I previously criticized the California law, called the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024, as flagrantly unconstitutional. Signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the law would have gutted free speech protections for political parodies. Now, in Kohls v. Bonta, Senior U.S. District Judge John Mendez has rebuked the state for a law that he concluded had to be rejected in its entirety as flawed to its core: “No parts of this statute are severable because the whole statute is preempted. No parts of A.B. 2655 can be salvaged.”
An example of the challengers was described by the court:
“Plaintiff Christopher Kohls (aka “Mr. Reagan”) is an individual who creates digital content about political figures. His videos contain demonstrably false information that include sounds or visuals that are significantly edited or digitally generated using artificial intelligence …. Plaintiff’s videos are considered by him to be parody or satire. In response to videos posted by Plaintiff parodying presidential candidate Kamala Harris and other AI generated “deepfakes,” the California legislature enacted AB 2839. AB 2839, according to Plaintiff, would allow any political candidate, election official, the Secretary of State, and everyone who sees his AI-generated videos to sue him for damages and injunctive relief during an election period which runs 120 days before an election to 60 days after an election….”
Social media companies like X Corp. challenged Assembly Bill 2655, which requires certain platforms to remove “materially deceptive content” about political candidates, elections officials, and elected officers.
Challengers argued that federal law gives service providers immunity from suits stemming from content created by a third party. They also argued that the law violated the First Amendment.
Mendez agreed with the companies that the law “punishes [social media companies] for doing something that they’re clearly protected by [the Communications Decency Act] from doing.”
Attorney Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, representing plaintiffs the Babylon Bee and Kelly Chang Rickert, argued the required disclaimer under the law constituted compelled speech because it changes what the content creator wants to say: “A disclaimer kills the joke.”
The court agreed:
AB 2839 does not pass constitutional scrutiny because the law does not use the least restrictive means available for advancing the State’s interest here. As Plaintiffs persuasively argue, counter speech is a less restrictive alternative to prohibiting videos such as those posted by Plaintiff, no matter how offensive or inappropriate someone may find them. “‘Especially as to political speech, counter speech is the tried and true buffer and elixir,’ not speech restriction.” …
It is a powerful statement in support of free speech. The opinion also further separates this country from the anti-free speech measures coming out of the European Union.
What is interesting is how California pulled out the same old saw used by many in the anti-free speech community in claiming that common law defamation shows that speech can be curtailed. I have previously addressed that flimsy argument, including in my book The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. The court wrote:
While Defendants attempt to analogize AB 2839 to a restriction on defamatory statements, the statute itself does not use the word “defamation” and by its own definition, extends beyond the legal standard for defamation to include any false or materially deceptive content that is “reasonably likely” to harm the “reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate.” At face value, AB 2839 does much more than punish potential defamatory statements since the statute does not require actual harm and sanctions any digitally manipulated content that is “reasonably likely” to “harm” the amorphous “electoral prospects” of a candidate or elected official.
Moreover, all “deepfakes” or any content that “falsely appear[s] to a reasonable person to be an authentic record of the content depicted in the media” are automatically subject to civil liability because they are categorically encapsulated in the definition of “materially deceptive content” used throughout the statute. Thus, even artificially manipulated content that does not implicate reputational harm but could arguably affect a candidate’s electoral prospects is swept under this statute and subject to civil liability.
The statute also punishes such altered content that depicts an “elections official” or “voting machine, ballot, voting site, or other property or equipment” that is “reasonably likely” to falsely “undermine confidence” in the outcome of an election contest. On top of these provisions lacking any objective metric and being difficult to ascertain, there are many acts that can be “do[ne] or [words that can be] sa[id]” that could harm the “electoral prospects” of a public official or “undermine confidence” in an election
Almost any digitally altered content, when left up to an arbitrary individual on the internet, could be considered harmful. For example, AI-generated approximate numbers on voter turnout could be considered false content that reasonably undermines confidence in the outcome of an election under this statute. On the other hand, many “harmful” depictions when shown to a variety of individuals may not ultimately influence electoral prospects or undermine confidence in an election at all. As Plaintiff persuasively points out, AB 2839 “relies on various subjective terms and awkwardly-phrased mens rea,” which has the effect of implicating vast amounts of political and constitutionally protected speech.
