Guest post by Jonathon Moseley
Democrats are spreading accusations that the Epstein files show that Donald Trump raped a 13-year-old girl in the Summer of 1994.
However, even SNOPES rejected the claim as false. “A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots.” said Mark Twain. But with Democrats’ misinformation, it’s quantity, not quality.
For example, The Daily Beast just posted a story “DOJ is Hiding Trove of Documents About Trump’s 13-Year-Old Accuser.” But the story was widely published — and debunked — in 2015-2016 and again in 2024.
Democrats are trying to hang Pam Bondi for withholding documents that were already released long ago. SNOPES covered the lawsuit in June 2016 after others did in April 2016.
A former producer for the Jerry Springer show, Norm Lubow, admitted to SNOPES that he engineered the hoax against Trump.
Anti-conservative SNOPES concludes that Lubow is “someone who has a professional history of using individuals to create fictional salacious drama.”
The Plaintiff told the Revelist that Lubow (as Al Taylor) helped write her lawsuit, which would be the unauthorized practice of law.
Republicans are not good at public relations. And by the time the false story collapses, the damage will have been done.
The truth must be told now, not after it is too late. Possibly boosted by spending from Iran and other foreign countries, as the Washington Post speculated, massive “reach” of the lie is persuading millions of low-information voters addicted to social media.
Just one video (with children speaking German, while parading fully clothed in front of a “Trump” figure seen from behind with the wrong color hair) received 6.8 million views according to the Post. (The asexual video looks like training future models to have good posture.) GROK reports that the Trump figure was added artificially to an unrelated video.
So on April 26, 2016, a Katie Johnson by herself filed a lawsuit against Trump and Epstein in California. Now courts can be hard to navigate, especially without a lawyer.
But the lawsuit gave false contact information for the Plaintiff, using the address of a foreclosed house whose owner died in October 2015. See: Radar Online April 28, 2016.
By the way, the claims of hundreds of January 6 protestors of police abuse were thrown out because the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said someone “might not” answer the telephone number they gave.
Investigations at Jezebel and The Guardian found many problems in the story. The Plaintiff claimed to be “involuntarily” at sex parties but “she was enticed by promises of money and a modeling career.” This is self-contradictory. The promoters clearly expressed their own motivations as wanting to defeat Trump as a candidate for unrelated reasons. Id.; Jezebel.
The lawsuit was filed in California, then again in New York. The lawsuits were dismissed or withdrawn. But this was presented as Trump having settled, evidence the claims were true.
In fact, the California case was dropped for failing to state a cause of action. In context, this would mean that the factual allegations were significant but they were not presented in a legally valid pattern, the way a lawyer should have done. That may sound harsh.
Worse, though, the court docket indicates that the court was unable to contact the Plaintiff who filed the complaint at the address she provided. Nor could the Court locate a forwarding address for her. A squatter living in a boarded-up house should have found a way to receive mail.
Julie K. Brown, the journalist who uncovered the federal government’s plea deal in Florida with Epstein in 2008, wrote on twitter that, “The woman just wouldn’t talk, and her lawyer would not confirm she was even legit. … The address she gave on her first lawsuit was false. She was linked to political operatives at one point.”
In August, 2015, a Gawker Media employee received an unsolicited voicemail tip from someone identifying themselves as Al Taylor, “the PR person for the Erotic Heritage Museum in Las Vegas.”
SNOPES reports that numerous journalists, advocates and political operatives attempted and/or were promised in-person interviews. These promises never panned out. Steve Baer, a conservative mega-donor who promoted the claims, told Jezebel that he never met the accuser in person, despite many attempts.
And: “Only one outlet, the now defunct millennial-targeting site Revelist, scored any sort of interview with the accuser.
In July 2016, after first being promised an in-person meeting by Meagher, Revelist’s Emily Shugerman got only a conference call that left her questioning whether Johnson really existed. ‘I don’t know if the Katie Johnson I spoke to is the same girl who Trump allegedly raped in 1994, or if that girl even exists,’ she wrote.”
The case was re-filed in New York by a patent lawyer. Sometimes finding a lawyer is difficult, especially with deadlines expiring. But given Trump’s deep pockets, a litigator seeking a big pay day would be probable.
In August 2016, a prominent attorney Lisa Bloom helped organize and publicize a news conference. But Johnson backed out at the last minute, leaving ‘a room full of waiting reporters without answers, as Vox described. She dropped the New York case days later.
One problem is that people think that “the Epstein files” imply someone verified or confirmed what is in the documents. That is false. They are simply random collections of raw pages.
Nothing in the Epstein files is necessarily remotely accurate. The only half-way useful documents are the FBI Form 302 interview notes, but those are just what someone said. Lawsuits are just accusations.
Still, one heavily-redacted document suggests that the person calling herself Katie Johnson made claims against others that convinced the FBI she was not credible but self-contradictory.
“Is it possible that the claims are nevertheless true?” SNOPES keeps asking. Yes, of course. But that is not how law or logic works. In serious legal issues, if an accusation cannot be proven it must be entirely ignored or assumed to be false.
We recognize that anything is possible and new information could arise. But society has to make a decision, and without convincing evidence that decision must be to reject unproven claims.
Meanwhile, standard DOJ policy, as with the January 6 prosecutions, has always been to redact anyone’s name who has not been formally indicted or charged with a crime.
Women in the Epstein files with their face blocked out are not necessarily underage. One photograph shows obvious neck wrinkles, thinning hair, and bleached hair on brown roots, indicating a 30-40 year old woman.
Yet propagandists are claiming this is an underage girl just because the face is hidden. DOJ policy would hide people of any age who are not charged of any crime.
There is a massive social media push to portray photographs of Trump’s grand-daughter Kai and Trump’s daughters, wearing swimsuits (this being Florida with beaches and pools), at very young ages. These photos of Trump’s family are presented as strangers providing evidence of Trump being a pedophile.
The post Desperate Democrats Turn Once Again to Rape Allegations appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.