General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKatie Johnson video re: grooming by Epstein and rape by Trump
Jeffrey Guterman posted this on twitter. It is long, 29 minutes, but worth the watch.
Katie Johnson reveals how she was groomed by Epstein and his workers and then
eventually raped by Trump. It is very graphic. [link:https://vimeo.com/176181706|
Jeffrey Guterman, Ph.D. is a licensed mental health counselor who the secret service
investigated regarding his Twitter account and Trump attempted to block his account.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dalton99a
(81,683 posts)
FakeNoose
(32,866 posts)I'm going to search for the text/script of this. I'd rather read the transcript than watch the video.
If I find anything I'll post a link here.
Edit to add: Link to the affidavit filed by Katie Johnson as "Jane Doe" in 2016:
(link) https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits#fullscreen?platform=hootsuite
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I think it would be too disturbing. And if it's too disturbing to watch, just imagine what she had to go through at the hands of these vile men.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)
Fla Dem
(23,862 posts)But many journalists were wary about this claim. There was no corroborating evidence offered (except for affidavits from two anonymous people claiming to have been told of or witnessed it), and the suit appeared “to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities,” the Guardian’s Jon Swaine wrote. Jezebel’s Anna Merlan tried for some time to get to the bottom of what was going on and concluded in June 2016, “The facts speak less to a scandal and more, perhaps, to an attempt at a smear.”
Trump himself said, “The allegations are not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest level and clearly framed to solicit media attention or, perhaps, are simply politically motivated.”
All that was before the Access Hollywood tape and before many women had spoken out publicly to accuse Trump of sexual assault. But even after that, the anonymity of “Katie Johnson” and the sketchiness of her associates kept mainstream US journalists wary about this accusation. She ended up withdrawing her lawsuit days before the 2016 election; her attorney Lisa Bloom said it was because she was getting death threats.
https://www.vox.com/2019/7/9/20686347/jeffrey-epstein-trump-bill-clinton
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...to "never Trump" republicans back in the primaries 2016.
Journalists who have attempted to verify anything about it, or the contradictory civil filings, have met with some interesting, and consistent, results.
This thing has more red flags than the Chinese Olympics, but that isn't going to stop people from latching onto it, despite the wealth of other, corroborated accounts.
It is a key disinfo tactic to throw something like this one into the mix.
Meanwhile, the other Epstein victims are identifiable, and have appeared in interviews recently. They will not get as much attention.
That's the point.
Here you go:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-rape-accusers-turn-on-each-other
Trump Rape Accusers Turn On Each Other
Chaos is erupting among the motley crew who supported a woman’s claims that Trump and billionaire pervert Jeffery Epstein raped her as a 13-year-old.
Johnny2X2X
(19,254 posts)This is the woman who had a lawsuit against Trump that was threatened by Bannon and his hoard into dropping it 4 days before the 2016 election.
Everything she says is in a sworn affidavit filed with a court.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)An anonymous affidavit is of zero evidentiary value whatsoever.
The first case, in California, was filed by an anonymous party using a street address of an unoccupied foreclosed home that was for sale.
It was not even traceable to any identifiable individual.
The NY case was filed by an attorney who never actually met the so-called "Katie Johnson".
For $350, you can file a federal lawsuit and swear that you are Mickey Mouse and sign it as Mickey Mouse if you'd like.
Incidentally, since the case was withdrawn, can you explain what they are collecting the money for? Thank you.
Johnny2X2X
(19,254 posts)She did appear in court, she did file a lawsuit with a sworn affidavit to these facts, a legal document, testimony is evidence, she deserves to be heard.
She filed the suit in California and it was thrown out, then she refiled in in NY and withdrew after she claims she was threatened.
Believe her or not, this should be out there and has as much merit as you think she's credible. She is about 10 times more believable than Trump.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And you are misrepresenting what is at the link you posted.
She made no physical appearance in any court whatsoever. The link you posted does not claim that anyone showed up in court. It refers to filings made solely on paper.
She "appeared" solely on paper. She never actually showed up in any court at all. The link you posted does not support the false premise you are making.
This is the complete docket for the CA case:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4154484/katie-johnson-v-donald-j-trump/
The only thing that happened was that papers were filed, and mail from the court to the fictitious mailing address bounced:
7
May 9, 2016
Mail Returned (RTS unable to forward) addressed to Katie Johnson 6634 Desert Queen Ave. Twentynine Palms, CA 9227
There was not a single hearing held in that case. No one showed up at court, and mail to the plaintiff bounced.
This is the complete docket for the NY case:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4524664/doe-v-trump/
Papers filed in September, attorney pro hac vice motions submitted, case withdrawn in November.
