(January 27, 2021 at 3:32 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Here's something the OP article quoted from one of Claudia's videos:
“Apparently that’s real and so here’s what I guess happened. The picture is from months ago and I’m assuming that when my mom took my phone … anytime she’s taken it, she takes it all the time, she took a picture of that. So that was on her phone and I guess she accidentally posted it or somebody hacked her, but nobody would ever have any photo like that, ever. So, Kellyanne, you’re going to fucking jail,”
Having a topless photo of your daughter might be defensible if you're a naturist (read: nudist) family and that's generally the default for everyone involved, or maybe if something's seriously wrong with that general area and you want to document it for reference purposes, but A) I don't think either applies in this case, B) If they did, I get the impression this isn't something that they'd show the world and from what I know of the former, they tend to be extremely protective of when pictures of underaged kids are to be taken and under what circumstances they are to be distrubuted for that exact reason, and C) I can't think of any other legitimate reasons one would actually have a topless picture of your underaged daughter.
I just got done reading the article and like you just posted, the daughter says she thinks it was an accident or a hack. If she released it on purpose though, that was a mean thing to do. That's being a bad mother. When I first saw a headline about the story I assumed it was the daughters idea and that she was doing it as a publicity stunt like the Kim Kardashian's sex tape. I do read the articles when it comes to the important stories though like politics, etc.
