>>178119,
>>178120,
>>178121,
>>178122,
>>178123,
>>178124,
>>178125,
>>178126,
>>178127,
>>178128,
>>178129,
>>178130,
>>178131,
>>178132,
>>178133,
>>178134,
>>178135,
>>178136,
>>178137,
>>178138,
>>178139,
>>178140,
>>178141,
>>178142,
>>178143,
>>178144,
>>178145,
>>178146,
>>178147,
>>178148,
>>178149,
>>178150,
>>178151,
>>178152,
>>178153,
>>178154Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog - Just spit balling but what about paying a relatively high premium based on the number of views you get on your profile? There are a handful of accounts here interesting enough to me that I’ll go right to their profile to see what they’ve posted over the past day or two. That’s what we should be rewarding. The people who are so interesting that you come to this site to see what they have to say. Nobody goes to the profiles of the engagement farmers and slop merchants because nobody actually cares what they have to say. And yet some of them make thousands of dollars posting bullshit nobody cares about. The incentives are totally out of whack.
https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/2033205679708594625Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog - The other option is for X to just exercise a significant amount of subjective discretion to identify the actually notable and interesting accounts. Of course that’s what they did in the old days of Twitter and everyone seemed to hate it. But maybe they were on to something. Alternatively, again, they could end the whole program and that would be perfectly fine with me. That’s my preferred outcome by far.
https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/2033206780428247213Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog - This is a good example of how defamation works in the modern age, and why it’s not as simple as “just sue them.” The person in this recording is absolutely not Erika. It couldn’t even be Erika because she was like 16 at the time of this recording. And yet this account, amplified by bigger accounts like Ian Carroll, has made this claim recklessly and with malicious disregard for the truth. Can Erika sue over it? Does she have any recourse at all? Sure, she can sue. I hope she does. But in order to win a lawsuit she’d have to prove that this person posted this nonsense knowing it wasn’t true, and then she’d probably have to prove damages, and then she’d have to hope that the broke assholes who posted and amplified it actually have the funds to pay, which they don’t. And all of this will take a long time, years potentially, to sort itself out in court. Even if she wins, it won’t make a difference to the people who’ve already decided that she’s some kind of cartoon villain. They’ll just use the fact of the lawsuit as proof that Erika “has something to hide.” Meanwhile she will have only further highlighted and called attention to the very lies she’s trying to rectify in court. So in other words, it’s the ultimate lose-lose scenario. I’ve experienced much smaller versions of this. People who engage in outright open defamation, slandering my character with totally manufactured lies, and yet I don’t sue for all the reasons above. It’s total bullshit. The upshot is that the slanderers and defamers basically have carte blanche to lie about you and destroy your reputation. Your only recourse is costly, takes a long time, and may damage your reputation even more.
Quote:
Project Constitution @ProjectConstitu
Video: THE SMOKING GUN: Leaked DOJ Wiretap Audio Captures Erika Kirk Scheduling Underage Girls for Epstein
I have been sent a bombshell audio file, and I have verified its authenticity. This is not a rumor. This is not a theory. This is a recorded phone call from the DOJ's own website, hidden in plain sight within the released Epstein Files (DataSet 9). The direct link is posted below for anyone to check in the:
This audio captures a young girl, who is clearly an informant for the DOJ, on a recorded phone call with ERIKA KIRK. You can hear the DOJ agents coaching the girl before and after the call. This was their second attempt to get Erika to incriminate herself and Jeffrey Epstein.
37