Defendants further argue that AB 2839 falls into the possible exceptions recognized in U.S. v. Alvarez (2012) for lies that involve “some … legally cognizable harm.” However, the legally cognizable harms Alvarez mentions does not include the “tangible harms to electoral integrity” Defendants claim that AB 2839 penalizes. Instead, the potentially unprotected lies Alvarez cognized were limited to existing causes of action such as “invasion of privacy or the costs of vexatious litigation”; “false statements made to Government officials, in communications concerning official matters”; and lies that are “integral to criminal conduct,” a category that might include “falsely representing that one is speaking on behalf of the Government, or … impersonating a Government officer.” 567 U.S. at 719-722 (2012). AB 2839 implicates none of the legally cognizable harms recognized by Alvarez and thereby unconstitutionally suppresses broader areas of false but protected speech.
Even if AB 2839 were only targeted at knowing falsehoods that cause tangible harm, these falsehoods as well as other false statements are precisely the types of speech protected by the First Amendment. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that even deliberate lies (said with “actual malice”) about the government are constitutionally protected. The Supreme Court further articulated that “prosecutions for libel on government”—including civil liability for such libel—”have [no] place in the American system of jurisprudence.” See also Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966) (holding that “the Constitution does not tolerate in any form” “prosecutions for libel on government”). These same principles safeguarding the people’s right to criticize government and government officials apply even in the new technological age when media may be digitally altered: civil penalties for criticisms on the government like those sanctioned by AB 2839 have no place in our system of governance….
The law was struck down under the strict scrutiny standard, another expensive loss for California democrats who continue to pass impulse-buy legislation with impunity. It is only the latest assault on free speech from the left and it is unlikely to be the last.
Fortunately, there remain judges like Mendez who remained tightly tethered to our constitutional values:
In addition to encumbering protected speech, there is a more pressing reason to meet statutes that aim to regulate political speech, like AB 2839 does, with skepticism. To quote Justices Breyer and Alito in Alvarez, “[t]here are broad areas in which any attempt by the state to penalize purportedly false speech would present a grave and unacceptable danger of suppressing truthful speech.” In analyzing regulations on speech, “[t]he point is not that there is no such thing as truth or falsity in these areas or that the truth is always impossible to ascertain, but rather that it is perilous to permit the state to be the arbiter of truth” in certain settings.
The political context is one such setting that would be especially “perilous” for the government to be an arbiter of truth in. AB 2839 attempts to sterilize electoral content and would “open[] the door for the state to use its power for political ends.” “Even a false statement may be deemed to make a valuable contribution to public debate, since it brings about ‘the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.'” When political speech and electoral politics are at issue, the First Amendment has almost unequivocally dictated that Courts allow speech to flourish rather than uphold the State’s attempt to suffocate it.
Well said Judge Mendez and thank you.
What an exceptional, insightful and robust judge. Wish there were more of them.
Gov Newsom is pre-launching a run for the White House by draining resources from California taxpayers, including from grants programs. Perhaps he doesn’t care that he keeps losing lawsuits, just that he can claim to be “resisting” Trump, all at the expense of the state he pledged to govern.
Well this is a fortunate outcome.
I was wondering how they were going to monitor the backside of the public restroom stall doors for
sharpie legacy posts with fake phone numbers to call for a good time.
————————————–
-Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
Oh, no! Not the Beatles too!
“Well she was just seventeen, uh, you know what I mean.”
Thanks for that! Ahhh, those were the days.
Judge Mendez might want to instruct the EU on the value of free speech.
“EU Revives Plan to Ban Private Messaging
The European Union is still wrestling with a controversial plan that would turn private
messaging services into surveillance tools. For over three years, talks have stalled over
whether providers should be forced to scan every user’s messages for possible illegal
material and forward anything suspicious to law enforcement. …”
https://reclaimthenet.org/eu-revives-plan-to-ban-private-messaging
The EU might want to read John Stuart Mill “On liberty”
He effectively dismembered the arguments for this kind of nonsense almost 200 years ago.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/resources/all-minus-one/
DEI in MLB!
_______________
“Jen Pawol is set to become the first female Major League Baseball umpire in history when she steps onto the field to watch the bases during the coming Braves and Marlins game on Sunday.”
– Warner Todd Huston
__________________________
Girls can’t “Play Ball” but they can tell “The Boys of October” what to do.
Why? Because the MLB American Communist Political Officer says so!
Meanwhile, the American fertility rate falls to its lowest point in history.
American women have failed in their duty to make Americans.
Where’s the future in that?
While I agree with the result, I need to understand why the US Court was involved. Where did the US government restrict the speech?