Neither case reached any stage at which anyone showed up in court. That's a simple fact. Whether you choose to believe in reality is up to you.
Again, could you please tell me what it is that the "Justice for Katie" website is collecting money to do?
If she "withdrew after she claims she was threatened" then why is her website still up? She didn't get threatened into shutting that down? They said "You have to withdraw the lawsuit, but the website is fine"?
Johnny2X2X
(19,254 posts)She made an accusation against the President that the world should here, period.
So she didn't have an address when she first filed the suit in CA, so what? Then she claims she was threatened and dropped the suit in NY, so what?
I get that she didn't pursue it to its fullest in court, she still filed a complaint and swore to her version of events. Why shouldn't the world hear her?
I could care less about her website, why do you? Given Trump's extensive record of sexual assaults, her description of these events are much more credible that if she had made this accusation about virtually any other public figure in the World outside of Jeff Epstein.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Because if you look at all of the information about the contradictory claims in the two suits, the claims of "threats", and the continued solicitation for money for "legal expenses" despite there being no legal action, along with the various persons who have been involved in the creation and promotion of this story over time, then a consistent picture emerges.
The point about the website appears to have escaped you. How do you suppose it is that the people making the threats are okay with her continuing to operate the website and distribute this video? If you were going to threaten someone in order to silence them, then don't you think it would bother you if that person didn't comply?
Does that situation make sense to you?
People who are inclined to believe something let down their critical faculties in order to ignore inconsistencies.
There is no "she" who swore to anything. Again, if I swear an affidavit that I am Mickey Mouse and sign it as Mickey Mouse, then it doesn't really matter. It particularly doesn't matter if I do so as a stunt to collect money, and then walk away from it claiming I was threatened, with my identity never even known to the court or anyone else. You fail to understand that if someone does that, there is no risk to them, no consequences, and no possibility of consequences.
I do get that, to non-lawyers or persons unfamiliar with how court proceedings work, it seems like a big deal that someone filed something with a court with a fake name and then withdrew it shortly after that.
As far as "why shouldn't the world hear her", the "world" can hear whatever it wants. The 'world' heard CBS News run with the Texas Air National Guard Memo too. The result of that episode was that people ended up dismissing the actual fact that W shirked his duty in the TANG, because disinformation agents got that 'world' to latch onto a piece of evidence that was entirely fake.
brush
(53,971 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I once watched a man in Las Vegas make an entire caged tiger disappear. Completely blew me away.
Have you compared, for example, the allegations made in the video, the CA filing, and the NY filing?
After seeing the video, reading the filings, reading the accounts of journalists who have attempted to further confirm the story (and the reactions they got from Republicans among whom this saga originated), no, none of it "rings true" to me. What it looks like to me is a hoax which has been used to scam several tens of thousands of dollars out of a GOP donor, among others, and which has always been folded up right - several times now - right when it was on the brink of a procedural pass where someone would have be identifiably responsible for it (even if that identity were sealed with the court).
I believe that hoax trades, in part, on a general ignorance of how lawsuits work, much like the way that Avenatti was always "this close" to "bringing down Trump". You are among the people who gave me shit about being skeptical of him too, so its "deja vu all over again."
Lots of things "ring true". Jussie Smollet "rang true" for many at DU too. Just because you want to believe something doesn't make it true. But I'm willing to bet that I've dug more deeply into this one than you have.
brush
(53,971 posts)to what's on the video. She told how she was coaxed into the Epstein circle by a "friend" and it began with messages and eventually Epstein raped her.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The Texas Air National Guard Memo was consistent with known facts about W too.
Information about how Epstein operated has been public for a very long time, you know.
brush
(53,971 posts)and the woman's story be investigated? You seem to favor skepticism even when investigations could get to the truth. What's the harm? We all know trump is a lying, sex predator—self-admitted on the "Access Hollywood" tape.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The Epstein indictment refers to a large number of victims, and includes several which the investigators obviously contacted.
Also, just as obviously, identified victims have been pursuing a civil case against Epstein for some time.
You think that the federal investigators are somehow too lazy, stupid or ill-informed, as long as they were digging into everything they could find on Epstein, to have possibly heard of this headline-grabbing episode from three years ago.
Oddly, there is a contingent at DU which does not want attention on the actual documented, identified and verified victims of Epstein, none of whom, incidentally, suggest that Epstein shared underage girls with anyone else.
Ah, "what's the harm?" Indeed, "what's the harm" of tying the credibility of the left to a flim-flam man like Michael Avenatti, Louise Mensch, or any of the parade of people who regularly make bank on the gullibility of persons inclined to believe things that make them feel good, or confirm their prejudices.
