No confusion. She’s only about self preservation and likely trying to head off investigation into her own efforts to bring young ‘models’ from Eastern Europe to Epstein.

You never go wrong assuming the worst with this awful person.

Yes! I saw that after I posted, it’s short and well worth the watch. I think he put his finger directly on it by dissecting the actual language of her statement: it is crafted to be specific to the elements of a successful defamation case. In other words, the way he sees it, it’s a very carefully worded warning to whoever is about to release some immensely damning story on her. Excellent recommendation.

For myself, what I noticed when Voidzilla dissected her speech was her repetitive mention of photos, pictures, images, meaning that if she’s trying to get ahead of something by shooting a “you know who you are” legal warning across the bow of someone about to publish, then whatever they have it’s pretty bad, and it includes photographic evidence, just going by the content and direction of her own statement.

But I saw something else as well that you might find interesting: a brief appearance by Rep. Ro Khanna on MS NOW where, after the host shows a bunch of happy group pictures of Melania not being friends with Epstein and Maxwell, he discusses one of the bizarre statements she made – “Epstein did not act alone,” which is in direct contradiction to the government line that it’s all a “hoax” and nothing to investigate – with Rep. Khanna.

Rep. Khanna’s position is simply that Melania could not have said that unless she has relevant information, and if she has relevant information, she should testify under oath before the committee. If the standard for appearance that was applied to Hillary Clinton – “I don’t know him” – is the bar for requiring someone to testify under oath in regard to their relationship with Epstein, then Melania by all means should also be among those who do. I agree.