More witnesses, charges emerge in pedophile rape accusations against Trump

A witness who’s backing a woman’s child rape claims against Donald Trump also accused the Republican presidential nominee of sexually assaulting another, even younger girl.

Trump is due to appear in federal court Dec. 16 for a status conference after a judge allowed the lawsuit, which seeks $75,000 in damages, to move forward.

The alleged victim, identified in the suit as “Jane Doe,” claims Trump brutally raped her in 1994, when she was 13 years old, and threatened to harm her and her family if she talked.

The suit was originally filed last year in California by a woman named Katie Johnson, but that case was thrown out May 2 because the complaint failed to properly state any specific federal civil rights violations.

The lawsuit was refiled in New York in June, but without Johnson’s name, her request for $100 million and absent several explosive claims from the previous suit — including an allegation that Trump had given money to the victim and ordered her to get an abortion.


Two other women — identified as “Joan Doe” and “Tiffany Doe” — have been added to the newer suit as witnesses.

Both witnesses say they worked as “party planners” for billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who paid them to “attract adolescent women” to events he hosted at the Wexner Mansion in New York.

Tiffany Doe says in court documents that she lured Jane Doe to a party with the promise of money and meeting contacts in the modeling industry.

Ben Reilly wrote:

A witness who’s backing a woman’s child rape claims against Donald Trump also accused the Republican presidential nominee of sexually assaulting another, even younger girl.

Trump is due to appear in federal court Dec. 16 for a status conference after a judge allowed the lawsuit, which seeks $75,000 in damages, to move forward.

The alleged victim, identified in the suit as “Jane Doe,” claims Trump brutally raped her in 1994, when she was 13 years old, and threatened to harm her and her family if she talked.

The suit was originally filed last year in California by a woman named Katie Johnson, but that case was thrown out May 2 because the complaint failed to properly state any specific federal civil rights violations.

The lawsuit was refiled in New York in June, but without Johnson’s name, her request for $100 million and absent several explosive claims from the previous suit — including an allegation that Trump had given money to the victim and ordered her to get an abortion.


Two other women — identified as “Joan Doe” and “Tiffany Doe” — have been added to the newer suit as witnesses.

Both witnesses say they worked as “party planners” for billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who paid them to “attract adolescent women” to events he hosted at the Wexner Mansion in New York.

Tiffany Doe says in court documents that she lured Jane Doe to a party with the promise of money and meeting contacts in the modeling industry.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/witness-trump-also-raped-12-year-old-and-used-her-disappearance-to-threaten-another-victim/#.WBiCGUqRJ2Q.twitter

Original Quill wrote:Don't forget, pending charges for bribery of a public official (Florida and Texas), fraud and income tax evasion.  I'm convinced, the guy's only running to become too big to prosecute.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Don't forget, pending charges for bribery of a public official (Florida and Texas), fraud and income tax evasion.  I'm convinced, the guy's only running to become too big to prosecute.

The same could be said of Hilary.

eddie wrote:Wow Quill. You really are brainwashed. She may the better of the two, with some admittedly good policies, but let's not paint her as "responsible and reliable".

eddie wrote:Quill you posted up a "conspiracy" (alternative truth) about Trump sniffing cocaine....

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Quill you posted up a "conspiracy" (alternative truth) about Trump sniffing cocaine....

It's not a conspiracy if you've got any evidence to support it.  A 'conspiracy' is collusive activity toward some unseen end.  The youtube I posted is not unseen.  I showed it.

What you want to say is that it is not conclusive.  With that I agree.  We would need to see the white powder going up his nose to say it is conclusive.  

But partial evidence, such as I've presented, is not at all like conclusions based upon all or little evidence.  What the RW does is jump immediately to conclusions, unwarranted by the evidence.  You have to take care to what someone is saying, if s/he presents evidence.  Is s/he merely building a case, or jumping immediately to conclusions.

Take one example we have been discussing this day.  Donald Trump calls Clinton "Crooked Hillary" and says, conclusively, she is going to jail.  I, on the other hand, say the evidence suggests Donald uses cocaine and he is close to being indicted.  I summarize evidence, not draw conclusions.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not a conspiracy if you've got any evidence to support it.  A 'conspiracy' is collusive activity toward some unseen end.  The youtube I posted is not unseen.  I showed it.

What you want to say is that it is not conclusive.  With that I agree.  We would need to see the white powder going up his nose to say it is conclusive.  

But partial evidence, such as I've presented, is not at all like conclusions based upon all or little evidence.  What the RW does is jump immediately to conclusions, unwarranted by the evidence.  You have to take care to what someone is saying, if s/he presents evidence.  Is s/he merely building a case, or jumping immediately to conclusions.

Take one example we have been discussing this day.  Donald Trump calls Clinton "Crooked Hillary" and says, conclusively, she is going to jail.  I, on the other hand, say the evidence suggests Donald uses cocaine and he is close to being indicted.  I summarize evidence, not draw conclusions.

Didn't you jump to the conclusion he was a coke head because he sniffed a bit on the first TV debate?

Sly wrote:He could have simply had a cold.

Eilzel wrote:
What a shit show this is. We got emails! We got sex scandals! We got more emails! We got more sex scandals!

Endless crap. Both of them are foul excuses of people as are their campaigns. I back Hilary out of general outsider support for the Democrats over the Republicans but I have little real hope for America beyond this.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
What a shit show this is. We got emails! We got sex scandals! We got more emails! We got more sex scandals!

Endless crap. Both of them are foul excuses of people as are their campaigns. I back Hilary out of general outsider support for the Democrats over the Republicans but I have little real hope for America beyond this.

I WONDER how long it might be before the USA fractures, and splits into 3 or 4 smaller sovereign states  ???

A bit like Yugoslavia;  or what may eventually happen to Indonesia..      

eddie wrote:If all these stories are true then I hope he sees his day in court. Why hasn't he been arrested?

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:If all these stories are true then I hope he sees his day in court. Why hasn't he been arrested?

Under American law, in certain kinds of cases, if the complaining witness refuses to testify, the case is dropped.  Rape, because in is so personal, is such a case.  The rape victim is usually the only witness to the event except the defendant…and he is not going to testify.  So, if she refuses to testify, or colors her testimony a certain way, the prosecutions cannot go to trial.  The wealthy and privileged have a way to use this to escape the law in rape cases.

It's called a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), by which the complaining witness accepts a substantial sum of money, and agrees not to disclose what happened.  There are usually draconian consequences if she tells anyone but her attorney.

The NDA is a way to undercut any criminal prosecution.  The accused, usually through an attorney, tells the witness that not only will she have to repay the money given her, but the draconian consequences will come into play.  These can involve liquidated damages in excess of, oh, say, $30-million.

The wealthy and privileged clearly have the resources to implement the sanctions, so their is nothing the woman can do.

Maddog wrote:
Some of these threads don't age well do they?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Some of these threads don't age well do they?

A bit like your brain  ?

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


A bit like your brain  ?

My brain is consistent, unlike some of the flailing, wailing drama queens around here.