Trump is a scumbag. There is no question about that. That fact does not make anything anyone says, so long as it is anti-Trump, true.
But, what about you? How much have you donated to the cause?
You can make a financial contribution to the non-existent legal expenses of the non-existent "Katie Johnson" right here:
www.justiceforkatie.com
So, there you are. I even provided the fundraising link so that you can stick to people like me who believe, after spending way too much time digging into what's known about this thing, it is a hoax.
But, other than watching the video and donating at the link I've helpfully provided, what sort of investigation do you propose?
How about a journalist from Jezebel:
https://jezebel.com/the-source-pushing-the-trump-rape-lawsuits-may-not-be-w-1783270283
The Source Pushing The Trump Rape Lawsuits May Not Be Who He Says He Is
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-rape-accusers-turn-on-each-other
Behind the scenes of one such effort, in the shape of a federal lawsuit charging Donald Trump with allegedly raping an underage girl, things have gotten weird.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-teen-jane-doe-rape-accuser-disappears-again
The questionable characters surrounding Katie—most notably “Al Taylor,” a lewd ex-producer of The Jerry Springer Show who was shopping the tape, and conservative mega-donor and email agitator Steve Baer, who provided thousands of dollars to move Katie into a new apartment, again for her safety—at one time was even too much for Bloom to bear.
Are those "right wing" websites? Are you a better investigator than the SDNY, the journalists above, and the award-worthy journalism that's been done into Epstein which precipitated the current prosecution?
You think there is some coverup going on and that the likes of Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, and any of the journalists on Trumps and Epstein's trail have been paid-off or cowed into not looking into this thing that was the subject of considerable hype three years ago?
You are entitled to believe what you like, but there's been no lack of "investigation" here.
brush
(53,971 posts)if it's true of not? If it's a hoax she should be charged.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)1. Quite a number of journalists have tried to investigate this. This includes journalists at left-leaning publications such as Jezebel, DailyBeast and others. They have all come away with the impression this is a hoax.
2. Federal investigators are in the business of conducting criminal investigations into their subjects. Notably, this is not included in the Epstein indictment. One would not expect them to say, in that indictment, "Oh, by the way, we also ran down some rabbit holes which didn't pan out" nor would one expect them to go chasing around some nitwits who filed two civil cases and let them die before they went anywhere.
All I have attempted to do is to provide you with some background information about others WHO HAVE INVESTIGATED THIS along with my own observations about the legal filings from the perspective of a legal professional. You can take it or leave it.
If it bothers you that I don't believe it and you do, then you'll just have to find a way to live with that. I thought it might be interesting to add some additional material to the discussion from sources who have investigated it, etc., so that you and others could also consider additional facts about the questionable "Katie Johnson" thing.
I have also, unlike you, provided a link to "her" fundraising page, so that if my opinion REALLY bothers you, then you too can actually DONATE MONEY TO THE CAUSE. In other words, in the course of this thread, I have done more to advance the interests of the promoters of this story than you have.
That'll certainly teach me a lesson, won't it?
I did the same for Avenatti too, so that he could take your money and....
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/03/michael-avenattis-pac-gives-a-lot-of-money-to-michael-avenatti/
Michael Avenatti’s PAC gives a lot of money to Michael Avenatti
So, if you believe Katie Johnson, why don't you consider a donation to the cause?
brush
(53,971 posts)but that woman should go into acting because she comes off remarkably like the ones who recently came out, and the video is three years old without the benefit of having seen others being interviewed.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Sexual predators have a pattern - a behavioral map which is integral to what they do.
The Epstein victim stories are tightly consistent. It starts with recruitment, giving him massages alone, and he makes progressive moves to test their resistance to his advancement while giving them money as an implicit payment to keep quiet.
The Katie Johnson story is a stark contrast to the Epstein victim stories.
In the Katie Johnson story, she is invited to a series of parties where sex is going on, with participants other than Epstein. There are no massages, no massage table, and she is tied down and raped by Trump.
The Katie Johnson story is wildly inconsistent with the VERY consistent stories told by the Epstein victims in his indictment and this on on CNN.
brush
(53,971 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)But that's not a reason not to discuss it.
I'm perfectly open to having my opinions challenged by facts. That's what discussion is about.
You said it was a very similar story. Whether it is similar or not is a simple factual proposition.
If you are going to say that the story is very similar, how do you deal with the strikingly different details, given the consistent of ALL of the other Epstein victim stories.
In other words, if you took all of the other Epstein victim stories, threw this one in, and asked people whether any one of them seems different from all of the others, this one would stick out like a sore thumb.