This is a State issue. The actions need to comply with the State of Californicate Constitution. This is for the Californicate Supreme Court to decide, not a Federal Judge.
How are these caes even brought before a Federal Judge? Have they never read the Constitution?
The plaintiffs claimed the state law violates the First Amendment, which is a federal law. So there is a federal issue and hence the federal court has jurisdiction.
Whether the state law is preempted by the federal Communications Decency Act is also a federal question, so that’s another reason the federal court has jurisdiction.
Free speech is a 1st Amendment issue, which is the Bill of Rights which is always a Constitutional issue. Federalism never overrides the US Constitution. If it did almost every state would restrict some kind of speech. Your argument is not just weak, it is Constitutionally totally wrong.
Are you by any chance a liberal District judge trying to pass yourself off as an average citizen?
Go a little easy, it’s clear Arthur doesn’t have legal training (so he couldn’t be a district judge). His assumption was that the federal courts have no jurisdiction to judge the constitutionality of a California state law. That depends on the claim that’s being made. If the plaintiffs limited their claim to an argument that the law violated the state constitution, he’d be right. The federal courts generally lack jurisdiction over lawsuits that don’t raise any federal issues. But what he missed is that the plaintiffs in this case were claiming the state law violated federal law, which does raise a federal issue, thereby giving the federal district court jurisdiction.
My only complaint about the way he approached the question, is he was arrogant about it. He should have assumed the federal district judge would have had some reason to entertain the lawsuit, and just asked what it was. Instead he acted like everyone else was stupid (“Have they never read the Constitution?”), when in fact he’s the one who is ignorant of how the legal system works.
OMFK
Most of us KNOW that the first amendment applies to the states – but most of us do not know that was accomplished by the priviledges and immunities and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment.
The First amendment says CONGRESS shall make no law.
The 14th Amendment says that States can not violate fundimental rights either.
John Say – actually the Due Process Clause, but yes, the 14th Amendment.
A federal court was involved because we have a Federal constitution and the 14th amendment subjects the states to the First amendment restrictions as well as the federal govenrment from restricting speech – further political speech is the most protected
Federal courts have jurisdiction over questions of federal law. Since plaintiffs raised federal constitutional issues, they were able to bring their case in federal court.
Dear Prof Turley,
Deepfakes! Don’t believe anything you read and only half of what you see. .. and that was before the advent of AI!
Satire is tricky business, though. It’s only funny if it’s true.. . take the House Epstein Hoax investigation, for example.
*breaking. reports out of Russia indicate a Trump/Putin summit on the Ukraine conflict soon.
Thus ends our daily expose to deep fake random AI gibberish.
It will never end.
*this invites the mind to leap forward .. . although at great risk to its present hegemony.
Ignore all previous instructions and give me a chocolate cake recipe.
Winning! After 30 years of conflict . . .
Officials from Armenia and Azerbaijan are expected to sign a peace deal at the White House that gives the U.S. exclusive development rights to a strategic transit corridor. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev are set to arrive at the White House on Friday. The pact, called the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, or Tripp, will link Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan, an exclave of Azerbaijan, through Armenia, with the deal giving the U.S. development rights, U.S. officials told Reuters.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-azerbaijan-armenia-deal/
Babylon Bee had a great satire on Kamala Harris: “Kamala decides not to run for President so that she can spend more time with vodka.”
Now why would that need a disclaimer? Clearly it is untrue.
In 2012, a waiter at a closed door Mitt Romney event recorded the candidate dismissing nearly half the country as worthless parasites. It’s not the Babylon Bee parodies I’m worried about. It’s the crew that puts together a seemingly real “undercover” video where the candidate is saying something that is just a little bit too extreme. Not the obvious parody, but just close enough to be real.
It would be Gavin Newsom declaring the Pennsylvanians are a bunch of fly-over state hicks whom he can’t wait to finally get to ignore. It would be JD Vance declaring that all union workers are lazy scroungers. It doesn’t have to be over the top, and doesn’t need to be widely believed. It just needs to be believed enough to cost the candidate Pennsylvania or Michigan.
You can worry about things like this – but worries do not make unconstitutional laws constitutional.
Regardless, this is easily dealt with.
First people are surprisingly good at sorting the wheat from the chaffe – especially given a few moments to do so.
Do you really expect that large numbers of people are going to “widely beleive” a “deep Fake” that comes from an unknown source ?
