oh bugger, HOAX “RAPE LAWSUIT” AGAINST TRUMP IS DROPPED

http://truthfeed.com/breaking-hoax-rape-lawsuit-against-trump-is-dropped/33973/

meanwhile the at least 2 investigations into hilliary clinton and the clinton foundation by the FBI continue apace.

I'm glad. Being accused of rape is a terrible thing. The women who make it up should get the sentence in prison the man would've got.

magica wrote:I'm glad. Being accused of rape is a terrible thing. The women who make it up should get the sentence in prison the man would've got.

I am sure all those who were revelling in it will offer their apologies for maligning him

Donald Trump rape accuser Katie Johnson drops her case | Daily Mail Online

The woman who alleged that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her at billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's notorious 'sex parties' in 1994 when she was a 13-year-old has dropped the civil lawsuit that was filed against him.

Trump's legal team branded the allegations 'disgusting at the highest level' and a 'hoax' clearly framed to 'solicit media attention or, perhaps... simply politically motivated'.

She first sued Trump and Jeffrey Epstein under the name Katie Johnson on April 26 in California federal court and filed an amended complaint in New York federal court in October, claiming she was subject to rape, criminal sexual acts, assault, battery and false imprisonment.

The court papers offer no corroborative evidence that her claims are true.

On Wednesday, Johnson suddenly cancelled a press conference at which she was set to reveal herself for the first time, saying she was 'too afraid' following a series of 'threats' against her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3894806/Woman-alleged-raped-Donald-Trump-13-Jeffrey-Epstein-sex-party-DROPS-case-casting-doubt-truth-claims.html

The Devil, You Know wrote:http://truthfeed.com/breaking-hoax-rape-lawsuit-against-trump-is-dropped/33973/

meanwhile the at least 2 investigations into hilliary clinton and the clinton foundation by the FBI continue apace.

Oh bullshite...  She was bought off.  Strippers don't make good money, and flashing the cash makes 'em drool.  How fortuitous    that it occurred just before she was to give her statement.  I've seen it a thousand times.  Isn't she represented by Lisa Bloom, daughter of Gloria Allred? Those are some fantastic lawyers...you can bet there was good cash involved. Trump is worth more as a live fish, than a dead one.

What do you think happened in the Duke University La Cross team fiasco?  Those rich boys' families got together and bought the girl off, no doubt. I've seen it all before.

Then the purchaser goes on a campaign about how righteous and well-meaning he is.  And Trump has a lot to lose--only a presidential election--so he stuffs so many clams down her throat, she will never talk.  It's the second oldest gambit in the world.

UPDATE: Woman suing Donald Trump for child rape cancels press conference in fear after death threats.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/2/1590278/-Breaking-Alleged-victim-of-chid-rape-by-Donald-Trump-to-appear-in-press-conference

Taking on the Trump empire and all his lawyers proved just too much for a victim. How many times have we seen this sort of thing before.

She never stood a chance.

Keep repeating the lies... eh Bru...?

If the woman can be bought off, she was never a victim in the first place. There's no evidence of any death threats either.

It was all politically motivated smear campaign... she should be arrested...

He should sue her.

Just another old tripehound after scrounging a few buckz.

Ziz wrote:
He should sue her.

I would love that.  Think...getting Trump under subpoena power, and sworn in under penalty of perjury  in deposition.  Can you imagine Gloria Allred and Lisa Bloom ripping him to shreds?  And he can't walk out.  

You read my mind.

Ziz wrote:You read my mind.

I know...great minds think alike...and such.

Original Quill wrote:

Ziz wrote:You read my mind.

I know...great minds think alike...and such.

No, Tommy is the only genius round here.

Major wrote:Just another old tripehound after scrounging a few buckz.

How do you know?

Raggamuffin wrote:If the woman can be bought off, she was never a victim in the first place. There's no evidence of any death threats either.

You could say, equally, if the man "pays off", he was never an innocent in the first place.

That's all nonsensical, Rags. All lawsuits seek monetary damages, as it's the only fungible by which to express outcome and magnitude. Rarely do courts grant injunctive relief, as that treads too closely on other rights. In keeping with the singularity of monetary relief, parties will settle in advance, fearing a greater outcome.

So "buying off" is the name of the game. Just as an after-jury award is a jury's judgment as to who is a victim and who is an innocent, a pre-trial settlement is the parties' own assessment of the same.

Defendants usually insist on a confidentiality clause, because there may be other similar cases pending (Trump has multiple accusers) or the defendant just doesn't want the moral retribution. I can well imagine, among multiple accusers, Trump would be most concerned about keeping under wraps an underage accuser. Imagine if he had to sign up as a sex offender in addition to losing the election.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If the woman can be bought off, she was never a victim in the first place. There's no evidence of any death threats either.

You could say, equally, if the man "pays off", he was never an innocent in the first place.

That's all nonsensical, Rags.  All lawsuits seek monetary damages, as it's the only fungible by which to express outcome and magnitude.  Rarely do courts grant injunctive relief, as that treads too closely on other rights.  In keeping with the singularity of monetary relief, parties will settle in advance, fearing a greater outcome.

So "buying off" is the name of the game.  Just as an after-jury award is a jury's judgment as to who is a victim and who is an innocent, a pre-trial settlement is the parties' own assessment of the same.  

Defendants usually insist on a confidentiality clause, because there may be other similar cases pending (Trump has multiple accusers) or the defendant just doesn't want the moral retribution.  I can well imagine, among multiple accusers, Trump would be most concerned about keeping under wraps an underage accuser.  Imagine if he had to sign up as a sex offender in addition to losing the election.