MaryMagdaline
(6,859 posts)You can be homeless and have a P.O. Box address and that is perfectly legit. Listing a place where you don't actually reside, and where no one resides, is completely illegitimate. Hoaxes do happen, and they only serve to cast doubt on legitimate claims.
brush
(53,971 posts)consistency of detail is so similar to the stories told by Epstein and trump victims who have come forward. There was a thirty-two year old woman on CNN just today who told a strikingly similar story about being raped by Epstein when she was 15.
We all know trump is a lying, sefl-admited (Access Hollywood tape) sexual predator. Why give his lying ass the benefit of the doubt by not following through to find out if the woman is truthful or not.
Just saying it's a hoax let's trump off the hook. That's what he claims—everything is a hoax, witch hunt or fake news.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Back when this made the rounds the first time, there was one DUer who concluded that she must have been living as a squatter in the abandoned foreclosed property, lol. For all I know, she still believes that.
I mean, golly, "She filed a lawsuit!"
People filed lawsuits claiming Obama was born in Africa. People file lawsuits claiming all kinds of things.
Johnny2X2X
(19,254 posts)It's not a red flag at all for me that a scared victim of someone famous tried to file a suit as Jane Doe in CA, she didn't know how to properly proceed and had no lawyer then. It's also not a red flag to me she's trying to raise money to hire a lawyer. She did things more proper with the NY suit, but dropped the case 4 days before the 2016 election. No one listened to her and she claims she was receiving threats.
Did she not use her full name in the NY case?
Again, she's not a perfect victim, she's behaving like someone who is scared and doesn't have good legal representation. But that tape is at least more credible that Trump's claims now that he barely knew Jeff Epstein. I think this woman's story needs to be investigated, if she can prove she was at Epstein's apartment back then it has more credibility. She says she has 2 corroborating witnesses, what do they say and know?
I mean Jesus, we've got a President who has invited women (Women who have admitting being paid by GOP operatives) with less credibility than Ms. Johnson to the debates because they now claim that Bill Clinton assaulted them in the 80s, but we should dismiss this woman's on tape compelling and detailed account? Sorry, it deserves discussion and investigation by at least the media, if it doesn't hold up, it doesn't, but it' been dismissed prematurely.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)No.
In fact "Katie Johnson" does not fit my definition of an actual person.
Johnny2X2X
(19,254 posts)She's on video, she's easily identifiable. She chose to use a pseudonym, I don't blame her.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)If you would even take the time to acquaint yourself with the basic details here, you'd KNOW that "Katie Johnson" is a pseudonym that was used for the initial filing in California.
Obviously, this is why you didn't understand my Mickey Mouse comments, because you don't even know the basic facts being alleged by the people promoting the "Katie Johnson" thing in the first place.
Did you even READ the Snopes page you linked as "proof" of something?
As of now, all of the information about this lawsuit comes solely from the complaint filed by “Katie Johnson,” and no one has as yet located, identified, or interviewed her.
Do you know WHY Snopes put quotes around "Katie Johnson"?
Johnny2X2X
(19,254 posts)So what? Wouldn't you want to keep some anonymity until you couldn't? She wasn't trying very hard by going on video, they still got to her to make threats.
Her video is believable (doesn't mean it's true), I'm not sure why you think the fact she tried to remain anonymous in lawsuits means her video loses all credibility.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)"I'm not sure why you think the fact she tried to remain anonymous in lawsuits means her video loses all credibility."
Umm, no, that's not even the point.
You were the one who said she was credible because "she swore to it in court". When you said that, you were apparently unaware that she's never been inside a courtroom in connection with any of this, nor were you aware that a person using a fake name and a fake address signed a piece of paper swearing to stuff under that fake name. In other words, you were the one that suggested this completely unverifiable information somehow made the video "credible". I was simply pointing out that if you want to mail stuff to a court, using a fake name and fake return address, in which the fake name swears to things, then it doesn't prove much of anything.
Johnny2X2X
(19,254 posts)This woman is on tape making a detailed and believable accusation. She decided not to go through it all before the election because she claims she was threatened. At that time, she had hired an attorney (Lisa Bloom), but chose to still remain anonymous. It was thought she was about to make herself publicly known.
Can you blame her for remaining anonymous? Heck, she's being attacked even for that.
In a court of law, she hasn't shown anything, you are correct on that. However, she has put on tape a believable account of horrific crimes by our President. The media has stayed away from the case because she has not put the force of her name behind the accusations. However, in light of Jeffrey Epstein being in the news again and Donald Trump's friendship with him being under scrutiny, don't these accusations deserve at least as much press as some of those against Bill Clinton got in 2016?
