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.
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
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.
“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.
Greatest television show in human history.
I wasn’t sure if she was guilty or not but after that speech I am.
My “not involved in human trafficking” t-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my t-shirt
deleted by creator
a lot of nuance
Its ‘nonce’. As in ‘a lot of nonces’
I think you mean nonsense
Nonce-sense perhaps
The world really did go full Brasseye
I didn’t even really consider her involvement until this week, now I am assuming she was in pretty deep
vibenot that i really care but in his defense he asked what sexual relations meant, they gave a definition and what he did with Lewinsky didn’t match that definition…
But I am wearing her underwear
That entire family is so fucking gross.
Well, she was most likely trafficked herself. So it’s extra gross when she hides/defends others doing it.
makes me feel dirty just thinking about any of them, there is something deeply disgusting about these “people”
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
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.
Do you think she plagiarized it or used chatgpt
Both!
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.
That’s at least one thing we have in common.
Yes, but aren’t you glad she did? Because I’m not.
Woooooooooosh
Come ON, we’re SUPPOSED to stop talking about it!!
you’re thinking of another club that should have come already
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
also why Melania hates the other children.
shes her handler for putin/russia.
First thing I thought was whose got the story and when is it going to drop
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
