn't my intention to make it seem like I was trying something shifty, I was legitimately just clarifying my meaning and using more accurate terms to do so. I do see how one could interpret it like I was changing positions as words do matter
Omg, shut up.
Your original statement, as written, is false. Just flat out factually incorrect. Your ego was bruised by getting called out on it, so you've been all over there damn map desperately trying to pretend otherwise.
You could have accepted you were wrong, and corrected it.

She absolutely did not have sexual relations with these people... uhm mr Epstein, and ms Maxwell, or any of their ephebe escorts, nor passed them along to friends and acquaintances.
I think Trump made her do it. Now we're all talking about his wife instead of him.
And you know what? Let's talk about both of them. They were both at the parties, and on the island.
vibe
top 61 comments