Always good to wonder about that, I think!

"The *text* of what she said (calling 15 year olds barely legal was bad) could have been worse" is what I meant to say there. I had some trouble with my editing process!

Communication is really complicated, and the lines are blurry. The *text* of what she said (calling 15 years old barely legal was bad), but the context (she is a GOP pundit talking about Epstein because of the vote) and the subtext (the unstated reason she is sharing these facts) are more damning.

I wouldn't describe it as lying on her name but describing the message she was sending without the obfuscation she was hoping would shield her. If a stranger tells me he "hates Hitler" but Mein Kampf was not as racist as people think... Headline will be "Hitler Defender." Read the story for context

She tries to frame herself as merely sharing the "facts" but in that context, the intention of sharing those "facts" (I don't know or trust her supposed source) can only really be interpreted as exculpatory or mitigating. Downplaying the severity of the crimes to protect whomever gets linked to them

I can understand your misgivings as someone whose first step of interpretation is always to evaluate truth value. I think the part that is really bugs people (those who watched the whole segment, anyway) is indeed the "why bring it up at all?" matter of intent.