I don't care if she dropped off the face of the earth. Putting this story on tape makes it a huge deal and it's stunning that the entire country hasn't watched it. I can guarantee you that if this was Bill Clinton that tape would have been on a continuous loop on 3 networks for the last 3 weeks.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Well, obviously she didn't.
"She" is collecting money for a non-existent "legal" battle here:
www.justiceforkatie.com
The threats she has received were obviously not sufficient to deter her from bravely continuing to accept donations for purposes which aren't clear, given that she dropped the lawsuit.
How much have you donated? Why not put some cold hard cash into what you believe?
You can type until your fingers are numb here with some idiot who just doesn't understand the 'truth', or you can do something constructive with that energy and make a generous donation - as much as you can afford - and stick it to skeptics like me.
Johnny2X2X
(19,254 posts)Double Post
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)is consistent, if nothing else.
"People who are inclined to believe something let down their critical faculties in order to ignore inconsistencies."
The corollary also being just as true.
Chalco
(1,311 posts)When I watched it I was struck by how much detail she had.
I was suspicious, but by the end it all felt real.
Johnny2X2X
(19,254 posts)She is very credible and the world needs to hear this video!
duforsure
(11,885 posts)But against trump too. Have all the women start doing this weekly to Epstein, Acosta , and trump until they are gone, and all charged , and receive consequences. This is not acceptable , and should not be allowed to become normalized , or excused away by trump and others. All those in the gop saying nothing, and doing nothing need to all be spotlighted , and removed from office for backing child predation, both with this Epstein issue, and with these migrant children being sexually abused with trump knowing it.
BSdetect
(8,999 posts)
bdamomma
(63,959 posts)K&R
ElementaryPenguin
(7,800 posts)Is going to have are hard time evading this charge and his association with Epstein!
He's really about as disgusting an individual as I can even conjure up in my imagination.
Brainfodder
(6,423 posts)I will laugh hysterically at anyone claiming that he was VETTED!?!
ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)
jmbar2
(4,917 posts)Agree with poster above that it is possible that this is a disinformation attempt.
If they can slip in one questionable allegation in amongst the real ones, it taints the valid ones in the minds of his supporters. It is a well-documented technique from Russia to mix truth with lies so that you can't believe anything, become cynical and quit paying attention.
I don't know if this is true or not, but I would be on watch for this type of disinformation technique as more accusers come forward.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)What makes it devilishly effective is that during the last go-round of the Katie Johnson schtick in 2016, anyone who points out the flashing warning signs and red flags all over this thing, is branded as a troll.
That reflexive reaction is a key element of how this stuff works.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)anyone who points out the flashing warning signs and red flags all over this thing, is branded as a troll."
It's creative to imply oppression by those who don't hold your opinions. And self-serving as well. I can only imagine sincere-sounding implications of martyrdom will soon follow. But that seems the consistent routine.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)As much as I love seeing anything that wrecks Cheetolini, I love truth even more.
I'd posted this briefly on another site before I'd read your responses, but have removed it given the logically questionable veracity. Fight lies and misinformation with truth, not more lies and misinformation.
It's not really dis-proven, but you certainly raise enough critical thinking points to at least heavily question it.. enough where it shouldn't be propagated as evidence.
ElementaryPenguin
(7,800 posts)She's talking about Trump and Epstein... It's consistent with other descriptions of Trump's behavior. This is what these guys did/do.
jmbar2
(4,917 posts)...but urging awareness of the possibility that a disinformation campaign will likely be launched to distract attention from the case. Watch for it.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And how do we know this?
"Katie Johnson" says she was 13. The Epstein case claims victims "as young as 14".
Given that the "Katie Johnson" stuff was out for years now, why did the federal investigators ignore it?
jmbar2
(4,917 posts)She could have been recruited at 13, but not raped until 14. Or she could misremember dates. Doesn't invalidate her claim.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Okay, so now you are calling HER a liar?
That's a riot.
Why don't you first read the legal filings "she" swore too. She's pretty specific, and I'm pretty sure she knows what year she was born.
Now you've reached the point of having to change what she has actually said, in order to force-fit her story (as amended) into other facts.
brush
(53,971 posts)We have a monster as president and he's protected by enablers as Epstein has been. Maybe we're getting to the end with trump being exposed.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-teen-jane-doe-rape-accuser-disappears-again
Trump’s Teen Jane Doe Rape Accuser Disappears Again
Gloria Allred’s daughter heralded a press conference with a woman who has accused Trump of raping her as a teen—only to cancel it at the last minute.
brush
(53,971 posts)buried, like the National Enquirer did with negative stories about trump. Bannon was involved, Cohen and all the rest of his lawyers and sycophants.
