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.

19 Comments
WatDabney@sopuli.xyz · 90 pts · 356d
No she's not.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/beef-curtains/
And remember - for conservatives, it's always projection.
Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca · 37 pts · 356d
No. No she's not. But proving that, from a legal perspective, is... Challenging.
At least as long as she sticks to her story.
nocturne@slrpnk.net · 13 pts · 356d
I knew what she meant, but I could not for the life of me remember the actual slang phrase.
Archangel1313@lemmy.ca · 50 pts · 356d
Does this count as perjury?
Snowclone@lemmy.world · 38 pts · 356d
There's no legal rule that says you can't be an idiot.
Zier@fedia.io · 6 pts · 356d
Yet.
edgemaster72@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 355d
The way the US is going it's more likely they'll outlaw intelligence, not idiocy.
someguy3@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 355d
You can be an idiot, but it's perjury to be a lying idiot.
ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 355d
Only if they can prove you're lying and not in fact, just a bigger idiot.
mkwt@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 355d
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 pts · 355d
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 pts · 355d
Crimes are what us poors commit. The others are just doing their jobs.
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world · 49 pts · 356d
sigh
Why do we still try to make women feel about their labia. Particularly bad that its coming from another woman. Loomer also knows about body issues given her plastic surgery.
otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 355d
She's projecting her own core fears.
bizzle@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 355d
Everyone I know likes outies better
Rachelhazideas@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 355d
Because pedophiles will cling to any justification for their attraction towards underdeveloped genitals.
edgemaster72@lemmy.world · 43 pts · 356d
I am dumber for having read this
sudo@programming.dev · 13 pts · 356d
Posting Loomer should be considered cheating on this comm.
ZMonster@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 355d
Hmm, interesting
represented by Larry Klayman
Oh, thanks I don't need to read the rest. ❌