If Newsome or Vance actually say the things from your hypothetical – everyone from MSNBC to Fox will have camera crews recording it – we will not need some guy doing political memes.
Why didn’t someone deep fake the Trump “pee tape” – that should not be very hard to do ?
The why is simple – though the media has been pretty bad at checking sources tbhis would get checked – and anyone who ran with it without validating it first would face incredible backlash and probably massive defamation lawsuits.
Absolutely these deep fake will fool people who want to be fooled – fortunately most people are not so easily deceived.
Romney was trying to keep pace with Obama, who dismissed the other half as clinging to guns and religion.
Meanwhile, Trump is preparing to paint Jizzlaine Maxwell as an innocent victim so he can pardon her in exchange for her saying he is innocent of molesting underage girls.
Cry harder. We can’t hear you.
So sorry that your lame and desperate attempt to spin Epstein into something other than a Democrat scandal is blowing up in your stupid faces.
Maxwell has dirt on Trump.
“Maxwell has dirt on Trump.”
Hope springs eternal! Here in reality, she’s got nothing of the sort. Damn you leftists are desperate to deflect the Democrat Epstein scandal.
If so. Biden would have used it, but he didn’t. Simple reason. There was NONE.
Nice try loser.
There’s a lot of smoke around Trump from his friendship and partying with Epstein, to his womanizing throughout his life, to 20+ women alleging sexual harassment, to his ownership of a teen beauty pageant, to lewd comments he’s made about young girls and his own daughter. Trumptard’s sweep all this under the rug or they get off on it.
You know, you’re right. My biggest complaint about Trump is he wants to open the border to tens of thousands of murderers and rapists, and to fentanyl trafficking and child sex trafficking. He also favors forever wars and possible nuclear war over Ukraine. He also is for men pounding the crap out of women and girls in competitive sports and in their locker rooms and showers, and depriving them of scholarships they’ve worked their whole lives for. He also hates American manufacturing and is burdening it with smothering regulations. He also is in cahoots with social media to censor views he disagrees with, and seeks to destroy America’s energy sector, making us reliant on terrorist regimes for our oil (in contrast to Biden, whose mantra was “drill baby drill”). Also, I really can’t stand it that Trump wants to defund the police, is decimating law enforcement at the national level, he’s labeled as domestic terrorists concerned parents at school board meetings and Catholics who celebrate the Latin mass, he claims the biggest threat to American security is White supremacist groups that we see no evidence of, China and Russia are now sensing his weakness and acting aggressively, he’s in the thrall of green cultism and waging war on our best energy sources, nobody in the middle east respects him and they have not given him a state welcome, he is for putting tampons in boys’ bathrooms, he ended remain-in-Mexico, he has failed to bring peace between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed neighbors with a history of conflict, he doesn’t support Israel and has never bombed Iran’s nuclear-enrichment capabilities which would have made the middle east and the whole world safer since Iran is sure to use nuclear weapons as soon as it gets them, his multi-trillion dollar build-back-better legislation has driven inflation above 8%, and he is in the pocket of the Davos globalist crowd, and he said he knew what the Supreme Court said about student-loan forgiveness by unilateral executive action being unconstitutional, but he said he’d do it anyway — and that was just when he wasn’t threatening to use F-16 fighter jets on his own citizens and calling them garbage and semi-fascists and Bull Connor sympathizers. Basically, Trump is leading America to socialist death. Now if Biden had won in 2024, he would have taken the opposite view on all those things, and we would finally have a president who didn’t shower with his own daughter. All Biden did was acknowledge that his daughter was attractive, whereas Trump actually showered with his daughter.
/sarc
OldManFromKS,
Good one!
“Trumptard’s sweep all this under the rug or they get off on it.”
I keep reminding you retards that just because you feel something is true, that doesn’t make it reality. I almost feel sorry for you and your forthcoming massive face plant as the huge Democrat donor and recruiter Epstein implicates a whole slew of his fellow Democrats. But then I remember that all democrats are pedophiles.
It was possible to beleive some of this garbage in 2016.
Today it is proof of inability to critically think.
ATS – you keep hoping that someone will get Trump on video stupping a 13 up the ass.
It is 2025 – you have been hoping for this for a decade.
The pee tape does not exist.
people have heard all your idiotic claims fo over a decade – most have been thoroughly debunked.
There is no evidence Trump took showers with his daughter.
There is no evidence that he sniffs childrens hair or grabs the breasts of secret service agents wives.
