I wasn’t sure if she was guilty or not but after that speech I am.
vibeThat entire family is so fucking gross.
I still don’t know what story she was denying. What were the images that she was saying were fake?
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
None of the other first lady’s HAD TO MAKE a speech about not being a sex trafficker…
Woooooooooosh
