Picking up from the last thread...
In the Savannah Guthrie interview Amber stated "I should not have had to donate it in an attempt to be believed."
The obvious response is the London judge dismissed the gold-digging claims because she had donated the $7m settlement.
However Emily D Baker raised an interesting point that maybe Amber was talking about the divorce negotiations. And by implication she never intended to donate the money: or perhaps never expected anyone to check (certainly no-one had checked by the time of the London trial four years later) (for now we needn't go into if any of the payments made in her name were ever made by her)
There is some debate about who started the divorce proceedings and when....
This exchange neatly sums up the current debate....
The details of the exchange may not be correct...
But that doesn't matter....
So much as Laura Wasser saying...
Thus the question of the pre-nup, the hoax and the gold-digging was apparently in the air.
Amber's explanation that she was entitled to more than the $7m is fine in so far as it goes: the figure bandied about by her supporters is $30m... which happens to be, according to Mr White (Johnny's business manager), roughly what she got when the her debts were written off, various other items and the tax free element of the payments are accounted for.
.... but why did she say she would donate any of it to charity in the first place?
One explanation is Jennifer Howell, who had given a character witness statement for Amber (for the dog smuggling case (I think)) and was expecting a donation after the divorce to the Art of Elysium. Which didn't happen because Amber, or her publicist, considered the charity too small and wanted to donate to a more high-profile charity for more publicity.
But that only explains where the money was intended: it doesn't explain why any money was ever pledged...
Particularly when the new talking point of the Amber-stans is "it was her money, she could do what she likes with it."
Which is true....
except why in an interview immediately after the Virginia trial....
in which she made herself look a fool and a liar by saying, "I use the words pledge and donate synonomously," - and surely knowing what the London judge said in his judgement - a judgement Amber and her supporters constantly point to....
why would she say, "I should not have had to donate it in an attempt to be believed."?
What the duck is she talking about?
Or is this just more Amberspeak?
Beyond the understanding of average randos.....