It is hard for me to take seriously, anything AH said in that OP ED, after the following testimony :
"Depp’s attorney read an email from the ACLU to Heard about the op-ed that said: “The goal is to get this out this week to capitalize on the tremendous campaign for ‘Aquaman.’”
Dougherty responded to the attorney, “I do recall that there was a conversation about the optimal timing for the op-ed piece.”
He said Heard agreed that the column should be released around the movie’s release. The piece was titled “Amber Heard: I spoke up against sexual violence – and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.” Dougherty said the ACLU was not responsible for the headline in the Post.
The paper published the piece on Dec. 18, 2018, three days before “Aquaman” arrived in domestic theaters on Dec. 21, 2018."
So this Op ED was essentially a promo for her latest film role?Amber Heard's Domestic Violence Op-Ed Was Timed to 'Capitalize' on 'Aquaman' Publicity, Email Reveals
ACLU exec Terence Dougherty told the court one of his communications staffers wrote the first draft, capturing Heard's "fire and rage"www.thewrap.com
Yes. I certainly reads that way that ACLU was not acting as an independent agent in this respect but was manipulating the publicity that would accompany Amber in the opening of Aquaman, and with Aquaman's publicity being used without their knowledge to promote Amber's false claim by ACLU.
So really Amber was using Aquaman's publicity to link her to claim of SA by Depp.
Depp is well rid of this awful person.