this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2026
332 points (98.5% liked)

politics

29378 readers
165 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Streisand

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk 31 points 4 days ago

Some interesting comments from https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1sh66ol/comment/ofb285t/

Its the Michael Wolff anti-SLAPP lawsuit that was filed Tuesday, Oct 21 in NY. Nearly six months ago. lines up perfectly.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=xa7yy7bTaeiM2Y61WePLaA%3D%3D&display=all&courtType=New+York+County+Supreme+Court&resultsPageNum=1

Not a lawyer but looks like her lawyer played every card to delay, including avoiding being served and then moving court venues. That gets us to January.

Her counsel would have filed a motion to dismiss. Wolff's counsel would send an opposition brief that would preview the evidence they intend to present to the court (that she met Trump through Epstein, was a prostitute, etc.) So, that might be interesting if it is attached to/ included with the court's decision. NY has anti-SLAPP statutes that mandate the court needs to rule within 60 to 90 days.

So, court ruling is due any day now. Until they rule, discovery is frozen.

As soon as that ruling comes down, everyone in Epstein's circle is going to get subpoena'd including Melania herself. Probably Trump, too.

and

Melania threatened to sue author Michael Wolff for $1 billion in October claiming he was lying about her having connections to Epstein. Wolff counter sued her because she was trying to get him to shut up with the lawsuit threat and you can't do that in the US. Melania's lawyer has been delaying the lawsuit using procedural maneuvers. Those finally ran out. Soon the judge will rule if Wolff's lawsuit can move forward. If it does, the lawsuit will enter "discovery" which is when both sides gather evidence to present in court. During discovery, the court can issue subpoenas which are legal orders that require people to testify or go through an interview answering questions that will serve as evidence in the case. Wolff's attorneys will probably force Melania, Trump, and other Epstein connected individuals to testify. They don't want testify because either they'll have to admit things they don't want coming out or they'll be caught lying in court