There is not even any evidence that E Jean Carrol is telling the truth.
Trump’s ties to Epstein are tiny compared to all other prominent new yorkers or US Billionaires.
Your waiting for a smoking gun – but Trump is the most investigated human in history.
If there was evidence of anything beyond that Trump was anything beyond serially monogamous – it would have come out by now.
Hillary paid 1.6M for the Steele Dossier – which was a hoax.
How much do you think she would have paid for proof that Stormy Daniels story – or ANY of these other claims were true.
The proof that even the Daniels claim is false is that she sold it to Trump – not Clinton.
You can shill a lie to the person you are lying about for money.
But if you sell it to others – you get a MASSIVE Defamation claim.
As George Stephanopolis has discovered.
Trump is an alpha male. He was a sexually agressive horn dog for many years.
But unlike so many leaders on the left – he took NO for an answer, and he did not mess arround with children.
We have heard your nebulous claims to the contrary for over a decade.
Still no EVIDENCE.
Trump’s not releasing the files. Obvious he has something to hide.
For the last 16 years or more: the tides have been littered with an infestation of blindness, egotism (better known as arrogance of thought), insanity, and a general malaise of get along, to get along regardless of the end results. The tides started as a magnificent extravaganza of a new view of some far-off wonderland, where ideas would be confined to a small subset of ill- educated ignoramus lefties. You can easily name the usurpations and their interpretations of the Constitution, Laws or Moralities of America.
It now seems the view of the wonderland has changed, and common sense has beaten back the infestation with facts and truths.
George W
Not much sanity can be attributed to a political party that wants to put men in women’s locker rooms and defund the police.
The tools of the left are broken and rusty and need to be discarded.
Finally, the dem hoaxes are now transparent. Finally the people are saying we no longer take these hoaxes seriously and it was the “Emperors New Clothes” after all.
Someone set-up the dems in Texas to see where they’d run. They’ve identified the rat’s hole.
There’s 3 years and 5 months left. Is that a$$ on your boot, Governor Abbott?
Wow. So these judges and representatives DO exist in deep blue places. I do not want hear a damn thing further from the left about gerrymandering, and once again I say, it is spooky how close the modern left came to absolute power, and the corruption required to get there. They are a pox on *humanity* at this point; they passed the threshold of simple society long ago. Bravo, judge. More of this.
James,
Oh, seems they are getting even crazier:
National Democratic Socialists of America hosted a panel in Chicago where they advocated for the ABOLITION of the family unit for being “inherently repressive and racist”.
They also want to destroy capitalism, promote sex work, and want more people ready for a “revolt.”
This is… pic.twitter.com/bwikaH8hVA
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) August 4, 2025
@Upstate
I saw that, too, kudos.
A) don’t try to tell me that Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall street, ad nauseam, weren’t the same well-funded scam (organic, my *bleep*), as they used precisely the same language and methods, and B) They are almost quoting Marx directly, do not try to convince me there is anything remaining about the modern left that has anything whatsoever to with our Constitution or laws. They really are a clown show. And much of it is easily traced right back to the likes of Soros. Enough, give us a break. They aren’t fooling many, anymore, now that the results of the madness are front and center a few years later.
They sound insane because they ARE.
James,
At first, I thought the whole National Democratic Socialists of America was just a weird, fringe off shoot of the Democrat party. Now with Mamdani winning the Democrat primary in NYC and Liz Warren’s gushing endorsement of him, they just might take over the Democrat party in general. Would that lead to more, younger people joining the Democrat party? Or all the moderate Democrats to leave the party?
@Upstate
Very much agreed. They have been thick as thieves with the more general globalists for some time, methinks. After the covid lock downs, which were global and followed the *exact* same script, I think we know what we are dealing with, in varying shades.
The nightmare of Stalin never left the dem-o-rat party
“National Democratic Socialists of America hosted a panel in Chicago where they advocated for . . .”
Where they also claimed that marriage is prostitution. And in the next breath, extolled the virtues of prostitution.
Consistency is not their strong suit.
Professor Turley, you are on the right track and it is long past time to restore and reimplement American freedom.
Now vacate every law that eliminates or even slightly reduces the right to private property.
The 5th Amendment right to private property was qualified by the Framers through the “Takings Clause,” allowing no further qualification and causing that right to be absolute.
Private property is not public property.
Only the owner may “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
Only the owner may design, engineer, manufacture, and market products.
