• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Claim by D.C. Tribute re: court filings & the real reason Trump/Epstein split.

<OP>



What Katie Johnson said happened is totally unsubstantiated not to mention she dropped her civil suit.

Because she got death threats probably by someone hired by Micheal Cohen.

Is that what she said or is it another figment of your imagination?

You going on the attack without all the facts?

Why? You got the facts? Did she say she received death threats?

Genuine question ...

Fail to notice how you attacked lurch for saying something without facts but didn't provide any facts yourself? Fail to notice that you assumed he was saying something false and I was pointing that out? Fail to notice that I didn't actually say anything about what the facts are? (Oh and there seems to have been post #21, so there's that too)

How, if one looks in your recent post history, ehh.... yeah that?

Meh... :coffeepap
 
<OP>
Fail to notice how you attacked lurch for saying something without facts but didn't provide any facts yourself? Fail to notice that you assumed he was saying something false and I was pointing that out? Fail to notice that I didn't actually say anything about what the facts are? (Oh and there seems to have been post #21, so there's that too)
How, if one looks in your recent post history, ehh.... yeah that?
Meh... :coffeepap


Still waiting for your facts ... (grin)

"Why? You got the facts? Did she say she received death threats?
Genuine question ...
"
 
Meaning she almost certainly paid a bunch of costs to lawyers on a contingency fee agreement.
Trump victimized by the media by being given 2 billion of free exposure? :lol:

One doesn't pay lawyers fees on a contingency plan, if the lawsuit is dropped.



We could have many conversations about the exploitation of "certain socioceconomic backgrounds". Why don't you start some threads on taht and we'll see?

No we can't, because you'd just run away, as is your habit. Did you happen to see the NYT's list of the 20 worst slum lords in NYC? Oh, you missed that one. Amazing that they all share the same ethnic background, while their tenants are mostly poor blacks. Rage on brother, rage on.






Notice the way his remarks lead away from what the OP said, which was here is this and wait as best policy.

Because it's important to remind people who the real instigator of the lawsuit was- one of Jerry Spiringers fellow travelers.
 
Last edited:
Trump himself has corroborated one aspect of Johnson's claim - that Trump and Epstein had a falling out
 
Caveat: I saw someone link this elsewhere. I have no idea if the source itself is generally good, BUT they link to purported scans of the actual court documents for the case...


Now an uncovered court filing from 2016 in which rape victim Katie Johnson brought up actions against both Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump, has revealed what could be the true reason for Trump’s “falling out” with his long-time friend, and it is even more disgusting than you could have even imagined. Page four of the document outlines Johnson’s description of a fight she witnessed between her two assaulters:
“Shortly after this sexual assault by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, on the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, Plaintiff Johnson was still present while the two Defendants were arguing over who would be the one to take Plaintiff Johnson’s virginity. The Defendant, Donald J. Trump, was clearly heard referring to Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, as a ‘Jew Bastard’ as he yelled at Defendant Epstein that clearly, he, Defendant Trump, should be the lucky one to ‘pop the cherry’ of Plaintiff Johnson.”

Uncovered Court Filing By Underage Victim Reveals Disgusting Reason For "Falling Out" Between Trump And Epstein * DC Tribune




Now, let's get a few things out of the way. If you are a DP conservative - except for one of a shrinking number - it is going to be imperative that if you post in this thread you do at least two things lest you be ex-communicated:

1. Noticing that one of the defendants is a POTUS who has spent a few years pretending to be conservative so that you would vote for him, you will necessarily have to claim that this is a "hoax" perpetrated by "liberals" (possibly Obama).

2. Whattabout to an instance where a "liberal" was accused of sexual assault.

3. Play The Hypocrisy Game by demanding to know how many threads I have started about liberals accused of sexual assault, thereby trying to throw a wrench in the works.


I've saved you the time. Don't bother. The only real way to dispute this is to note that this comes from a civil complaint, meaning it is the plaintiff's allegations. But that's less of a dispute and more of a "let's wait and see."

However, this filing is from 2016. Discovery may have been produced in the case (I actually am weirdly blanking on the mechanics of civil suits against sitting presidents, embarrassingly enough). Remember that it is highly unlikely that there is hard physical evidence like a video or eye witnesses. After all, a savvy sexual predator knows how to avoid leaving evidence other than the victim's word. Depending on how you play that and just how far you try to take it, that may be a valid reason to doubt.

But it cannot be an all-around basis to treat accusations as hoaxes; at a trial, the jury can judge a witness's/victim's credibility. A single witness's testimony can be proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case - I've had those clients - and so the fact that this is likely he-said/she-said is no reason to ignore it. Well, not an honest reason.

Oh right: and also bear in mind.... a ton of people have accused Trump over many years. He's bragged about sex assault. He's bragged about walking in on minors in the ****ing changing room of his pageants because he could get away with it. And before you say that's just character assassination or claim it wouldn't be admissible because it is character evidence, an awful lot of uncharged conduct comes in in sex cases to prove things like "course of conduct" and the like. If it comes in that way in criminal cases, we certainly can rely on it in forming an opinion as a voter on a political board.

We can wait and see what comes out. But think back to your reaction to, say, Franken. The picture was of him pretending to touch someone's breasts. Look at the shadows. The completed sexual assault allegations were he said-she said. So before he apologized and stepped down, ask yourself whether you honestly said "yeah that's a conservative hoax to hurt a Democrat"





tl;dr

More nasty accusations against Trump. Don't be a hack.
This is much more believable than the claim that they fell out because Epstein hit on a mar-a-largo teen.
 
Here's some background concerning Katie Johnson's story;

*It was the end of an incredibly strange case that featured an anonymous plaintiff who had refused almost all requests for interviews, two anonymous corroborating witnesses whom no one in the press had spoken to, and a couple of seriously shady characters — with an anti-Trump agenda and a penchant for drama — who had aggressively shopped the story around to media outlets for over a year.

Those shady characters — a former reality TV producer who calls himself “Al Taylor” and a “Never Trump” conservative activist named Steve Baer — had been mostly unsuccessful in getting the media to bite. There are a few very good reasons for that, which the Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim succinctly summed up: Taylor and Baer have been really sketchy about the whole thing, and since the accuser is anonymous, journalists can’t do anything to verify her claims. The only journalist who has actually interviewed Johnson, Emily Shugerman at Revelist, came away confused and even doubting whether Johnson really exists.*

The lawsuit accusing Trump of raping a 13-year-old girl, explained - Vox
 
"old habits die hard"

 
Yes, but we must cede a few points:

- They generally are long after the alleged event
---- yes, I know, there are reasons victims delay. I've read any amount of expert testimony about it when reviewing transcripts in criminal sex assault cases.
- It is fundamentally wrong, at least in a criminal case, to conclude that because a person did a thing, they are a bad person who does that type of thing, therefore they did the present thing.


But you speak true with smoke --> fire, often enough. That's why we have a notion of "character", in turn a notion of acting in accordance with character.

And sex assault is one of many of the corrupt pig-turd's flaws.

I think we need to cede one primary point.

Katie Johnson was full of it, like the claims in the OP.
 
Back
Top Bottom