There will be a reckoning though. Don't know how long off it is but no one gets away with this kind of criminality forever, just as Epstein has found out. trump will be called to account. I just hope he doesn't destroy our institutions and republic beforehand.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Cohen testified under oath to Congress (the second time, not the first) that there were no other sexual liaisons than the Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal of which he was aware.
Also, federal investigators got all of Cohen's files and data.
Are you saying that Cohen was lying and the feds are withholding the information?
brush
(53,971 posts)perhaps not on this woman's story but someone certainly got it buried just before it was to come out.
I say again no one gets away with these kinds of crimes forever.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)It "got buried" just before the point of no return, in which an actual person was going to be responsible for the legal filings, and subject to potential penalties in the event it was a stunt taken as far as it could go.
cureautismnow
(1,678 posts)He didn't start working for the Trump Organization until 2006. "Katie" says she was about the same age as Ivanka at the time of her interactions with Trump. Ivanka would have been 13 in 1994. Cohen wouldn't have even known of this event when and if it transpired. By 2006, DT was probably more talk (about "adult" encounters) than action. In any event, I don't know if she is lying or not. Someone needs to try to find the other people that she names to collaborate her story.
I can't remember, but I don't think Cohen was ever asked if he knew anything about DT threatening Stormy Daniels with the goon in the Vegas parking lot.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You may be confused about the facts claimed.
"Katie" doesn't claim to have been threatened in the 1990's. In fact, if you read her allegations, she didn't even know who Donald Trump was, and only identified him years later by seeing him in the media.
However, the threat claim is that she was THREATENED IN NOVEMBER 2016 TO DROP THE SUIT.
I'm pretty sure Michael Cohen was working for Trump in 2016, and this would have been the same time frame as the Stormy Daniels negotiation.
So, Cohen meeting Trump in the late 90's would have zip to do with whether Cohen was involved in the alleged threat in 2016.
The threat, however, was ineffective at getting her to retract the allegations made on her fundraising webpage.
cureautismnow
(1,678 posts)That was before Cohen was his personal attorney.
Regarding threats, Stormy Daniels says she was threatened in 2011. I don't think Cohen was asked nor spoke of this threat. Perhaps, DT had other hatchet men carry out his nefarious deeds without Cohen's knowledge.
At any rate, the threat on "Katie" WAS effective at keeping her quiet henceforth.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)No it wasn't.
She has a whole website for telling the several versions of her story and collecting money:
www.justiceforkatie.com
In what universe is running a website "keeping quiet"?
And, again, if you are going to believe the story, at least know what the story is:
"26. The duress had prevented Plaintiff from starting litigation before this year. However, as soon as she surfaced, she received threats. More specifically, shortly after her first complaint was filed in California on April 26, 2016, she started receiving threatening phone calls on her cell phone."
Which is really fascinating. The suit was filed in 2016 using a fake name and address, by someone who had no contact with Trump or Epstein since the 1990's and, boom, this person starts getting calls on her cell phone.
Fortunately, the threats were not enough to keep whomever runs that site from continuing to collect donations.
How much do you think you'll donate?
cureautismnow
(1,678 posts)He is licensed to practice law in New York and has been since 1988 with no record of public discipline.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Have you taken a look at any of the interviews with him about this case?
https://www.revelist.com/politics/i-talked-with-katie-johnson/3573/a-quick-google-search-revealed-that-johnsons-lawyer-thomas-meagher-is-a-patent-lawyer-in-princeton-new-jersey/1
Meagher took on this case independently of his law firm, and openly admits that he has never tackled this kind of case before. He told me in our first conversation that he discovered the case via the website Gossip Extra. The South Florida-tabloid ran an article about Johnson's failed first filing, and her fruitless search for legal representation. Moved, Meagher contacted the site to offer his help.
He's a patent attorney. Never litigated a case anything like this in his life.
He saw the Katie Johnson story in a gossip publication, got interested, called them up and offered his services.
Lawyers get sucked into hoaxes just like anyone else. We don't have magic powers or superhuman abilities. Lawyers are people, like anyone else.
Did you notice in the filings, that he did it in his name, and not that of his firm, because his firm didn't want to be involved?
Are you saying that everything an attorney has ever filed in a court is true?
Do you believe everything filed by Trump's lawyers in, say, the Trump University case? None of them have a record of public discipline either.
If we are at the point of "everything uttered by a lawyer is true", then you had better believe me. I've been licensed since 1999 with no discipline either. What does that prove to you?
But, sure, this lawyer is as real as Michael Avenatti, or any other lawyer. Even me.