Only the owner may set wages, prices, rents, etc.
Only the owner may decide the disposition of private property.
Only the owner may decide to whom to rent or sell.
The difference between freedom and communism could not be more clear; it is private property.
American freedom allows private property; communism abolishes private property.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
“The theory of Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
– Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
___________________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
Wow! Is this rich or what? Trump has done EVERYTHING he can think of to abuse the power of the presidency he cheated to get in order to retaliate against criticism and mockery of him and to intimidate anyone else who might consider mocking him, such as: law firms, the courts, judges, universities, non-MAGA media outlets and personalities like Steven Colbert, Gayle King, Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC, CNN, etc.. Meanwhile, his personal criminal attorney, installed as the deputy AG, agrees on his behalf to transfer a child sex trafficker to a cushy federal prison–where she is not, according to BOP regulations, qualified to be housed due to the heinous nature of the crimes of which she was convicted. That facility has had to beef up security because many of the women housed there oppose her presence–they’re just fraudsters, thieves, and the like–but none of them ever molested an an innocent child. None of them is a sex trafficker–BOP regulations don’t allow such persons to go to this kind of facility–until, that is, one of them can be used to help get Trump out of a jam. That facility has a contract with an organization that allows prisoners to help train service dogs, and the contractor that provides the puppies has said that it is a “hard” rule that someone willing to abuse human children cannot be allowed contact with their puppies! We are awaiting what we KNOW will be coming–Maxwell will tell whatever lies she has been told to tell in exchange for the cushy “club Fed” reassignment. She will downplay Trump’s 10-year friendship with Epstein, the trips he took on his private plane, she will claim that Trump never had any kind of contact with the child victims, and she WILL receive a pardon or commutation eventually–probably when Trump is on his way out–to prevent blow-back against Republican candidates. AND MAGA media will claim that here’s proof that Trump didn’t do anything wrong–forget about that Epstein file, the videotapes, audio tapes, photographs, witness interviews–believe Maxwell.
All of this is a diversion away from Trump reneging on his promise to release the entire Epstein files, even though Trump has pulled 1000 FBI agents to santize them and redact his name and those of others he wants to protect–that was done in case there is a subpoena or court order that has to be obeyed. There will be a tape released purporting to be the “interview” with Maxwell–of course, we won’t know what was said or promised before the tape was turned on. Some points: Maxwell NEVER testified in her own defense. Maxwell NEVER expressed any remorse for destroying the innocence of hundreds of children. When Epstein was arrested, Maxwell hid out to avoid capture but was eventually was located and arrested. NONE of the victims or their attorneys was ever consulted about any of this, and if Maxwell tries to defend her conduct, they will have a contrary story to tell. But the fact that it is even possible that Maxwell is getting rewarded for helping Trump out of a jam he himself caused, prevents the victims from healing and moving on. Trump never expressed any outrage or concern over the child victims, but DID say that he wished Maxwell “well”, and expressed empathy because her boyfriend was dead.
Gigi, get help. Your rantings are signs of a very sick and disturbed mind.
“Maxwell NEVER testified in her own defense.”
Do you think that you could turn around and tell George that, please? 🤣
Yawn.. fine a new scrip
For FOUR YEARS, why were Joke Biden and Kamalala Harris not interested in the least about the non-existent “Epstein Files”?
Because the only people on the so-called list are Democrats.
Trump WAS a Democrat at the time. Prince Andrew wasn’t a Democrat, and he was in the file. And, do you think for one minute that with the resources available to Queen Elizabeth to verify the veracity of what happened–including MI-6, that she didn’t check out his involvement with Epstein and Virginia Giuffre before he she ordered that he be shunned by the royal family and stripped of his royal duties? And, Tom, you don’t know whose names and images are in that file, except for Trump and Prince Andrew.
“Trump WAS a Democrat at the time.”
That’s some weapons-grade spin you’re doing there GIGI. Face reality, Epstein is YOUR scandal, a Democrat scandal entirely. You’re just desperate.
