this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2025
151 points (98.7% liked)

Political Weirdos

1262 readers
2 users here now

A community dedicated to the weirdest people involved in politics.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

While sitting for a deposition in a defamation lawsuit that she filed, Laura Loomer was asked to explain under oath what she meant by the phrase "Arby's in her pants" (which she earlier penned in a tweet).

Transcript:

Q  Can you explain to me what it means to say to her that "the Arby's in her pants"?
A  Well, Arby's --
    MR. KLAYMAN:  Objection.  Relevancy.
BY MS. BOLGER:
Q Answer the question.
A  Arby's sells roast beef.
Q  Right.  Can you tell me what -- why you were talking about "the Arby's in her pants"?
A  Well, it's just a -- an expression.
Q  What is the expression trying to convey?
A  It conveys the reason why she got a divorce by her own admission.
Q  Because she had roast beef in her pants?
A  Yeah.
Q  She'd put roast beef in her pants; that's what you're trying to say there?  You're literally saying she put Arby's in her pants?
A  I'm saying she literally -- it's so ridiculous.  I'm saying she literally put Arby's in her pants.  Yes.
    MR. KLAYMAN:  Objection.  Relevancy.
BY MS. BOLGER:
Q  You're not making a slur about her?
A  No.
Q  You're literally saying she put an Arby's sandwich in her pants; is that right?
A  Yes.  That's correct.  That's correct.
Q  Why are you laughing?
A  Because I just think it's so funny.
Q  What is your basis for saying she put Arby's in her pants?
A  I just think it's so funny.  I just think it's so funny.
Q  What is your basis for saying she put Arby's in her pants?
A  She carries roast beef in her pockets.
Q  What is your basis for saying she puts roast beef in her pockets and in her pants?
    MR. KLAYMAN:  Objection. Relevancy. Harassment.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 50 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Does this count as perjury?

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 38 points 4 months ago (2 children)

There's no legal rule that says you can't be an idiot.

[–] Zier@fedia.io 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

The way the US is going it's more likely they'll outlaw intelligence, not idiocy.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You can be an idiot, but it's perjury to be a lying idiot.

[–] ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 months ago

Only if they can prove you're lying and not in fact, just a bigger idiot.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but.

Perjury is a serious crime that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It's expensive and time consuming to make that kind of case. And a US attorney needs to decide to prosecute.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Perjury is a serious crime

Yeah right... I lost count of how many people, specially cops, continuously lie under oath and nobody does anything in the good old USA

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 months ago

Crimes are what us poors commit. The others are just doing their jobs.