With one difference. I've actually represented a client against Trump successfully. Meagher and Avenatti have not.
https://metro.co.uk/2016/11/04/we-really-think-you-should-visit-trump-org-6234798/
cureautismnow
(1,678 posts)"I reached Meagher by phone on the afternoon of June 23. He said he’d flown out to meet with Johnson in California and had spoken with her after that by phone and FaceTime. “I’ve gotten to know her quite well,” he told me."
https://jezebel.com/heres-how-that-wild-lawsuit-accusing-trump-of-raping-a-1782447083
Roger Stone thinks "Katie's" story is a hoax. How does it feel to agree with him?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Okay, he had a meeting with someone claiming to be her. I stand corrected. It still doesn't prove anything.
Have I made some personal insinuation about you?
If Roger Stone walked barefoot on ice and said "this ice is cold" I'd be required to consider ice to be hot from there on in?
That's the same sort of bogus bullshit tactic that conspiracy theorists always use. "Oh, Dick Cheney thinks the 9/11 attacks used airplanes instead of hidden explosives, so you agree with Dick Cheney."
Perhaps you allow Roger Stone to decide what your opinions should be, but I don't. I think for myself and it's my opinion after looking into a lot of material on this, and particularly the legal filings themselves, is that this is bullshit designed to distract and confuse. I couldn't give a shit what Roger Stone thinks of anything.
The Bush Administration believed the Texas Air National Guard Memo was fake. Guess what. They were right, because it was fake. They knew it was a fake, because it was a fake they planted, btw.
But do get back to me on the comprehensive list of everything Roger Stone believes, so that I can adjust all of my opinions according to whatever he thinks.
cureautismnow
(1,678 posts)Uh, no. I was merely pointing out that the master of dirty tricks thought this was a hoax and you agreed with him. That would give me an icky feeling siding with that a-hole no matter the subject. I don't decide my opinions with what Mr. Stone believes, although I would probably disagree on the majority of beliefs that he espouses. As an example, RS most likely thought that it was acceptable for Nixon's cronies to pay people to defecate in the streets and pretend to be Democrats at the '72 convention in Miami. I would not find that okay.
In regards to this case, I am on the fence. I haven't seen any credible evidence to convince me either way. Katie's account is possible, but I would like to see more corroborating evidence and testimony. The donations for the web site may be going to the leeches trying to benefit from her account, but it doesn't disprove that her story is a fabrication.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)"That would give me an icky feeling siding with that a-hole no matter the subject. "
But if the point is that you should disagree with everything Roger Stone believes, then the person in control of your opinions is Roger Stone, not you.
Hitler liked dogs. Gonna refuse to get a dog now? Gonna get rid of your dog now? Or maybe just find a way to deal with the fact that you and Hitler both like dogs.
My opinion is that this is a leftover piece of information warfare from the 2016 GOP primaries. It was used to extract tens of thousands of dollars from one GOP donor before he said "no mas".
After that, it was shopped around for up to a million bucks, and then re-purposed to bilk donations through the justiceforkatie.com website.
There's stuff in it that just doesn't make sense. The bit about getting threatening cell phone calls after 20 years of no contact (and people didn't just carry around cell phones back in the 90's) on behalf of someone who she didn't even know at the time upon filing a case under a pseudonym makes no sense at all. You think Lisa Bloom couldn't put her up in a hotel somewhere under another name? C'mon.
I don't have the coin that Lisa Bloom does, but if I needed to hide someone safe and securely, I could do that on my budget, sure.
Meanwhile, someone like E. Jean Carroll makes a credible, corroborated report of having been raped by Trump... nobody cares, but it's "Katie Johnson" season again.
Likewise when Cohen's office was raided, and there was a lot of interesting information coming out about Cohen's lies about Trump Tower Moscow, his payments from foreign companies for access, and other damning facts... whaddya know, a bunch of people show up with "Oooooh, they'll find Katie Johnson in there!".
Every time the "Katie Johnson" thing comes up, it is when there is some really interesting actual shit going on, and I can't help but believe it serves much of the same purpose that some of the 9/11 truther crap did. We had a starkly damning indictment of gross ineptitude and incompetence of W's administration, showing him and his cronies to be grossly unfit for office, and in comes a parade of weirdos with energy beams, no planes, and "fake passengers" - just like the "Pissers for McGovern" - to suck out the air and distract from the actual facts.
"The donations for the web site may be going to the leeches trying to benefit from her account, but it doesn't disprove that her story is a fabrication. "
Do you think the people who have threatened to kill her in order to shut her up, care who is running that site? It has the video, all of the allegations, etc., and is the source of the material in the OP of this thread. But, because it is actually run by some scammers collecting money, instead of the actual Katie Johnson, these stone cold killers just shrug and say, "Eh, nothing we can do about that."