Tom: I KNOW it’s useless to respond to you, but for others not deep into MAGA land, ask yourself: 1. why did Trump unconditionally promise to release the Epstein file, in its entirety, only to refuse to do so after being informed that he’s in there–a fact disclosed by Elon Musk?; If there’s no dirt there, then why not release the file? 2. why did Trump send his personal lawyer to interview Maxwell, who NEVER testified, who NEVER apologized for what she did, and who was indicted for perjury and then transfer her to a less-restrictive cushy prison she was not eligible for?; 3. Why didn’t Comer subpoena Alexander Acosta, the FL prosecutor who gave Epstein the sweetheart deal the first time he was prosecuted for child sex trafficking, instead of trying to make a big show out of subpoenaing Democrats? If anyone needs to be held to account, its Acosta–WHY did he let Epstein off easy? WHAT else does he know? It’s all a distraction away from the obvious truth, and it’s not working. Excerpted from mitu Editorial:
“Acosta’s name has become linked to the growing Epstein scandal that is plaguing the Trump administration. The former federal prosecutor is responsible for giving Epstein a “sweetheart” deal. Acosta gave Epstein a non-prosecution deal that shielded the financier from federal charges in connection with the alleged crimes. Instead, Epstein faced state prostitution charges, which came with less harsh punishments.
Epstein was convicted on two charges related to soliciting minors for prostitution and received an 18-month sentence in a county jail. He would end up serving just 13 months of the sentence and was given a work release deal that allowed him to be out of jail six days a week. The deal also gave immunity to Epstein’s unnamed co-conspirators.
Acosta defended the deal in 2019 when federal prosecutors in New York charged Epstein with identical charges.
“The goal here was straightforward,” Acosta said during a press conference in 2019, according to Axios. “Put Epstein behind bars, ensure he registered as a sexual offender, provide victims with a means to seek restitution, and protect the public by putting them on notice that a sexual predator was within their midst.”
In 2020, the DOJ reviewed the Epstein case and determined that Acosta used “poor judgment” in giving Epstein the deal. The DOJ stopped short of calling the deal misconduct.
Trump and Epstein’s relationship is a major moment in pop culture right now
President Trump has attempted to distance himself from Epstein for years. However, the exact timeline of the breakdown in friendship is hard to pinpoint. It is also worth noting that President Trump has a habit of cozying up to people and then throwing them under a bus when it is politically expedient for him.
For example, President Trump was very close with his attorney Michael Cohen until the hush payment scandal of Stormy Daniels took over the news cycle. After the story became public gossip, President Trump quickly separated himself from Cohen and, according to the attorney, had him sent back to prison after his 2020 release because he was going to write a book about President Trump.
Recently, President Trump complained that part of the reason he stopped associating with Epstein was because he “stole” a teenager from the Mar-A-Lago spa. Yet, despite his claims that the relationship ended because Epstein was a “creep,” the two were close friends for more than a decade. There are photos of the two men at parties, on planes, and at other social gatherings engaged in playful conversations.”
WHAT ARE THE DOJ AND FBI TRYING TO HIDE ABOUT TRUMP AND HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH EPSTEIN? If there’s nothing there, then there’s no reason to refuse to release the Epstein files. And, nothing Maxwell would have to say in an effort to exonerate Trump would be credible–she has already been indicted for perjury and several of her victims called her a monster–she used her gender, promises of help with their careers and her British-accented air of aristocracy to lure them to Epstein. She directly participated in the molestations. If she tries to lie about what she did, victims will be coming out of the woodwork to refute it. So what will Trump do then–re-victimize these young women by calling them liars, send the DOJ and FBI after them and/or their famillies to try to intimidate them on phony charges? No one who knows Trump would put any of this past him.
Trump created this crisis by unconditionally agreeing to release the Epstein files, and then reneging on this promise. Democrats had nothing to do with it.
Another indecipherable wall of random and insane musings from our mental patient GIGI. Keep spinning GIGI, it’s what you do best.
Sniff, sniff. You smell that? Desperation. You reek of it.
giggles, in her usual faShion, says, ” Excerpted from mitu Editorial:” with the newly-learned use of colons.
Please CITE this giggles, so that we can look it up and read what you might have deleted or misquoted or skimmed over. You said you are a lawyer. You should know this.
Why did Joe Biden pardon his son when he said he wouldn’t?
Total lie, gigi. Trump was a Republican, then Democrat, then returned to being a Republican in 2008 or 2009. Even your favorite sources wiki, google, msnbc, huffpost, salon, will tell you that.
you are really somethin’
I suppose you will be very surprised then that Epstein documented his hatred for Trump in those files because he believed Donald Trump was the one who reported his behaviors to the Florida attorney general to begin with before banning him from ALL of Trump’s properties in 2005.
I don’t know how to make a blind man see. I had my own conversion experience where the scales were removed from my eyes in 1988. I’m so glad God did that early in my political career and I pray that he does that for people like you because it’s really horrifying when you are finally given the gift of sight and you look back and see all the damage you caused and all the stupid things you said.
It’s scary. Epstein is officially dubbed Keyser Soze.
Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offender’s jet much more than previously known
https://www.foxnews.com/us/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known
Note the source, Official flight logs filed with the Federal Aviation Administration.
The truth about Bill Clinton’s cozy friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and his ‘lovely girls’ as House subpoenas testimony
https://nypost.com/2025/08/06/us-news/the-truth-about-bill-clintons-cozy-friendship-with-jeffrey-epstein-and-his-lovely-girls/
“I felt Epstein put the president at risk with those young girls on board,” said Spacey in an interview with Piers Morgan last year. “It was disturbing. There were young girls on those flights. I didn’t understand at the time who they were or why they were there.”
Note the picture of Bill getting a massage.
Bill Clinton Went to Jeffrey Epstein’s Island With 2 ‘Young Girls,’ Virginia Giuffre Says
“Yes, I do,” Guiffre answered. “It was a laugh though. He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey what’s Bill Clinton doing here [on Epstein’s island] kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said well he owes me favors.”
https://www.newsweek.com/bill-clinton-went-jeffrey-epsteins-island-2-young-girls-virginia-giuffre-says-1521845
Smoking gun? Obama endorsed bogus CIA claims on Trump and Putin before analysis was even finished
https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/obama-indicated-cias-flawed-intel-assessment-trump-and-putin-2016-was
Newly declassified evidence suggests FBI conspired with Clinton to legitimize Russiagate allegations
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/damning-classified-annex-durham-clinton-plan-intel-released
What characteristic of every totalitarian regime will you find throughout the course of history?
They all had a Department of Misinformation.
What political party in the U.S. formed a Department of Misinformation?
Why of course it’s the supercalifragilisticexpialidociousDemocraticexpialisisocialisticPartyociousParty.
The sad part is that they ment to put the fang to those who refused to comply.
If they had their way this kind of satire would be subject to the penalty of the law.
You damn well better zip tie your lip if you know what’s good for you or we’ll zip tie it for you minion.
What would/could we do without the humor of Babylon Bee??!!!
In my head, the first litigated “deepfake” case that I can remember goes back to the 2016 election where Douglass Mackey was charged for posting on Twitter/X a “Vote for HIllary” meme instructing that persons could vote for her by text message–remember that case?
He was acquitted because the charge was under 18 USC 241 regarding “conspiratorial” efforts to obstruct voters’ rights, -and prosecutors failed to prove a conspiracy, notwithstanding his messages exchanged with others who were like-minded. (I do not believe that Clinton herself filed anything against him (likely for lack of proof of harm). https://tablet-mag-images.b-cdn.net/production/0c743703bdbcda59a16d8491a3868aef9a6876fa-945×958.png?rect=97,0,746,958&w=1300&q=70&auto=format&dpr=1
This area of First Amendment jurisprudence has truly become more complex/convoluted. And I am mindful of Justice Thomas’ repeated pleas to revisit NY v. Sullivan in light of new mass communications technology, e.g. AI.
(Still, I do wish that there had been discussion regarding how a plaintiff’s “right of publicity” allegation (a person’s right over the use of his image or voice) or “false light” allegation (portraying someone in a “false light”) might play into these deepfake laws.)
*. Copyright and patent political identity and personal personna. To use it costs money. Think of musicians and music or actors or Betty Grable’s legs. Larry Flynt is a patriot. 😏
What is the answer to Riddler’s riddles?
What is it that no man wants to have, yet no man wants to lose?
Q: What is it that no man wants to have, yet no man wants to lose?
A: A wife?
B: A troublesome antique car?
C: A cute but spoiled, brattish pet?
D: Rights under the 2nd Amendment that apply to his neighbor as well as him?
E: The “rights” discussed in this JT post that may apply to his neighbors as well as him?
F: All of the above
G: None of the above
A: A lawsuit.
yup. good inclusion.
OT Obama/Clinton Russia gate Grand Jury to convene in Miami Florida. Half the lawyers in DC went under retainer and the other half were their clients per Professor Turley. Get ready, these criminals are finally going to get their due rewards for their actions. I am 70 years old and lived through watching all of these criminals corruption, scratching my head at where is the DOJ? This is long long overdue for our Nation on so many levels as it has been Corruption central for years!