Woman accusing Trump of child rape cancels public announcement, citing threats


I will say that I was relieved when a reported hate crime near me turned out to be not a hate crime but an attempt at insurance fraud. Because that is a less violent and scary crime. I have a similar feeling about this case. I don’t know enough to judge the truth of it, so i refuse to do so. And as much as I dislike Trump, I HOPE that this is a case of made up fraud, rather than child abuse simply because that means that a less serious crime has been committed.


I turned on NPR this morning as I was driving, and heard this soundbite:
“I’m here with Joe Blow, an average voter type person shopping at the Mall of America. Joe, who are you voting for?”
“Oh, Trump, definitely.”
“And why did you choose Trump?”
“Because I hate Hillary so damn much.”
“Why do you hate her?”
“Well, because she murdered four people, obviously.”
“Thanks Joe!”


How many prostitutes are just dying to come out and speak against this asshole?? I am guessing that it’s in the high hundreds.

Did Trump assault an underage girl? Well, it sure fits into what we know about him now doesn’t it.

BTW if this woman is in “hiding”, how is she getting death threats?


There’s this new channel nowadays…FOX News, you heard of it? :wink:


Yeah, this is fishy as hell. It’s weird to try and reconcile the realization that my dislike of Trump makes me hope the allegations are true (“Boy, I sure hope a minor was assaulted!”), but there’s just nothing here that passes the smell test. How is a completely anonymous person receiving all those threats, anyway?


I can’t really listen to NPR news anymore… doubly so when they put on stupid crap like that.


I did appreciate that when they mentioned Benghazi they fact-checked people, but the fact that they moved right on from a guy literally accusing Hillary of murder as if it was a rational accusation of a Presidential candidate was kind of bizarre. But fitting this weird election.


I think this quote is still pretty damning even in the absence of direct evidence for the alleged rape.

In a New York magazine profile of Epstein before he went to prison, and long before Trump ran for president, Trump acknowledged that he knows Epstein. “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,’’ Trump says in the story. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it ― Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Just imagine the shit-show Hillary would be facing if she had gone on record talking about how much fun she’d had over the years cruising with a friend who was a convicted pedophile sex offender.


But guuuuys, Clinton emails. Emails guys. I’m super cereal.


Assuming the threats were sent directly, I’d guess they could have been lobbed at her through her lawyer, who does have an actual public presence which can be targeted. Otherwise, the internet is an ugly place and there’s plenty of spaces for people to just openly post threatening remarks. Sure they’re hard to quantify as actionable right now because of the (deep) anonymity of the plaintiff, but there are a lot of folks out there with nothing better to do than doxx people - especially women - once they step out of the shadows.

So, on the one hand, I can understand wanting to remain anonymous if the internet is threatening you over something that’s already highly traumatic. On the other hand, this case is super, super weird, and the cancelled press conference is not doing it any favors on the credibility front.


I’m just trying to imagine if Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton or Michael Dukakis had a pending hearing about a child rape accusation in the lead up to the presidential election.

Regardless of the facts or evidence (or lack thereof), which I am trying really hard not to let my predispositions affect in thinking about this.

If Barack Obama, when running for president, had any kind of sex scandal whatsoever - real or imagined - the howling would have been intense and never ending.

Somehow this insane double standard has become normal, where reasonable people raise reasonable doubts about a CHILD RAPE accusation against one candidate - in the interest of fairness. Fine, for reasonable people. And yet we have a candidate who has bragged about sexually assaulting women, several women who have come forward and said ‘yes, that happened to me’, and it is seen as nonsense.

This election is fucking terrifying. I don’t even live in the US, but it is showing us all the dank underbelly of awfulness that can arise even in one of the most advanced economies/democracies in the world.


Dog help us all

Where is the Democrat shit-show in regards to this accusation?? WTF?


Yeah and that’s damning one way or the other. That quote was offered about Epstein freely. Before these accusations even existed. And in context that’s nothing to do with this case. It gets dropped into these stories to establish that there’s a relationship between the two.

In fact I think that’s part of what makes this so sketchy. Both Trump and Bill Clinton have long associations with Epstein. And nuttier, more conspiratorial elements on both sides have been trying to make a thing of that since the Primaries. If you were going to manufacture something to smear Trump, especially if you wanted to leave open the possibility of smearing Clinton too. That’s a really salacious, attention grabbing, bias confirming detail to add.


I don’t think Bill Clinton ever publicly boasted about how he’s bonded over the years with Epstein based on their mutual interest in beautiful women who happened to be “on the younger side.”

Which, again, Trump offered freely. As in “this is how he talks about women when he KNOWS his words are going to be published.” It’s not a stretch to assume he’s probably even sleazier in private.


I think Van Jones summed it up best. (Long rant but worth the watch)


You’re misunderstanding. Whatever Trump has said he had a long friendship with Epstein. Bill Clinton had a long term relationship of some kind with the guy. That’s established.

Those facts in themselves aren’t particularly damning or pertinent to the election. The fact that on Trumps end, the actual nominee continued to associate with him. Speak highly of him, and praise his taste in underaged women after he was prosecuted for fucking kids is totally pertinent.

Offering that quote in a news story, to show and confirm that relationship and behavior is perfectly appropriate. It just isn’t something that was directly related to this case.

But moving off the coverage. And just taking the accusations. Both Epstein’s involvement there, and the accusation of a vast conspiracy of rich New Yorkers to effectively traffic and rape young women. Is an odd detail. Its awfully tabloidy. I’m not saying its totally unrealistic. Because the BBC and Sandusky and a few other things were curiously similar. But if you were seeking to fabricate accusations against Trump (as with fabricated claims about the Clintons). You might very well work in a thread from existing conspiratorial accusations about the guy. Epstein is a big flashy option there. One that, on the face of it, would lend credibility. Because dude actually Raped kids and actually knew Trump, and Trump still speaks highly of him.

I’ve seen very similar conspiracy claims about the Clintons. For example that the Clinton Foundation is really about trafficking underage women for Bill Clinton and Epstein to rape and murder. These are obviously ridiculous and false.

And while I wouldn’t put these sorts of actions beyond Trump. I’m less willing to consider these accusations because of their similarity to existing conspiracy theories.


Somewhere, Prince Andrew is very happy that Trump and Clinton are getting all the heat for being associated with Epstein.


I don’t think those two conspiracy theories are comparable. There’s never been any kind of evidence that either of the Clintons or their Foundation engaged in any such thing, and at any rate they have no clear motive for doing so. The rape charge against Trump has multiple witnesses who are willing to testify to that effect in a court of law (even if the accuser is as yet unwilling to speak about the incident in public).

Could it turn out to all be bullshit? Sure. Is it something that we should dismiss as highly unlikely given what we know so far? Not at all.


You make a good point. I don’t know enough about this particular accusation to have a meaningful opinion, so I wouldn’t go tossing it out as a reason we don’t want him for President. There are plenty of very provable, valid, honestly f—ing terrifying reasons we do not want him.
Along the same lines, I followed the Anti-vaccination thread down a rabbit hole yesterday, and it ended with Trump having a way different stance on the issue than what was initially reported. He says he wants to spread out childhood vaccinations so they aren’t getting one huge shot all at once. But to skim through a bunch of the material being put out, he’s full-on anti-vaccination.

Let’s not use reasons that aren’t true. Let’s use the true ones.


That’s actually still an Anti-vaxxer position that’s dangerous.

There’s no evidence that “too many too soon” is true, but lots of evidence that if you delay vaccinations your kid is more likely to get sick during that unvaccinated delay.