Quite a few journalists have attempted to dig into this, and found weird shit under every rock. I think there is a reason that no serious media organization has run with this thing, despite having a long time to do it. And don't give me the "they are all corrupt", bought off, intimidated, or what have you. It was, in fact, investigative reporting that blossomed into this new round against Epstein, and the reporter has lived to tell the tale.
cureautismnow
(1,678 posts)The web site is no big deal. If the "stone cold killers" managed to shut it down, it could still be located on the Wayback Machine or some other leeches could store it on another site overseas and out of their reach. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)One of us has defended a website against an attempt by Trump to shut it down, and one of us hasn't.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3213481-Trump-Domain.html
But you miss the obvious reason for Trump and/or his people not wanting that website to be taken down.
If I know I can't get you on my side, then I want you to believe something which is against me, and false. Put another way, if someone is going to be shooting at you, then you want them to buy bad ammunition.
cureautismnow
(1,678 posts)Really. 
The OP web site is up now because:
1. 1st Amendment
and/or
2. The owners of the site can't be financially persuaded to take them down.
or
3. Trump's men own the sites and want to spread disinformation and muddy the waters.
or
4. Someone else (the Bush's?) put the site up as a hoax, but Trump keeps it up to throw everyone off of the track of the other bad stuff because this allocation is false and unprovable.
I think you are advocating for #4, but isn't that considered a conspiracy theory that you despise?
Does Trump.org (who you supposedly represented) fall into category 3 or 4, too or are they legitimate?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The Trump Organization demanded that trump.org be taken down.
But, you almost had me there. 
cureautismnow
(1,678 posts)Perhaps, the arc of the moral universe will be bending toward justice then and he'll be facing off against you from behind bars next time.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I notice your username is "CureAutismNow".
Are you aware of any cure for autism, or is that more of a hopeful wish of some kind?
cureautismnow
(1,678 posts)n/t
mackdaddy
(1,530 posts)It was claimed that she withdrew the lawsuit because of death threats.
Stormy Daniels also detailed receiving threats.
And even the Bail statement by the SDNY Feds details threats to some of their witnesses including being run off the road."
Authorities also found a massage table with sex toys and lubricant.
“Even the room where abuses occurred is set up the way it was,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Alex Rossmiller said.
Berman also said Epstein engaged in “witness tampering, harassment [and] other obstructive behaviors.” The billionaire allegedly went to extreme degrees to obstruct the investigation, including by having his private investigator run someone off the road.
Lonestarblue
(10,148 posts)God out women on the earth solely to be used and controlled by men. Trump is their macho man who has enjoyed lots of sexual perversion they perhaps envy. End of story.
calimary
(81,566 posts)women on earth” - to be mere play toys for men and containers for their “sacred” sperm.
I find the whole idea insulting and downright hideous.
AlexSFCA
(6,139 posts)she’ll pass lie detector, no doubt. She is probably not the only one.
mackdaddy
(1,530 posts)I remember see this years ago. It was unfortunately being pushed by some of the tabloid media for $$ which caused questions on the story's veracity.
But the woman seems very sincere and forthright. Everything she says does ring true and sounds just like the many other Epstein victims/survivors that have come forward. And now after the last 3 years, it seems very prescient too.
All of the reporting and finally new prosecution of Epstein and how he operated is exactly as this woman says happened to her. The relationship between Epstein and Trump she describes rings true.
Trump being a germophobe but still demanding sex acts (from minors) is supported.
And how she describes Trump being an extreme racist and his hatred of middle eastern and Latino immigrants has been turned into his administrations policy, and shameful treatment of these minorities.
And again this was released well before the Access Hollywood tape, the new Epstein reporting, and all the insider tell all interviews.
I hope this woman gets in touch with the FBI team working with the SDNY Epstein prosecution.
watoos
(7,142 posts)with Gloria Alred, she claimed she withdrew it because of death threats against her.
ElementaryPenguin
(7,800 posts)
Johnny2X2X
(19,254 posts)Evangelicals would blame the 13 year old victim, it's one of the primary tenants of their beliefs.
infullview
(982 posts)It made me a little sick to my stomach. I never realized what a truly sick fuck tRump really is.
Duppers
(28,132 posts) 
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)What a sick pervert!
cp
(6,674 posts)Whether the video dissemination is a hoax or made by someone with ulterior motives, I can't speak to, but what she described is exactly what happens emotionally to a young person who is sexually abused by a powerful adult. Her life will always be scarred, even if she gets therapy and learns to love herself.
I really hope that someone discovers direct links between Epstein and Drumpf, because it is so wholly plausible that they ran in the same circles and their sexual sadism overlapped.
Sugarcoated
(7,736 posts)Here's another that works:
