Ah, thanks for clarifying. Yet another thing I don’t know enough about. I was trying to say the initial reporting was misleading. But maybe that was a poor example. Hmmm, if only there were some other examples of misleading, under-informed reporting out there… Well, I guess we’re lucky there aren’t. 
2 Likes
Yeah but again those multiple witnesses are anonymous, and noone has been able to confirm their identity, credibility, and even existence. This seems to exist entirely on paper.
I could file a lawsuit tomorrow that says you aggressively touched my pooperhole in 1996. with as many pieces of paper signed by anonymous witnesses as I wanted. And provided I did the paper work right. And you couldn’t get off a quick motion of dismissal based on an airtight alibi. Well it would look very much like this case does on paper. Claims made, case on the docket. Nothing further. Despite that being pretty impossible (I don’t know who you are, and I’m pretty sure noone aggressively touched my pooperhole).
And there’s never been any evidence of the very similar conspiracies about Trump and Epstein. Until this curiously evidence light (at the moment) law suit. In the absence of solid info about the accuser and law suit itself, which makes this thing a shrug really. I can’t help but poke the rest of it with a stick to try and get a read on it. And as I said if there was just one. One journalist who could get further than “I may have talked with the victim, but I don’t know, so I wont publish” most of these concerns would disappear.
All we know for certain so far is an accusation has been made, and Trump is definitely a piece of shit. This isn’t like the other accusations against him where we have detail and multiple named, on the record witnesses. Or in at least 2 cases actual testimony in court.
That’s a common dog whistle to anti-vaccinationists. Its drawn directly from their arguments. But its a common stance taken by those who support the anti-vaccine movement but don’t want to be publicly labeled as anti-vaccine. It’s not a more nuanced, or even different, position. Its ass-coverage, pandering with plausible deniability.
The key problem I have is that there isn’t much to know. Beyond the headline info, and details from the filing. There really isn’t much. Even the accusers own lawyers don’t seem to be able to get much further than that. And journalists attempting to report on this properly hit a wall trying. Unable to vet the accusations themselves they stumble on a lot of weird on the periphery. That weird tends to cast doubt, but its all circumstantial. Doesn’t speak directly to the claims being made in anyway.
Perhaps that’s just what we want you to think…
1 Like
It is. I am very close to losing my shit over this. Gonna see if I can volunteer to get out the vote. If I were in a swing state I’d rent a big fan and volunteer to drive people to vote who needed rides.
5 Likes
Do we know where Billy Bush was when Drumpf uttered that. Sounds like he was probably goaded into making that comment.
1 Like
That gave me an amusing visual - which was very welcome given the subject of this thread.
5 Likes
WAIT a second. The accuser has out a taped deposition in which she is seen - albeit with face blurred and voice distorted - describing her rape. It came out this June and has oddly not been reported on: http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/ (scroll to bottom to see video).
Viewing the deposition is chilling. EVEN if it could be debunked, it must be; because it is extremely disturbing and damning evidence on the face of things. So far Snopes has not debunked it.
2 Likes
Wait. Isn’t Hillary Clinton the candidate? Shouldn’t we be discussing her actions, and not his?
1 Like
Part of what I was getting at. Bill’s association with Epstein is less than pertinent because he’s not running. And he doesn’t appear to currently associate with Epstein. BUT it provides an example of how Epstein based conspiracy has been floating around this election since candidates announced last year.
Point being Trump’s statements and continued association with Epstein are damning because he’s publicly stated that he thinks highly of a known statutory rapist, even hinting that he knew the guy was into underage girls. Not because of any direct association of those statements with this case.
That tape does not identify her. Or provide opportunity to vet the accusations. Its also apparently the video that was pitched to media, and subsequently tabloids for $1m.
From the same Snopes Article:
“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.”
I’m not saying this woman’s name and personal information needs to be released. But at the very least some one besides “Al Taylor” needs to make contact and confirm some details before this moves to the “likely” column. It wouldn’t be at odds with respecting her safety to have a reputable journalist treat her as an anonymous source. Confirm base things like there being a Katie Johnson (which is an alias, apparently), that she was in NY at the time. That the witness exists, and worked for the people and organizations she claims. ETC. All without publishing identifying information.
Bloom seems to indicate that Johnson was present at the press conference. Which implies they have met. Previously she’s stated that she had not met the accuser. The accuser’s lawyer is Meagher, not Bloom. I’m unsure what Bloom’s precise roll in this is, as she’s not listed as council for the NY lawsuit. But Meagher has in the past stated that he hasn’t actually met with his own client, only having spoken with her on the phone and via email. There are multiple examples out there are strange communications allegedly from Johnson, with others in the case directly refuting that they’re from Johnson at all. And the only writer who I’ve seen claim contact was unsure who she actually talked to.