A woman who wants to see justice done and to prevent it happening again would not take a pay off IMO. In any case, we don't know if that happened at all - there's no mention of a pay off. I think this is all just to disrupt the election really, and if the woman has dropped the charges, there's no reason to think that Trump is guilty. She made that choice.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You could say, equally, if the man "pays off", he was never an innocent in the first place.

That's all nonsensical, Rags.  All lawsuits seek monetary damages, as it's the only fungible by which to express outcome and magnitude.  Rarely do courts grant injunctive relief, as that treads too closely on other rights.  In keeping with the singularity of monetary relief, parties will settle in advance, fearing a greater outcome.

So "buying off" is the name of the game.  Just as an after-jury award is a jury's judgment as to who is a victim and who is an innocent, a pre-trial settlement is the parties' own assessment of the same.  

Defendants usually insist on a confidentiality clause, because there may be other similar cases pending (Trump has multiple accusers) or the defendant just doesn't want the moral retribution.  I can well imagine, among multiple accusers, Trump would be most concerned about keeping under wraps an underage accuser.  Imagine if he had to sign up as a sex offender in addition to losing the election.

A woman who wants to see justice done and to prevent it happening again would not take a pay off IMO.

Then she is seeking relief that cannot be granted.  It will be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Raggamuffin wrote: In any case, we don't know if that happened at all - there's no mention of a pay off. I think this is all just to disrupt the election really, and if the woman has dropped the charges, there's no reason to think that Trump is guilty. She made that choice.

That's because there would be a confidentiality clause.  Disrupting the election may be a part of the collateral consequences.  She may feel, having achieved the disruption, why not take the money too.  In any case, she's got leverage somewhere.

Raggamuffin wrote:If the woman can be bought off, she was never a victim in the first place. There's no evidence of any death threats either.

That doesn't make sense.
Being paid to keep quiet doesn't prove or disprove an event happened.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If the woman can be bought off, she was never a victim in the first place. There's no evidence of any death threats either.

That doesn't make sense.
Being paid to keep quiet doesn't prove or disprove an event happened.

IMO, it means she's just trying to make money.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

A woman who wants to see justice done and to prevent it happening again would not take a pay off IMO.

Then she is seeking relief that cannot be granted.  It will be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(5), failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Raggamuffin wrote: In any case, we don't know if that happened at all - there's no mention of a pay off. I think this is all just to disrupt the election really, and if the woman has dropped the charges, there's no reason to think that Trump is guilty. She made that choice.

That's because there would be a confidentiality clause.  Disrupting the election may be a part of the collateral consequences.  She may feel, having achieved the disruption, why not take the money too.  In any case, she's got leverage somewhere.

It's a bit silly to assume there's been a pay off on the grounds that no one is going to speak about it anyway. There's no evidence of that. Trump is exonerated for now at least.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Then she is seeking relief that cannot be granted.  It will be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(5), failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.



That's because there would be a confidentiality clause.  Disrupting the election may be a part of the collateral consequences.  She may feel, having achieved the disruption, why not take the money too.  In any case, she's got leverage somewhere.

It's a bit silly to assume there's been a pay off on the grounds that no one is going to speak about it anyway. There's no evidence of that. Trump is exonerated for now at least.

You're being silly Rags.  Keeping quiet is precisely what defendants want and pay for in cases like this.  In a products liability case, would a defendant want it known his product was defective?  In a rape case, would a defendant want it known he has raped in the past? When he settles, he gains assurances that all will be held in confidence.

Of course there's no evidence.  That's what defendants pay for.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

That doesn't make sense.
Being paid to keep quiet doesn't prove or disprove an event happened.

IMO, it means she's just trying to make money.

Not necessarily....there could be many reasons why someone is paid off.
Maybe the money is just more important than seeing the abuser face justice, or maybe she is scared....either way it doesn't mean she wasn't a victim once.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

IMO, it means she's just trying to make money.

Not necessarily....there could be many reasons why someone is paid off.
Maybe the money is just more important than seeing the abuser face justice, or maybe she is scared....either way it doesn't mean she wasn't a victim once.

To which I might add: She's brought a civil suit, for which either money, declaratory or injunctive relief is the only relief available.  It is not a criminal case, as only the state can bring a criminal case.  What a defendant pays for is silence.  

He would be hoping the state wouldn't take an interest...and the way to get that is to keep her quiet. Notice, this happened just prior to her making a public declaration.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's a bit silly to assume there's been a pay off on the grounds that no one is going to speak about it anyway. There's no evidence of that. Trump is exonerated for now at least.

You're being silly Rags.  Keeping quiet is precisely what defendants want and pay for in cases like this.  In a products liability case, would a defendant want it known his product was defective?  In a rape case, would a defendant want it known he has raped in the past?  When he settles, he gains assurances that all will be held in confidence.

Of course there's no evidence.  That's what defendants pay for.

Well if there's no evidence of a pay off, there's no evidence that Trump did anything wrong, right?

And the Trump movement is certainly not above death threats and intimidation:

http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/04/13/trump-threatens-delegates-cruz-works-secure-them/

http://therightscoop.com/colorado-gop-chairman-is-getting-death-threats-from-trump-supporters-3000-phone-calls/

http://www.businessinsider.com/megyn-kelly-death-threats-trump-supporters-2015-8

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/22/death_threats_from_trump_supporters_theyre_going_after_republican_delegates_and_trumps_rhetoric_is_clearly_to_blame/

http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/08/10/see-cnn-comentator-trump-critic-receives-vile-barely-literate-death-threat/

Note how good ol' Devils breath whinges and whines that he claims that nasty people are falsely accusing and impuning his beloved Donald...

Yet, TDYK himself has been making false accusations against the Clintons himself..
And never a retraction to any of his lies, do we ever see on here ..

There must be plenty of genuine dirt and wrongdoings that he can find,  instead of simply peddling his titesome and continual bulldust  ???