The previous court action didn’t require the accuser (or accused) present. And the “trial” set for December is a “status conference”. The plaintiff (accuser) must attend. But this is just a procedural hearing to determine things like standing, jurisdiction, and whether the suit has any validity. Basically up till that point anyone can file any suit for any reason. The status conference is when the court determines if there’s anything there. So until that point even the court hasn’t been able to see the pertinent information. Plaintiff filed anonymously, and the witness (or witnesses? its unclear) are listed as a Jane Doe.
The information is not there to make a determination. And the information we have is all profoundly sketchy. That she pulled a no-show at a press conference doesn’t help. Neither does the fact that there was a press conference called to begin with. If she’s so profoundly at risk, and so nervous about it. Why the hell would you call a press conference? Why not work to bolster, confirm, or promote her claims through the press while maintaining her anonymity? There are certainly plenty of journalists attempting to do just that. That’s how The Daily Beast, The Guardian, Jezebel, Snopes, and Huffington Post ended up with the reporting they did. They tried to dig deeper, hit a brick wall in terms of the accuser and accusations. And discovered all those weird, con-like, details swirling around the suit.
1 Like
Bill Clinton is not running for president.
1 Like
Did you actually read what I wrote? Bill Clinton was only mentioned to point out that Epstein sex conspiracies were already a feature of partisan bullshit before this story hit.
Also this:
2 Likes
But not the accusation.
Nope. And a Daily Mail (unfortunately) interview with much more detail. Investigatable detail. And confirmation that there is in fact an accuser.
And for the record dropping a rape suit doesn’t say anything about credibility of the accusations. It’s a sadly common result with these sorts of things.
2 Likes
Sorry, I did jump the gun there.
It’s just, the whole thing where: someone mentions tRump being a sex offender, then someone else says that Bill Clinton had accusations too as if that makes Hillary somehow just as much of a sex offender as tRump pisses me off.
I like to head that off, but I do see what you were doing isn’t that.
3 Likes
It’s agrevating.
And I probably should have avoided the implication. But it’s a really nice way of pointing out how these accusations dove tail a little too nicely with extent conspiracy theory. That always makes me suspicious.
4 Likes
Honestly? If I were in that woman’s position, (assuming she exists and her accusations are true), I’d try to stay just as anonymous.
I know some infosec. And while I haven’t always practiced good information hygiene, I could certainly kick it up a notch.
I know how to contact people without being discovered. I bet if I shopped around I could bluebox burner phones to lawyers until I got a receptive one.
Modern computing makes all the tools of spycraft really accessible. Of course, you still have to use them properly, but I don’t think it’s beyond reason, that someone with a legitimate complaint was really scared, and really scarred and doesn’t trust anyone. Someone who’s read plenty of wikipedia and books and who knows how to protect their identity.
If I practiced better information hygiene for the last five years, I could probably do what she’s doing. I might even be able to do it now. I don’t want to get shot by a tRump supporter anymore than the next guy.
He’s got the anti-choice people on his side. They shoot lots of people. Even in broad daylight in Colorado.
2 Likes
You could stay just as anonymous, but still work with a decent journalist who could confirm and vouch for the claims. If the goal was total anonymity you can only accomplish that by not filing suit or making the claim publicly. Her face is out there now, along with enough info to get at her identity. Would have been with the press conference, and now from a poorly regarded and unreliable tabloid. Ethically I can’t see how that was the right way for her supporters to handle that at all.
In terms of us vetting it as the general public? There wasn’t enough info to really make a determination. And there’s still plenty about this that looks sketchy. But there seems to be enough in that Daily Mail article for a better reporter to run with. So there’s certainly the start of enough information as of now.
I wasn’t expecting we’d hear much of anything till December, more info would have to be provided at the hearing. But assuming the accusations are true, this is likely the worst possible way to get that info out there.
1 Like
I don’t disagree with you there.
But it’s not like laypeople actually know the legal process. Seriously, I’ve been listening to this podcast, Opening Arguments, that’s basically a lawyer talking with a layperson going over all kinds of legal cases and trials and stuff, and all procedural minutiae is really eye-opening.
Add on top of that the attention she’s received may have been unintentional. She may have thought she could stick it out, but may have buckled.
In anycase, I get that it’s awfully fishy, and really at this point, it just seems plausible from tRump’s past behavior and what he’s said that it’s totally believable to me that he’d rape a 13 year old girl. But I can’t say I exactly believe the story. Just that I would be completely unsurprised if it were true.
4 Likes
You can make death threats against anonymous people via Twitter, Facebook, etc. Direct contact info isn’t required, it can be as simple as announcing “I’m going to kill this bitch if I ever find out who she is.”
8 Likes
