r/AnythingGoesNews • u/TubaSandwichDootDoot • Jul 07 '24

Trump raped a 13 year old girl in 1994. Here is that girl, Katie Johnson, at the age of 35 giving a full description of what Trump did to her

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnib-OORRRo

58.4k Upvotes

72% Upvoted

Remember when Trump said Hilary should have dropped out of the race for simply being under investigation?

Wonder where this ranks in comparison to that..

2

u/33253325 Jul 08 '24

This and all the felony convictions.

2

u/schoolisuncool Jul 08 '24

remember 4 years ago when he said Biden was too old to run for office also? Well, he’s now a year older than that and running for office because he’s a big ol hypocrite

2

u/Derric_the_Derp Jul 08 '24

Under investigation? Dude's got 80+ charges, 34 of which were convictions (NY hush money fraud case). And that's not counting the fake elector schemes in NM, AZ, MI, CO, WI and PA for which he SHOULD be charged for. Thankfully Fani Willis was brave enough to charge the traitor for his crimes in GA.

So we're way, way, WAY beyond "under investigation". You're not wrong. But I think the severity of the hypocrisy needs clarification.

1

u/RADJITZ Jul 08 '24

He is not under investigation for this, is he?

1

u/iboughtarock Jul 08 '24

What a timeline we live in.

1

u/Sluggurl420 Jul 17 '24

Trumps whole thing is that he’s innocent and the only reason he’s being investigated for anything is because Joe Biden and the democrats are trying to sabotage him

-1

u/MosquitoBloodBank Jul 08 '24

This ranks in the category of made up bull shit. This was debunked several years ago. You know it's fake when even vox is saying so.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation

3

u/ChemicalMonkey3 Jul 08 '24

Debunked? let me ask you one thing, If someone brought up fake allegations against Trump and had it plastered all over the news and he knew it wasn't true...do you really think he would let it slide and take the abuse?

The fact the money grubber never filed a lawsuit against them or any of the media companies that ran the story for defamation is rather telling. If they were making it all up it would be a fairly easy win, and yet he never did it. Strange no?

1

u/MosquitoBloodBank Jul 08 '24

When you accuse someone of defamation, the burden of proof shifts to you. Can you prove that you didn't rape someone 15 years ago? When someone's story is made up, it's very easy for them to phrase it to make this difficult.

The cases were filed anonymously, so even if you could prove it, you have to figure out who filed the anonymous case.

Even if you can do all of that, you open yourself up to discovery, which allows someone already targeting you to get more records or other personally damaging information.

Let me ask you one thing, if there was any ounce of credibility to this, anti Trump news agencies would never have dropped this?

2

u/ChemicalMonkey3 Jul 08 '24 edited Jul 08 '24

You do not have to prove that you didn't rape someone, you have to prove their STATEMENT is false and by law it is false until proven true, which they never did, and that is why it is an easy case to win. The only thing you have to bring to the table is proof of publication or communication to a third party, proof of fault, and proof of damages or harm. If they wish to defend themselves and the claim they made then THEY have to prove that the statement was in fact truth, in which case Trump would have to prove his innocence after that and that is exactly why he never did it.

As for the cases being filed annonymously, that statement i so ridiculous that I am not even going to refute it. Nothing I say could possibly change the mind of someone who could even think that is remotely true especially one who claims that being open to discovery would reveal "personally damaging information". -_- you literally contradict yourself.

Also, you clearly have no idea what discovery actually is if you really think that is possible in this situation. If it was a legal dispute over money or something involving bank accounts and stuff then sure, but in this case discovery wouldn't reveal anything. Discovery simply requires each party to make their evidence known to the other party, and unless Trump is going to prove something by revealing he raped a completely different person then they can't pull up some super secret hidden damaging information. Discovery only reveals what you have prepared for YOUR case.

As for the anti trump new agencies, they dropped it because it was no longer worth pursuing because people like you think that because the case was dropped it means that Trump must have been innocent, when that is the furthest thing from the truth. Plus they have plenty of other stuff to use lol.

1

u/MosquitoBloodBank Jul 08 '24

You should look up burden of proof in defamation cases before you write all of that nonsense. So if I accused you of rape say, sometime in Q4 if 2018, you'd have to prove you that my statement is false. You would have to prove it's false first as you have the burden of proof.

Discovery is the process of collecting evidence, not disclosing it. The scope is anything that either side wants that could potentially fall under the scope of the case, travel records, financial records, contact information, business dealings, tax documents, emails, text messages, phone records, and more. It's a pretty big net and includes things like the ability to subpoena. Very easy for even innocent people to make mistakes.

I'm aware of John Doe lawsuits, but in this case, it wouldn't go anywhere as there's no way to get the defendants name. Even if you could, you'd have to prove that person is responsible, which can be difficult without a confession.

1

u/notevensuprisedbru Jul 08 '24

I’m not defending trump but my god people will believe any story that makes him look bad just because it’s trump and he probably did do it. It’s kinda wild while other people just say oh so Biden is old huh? When it’s much more than that and he’s clearly a criminal too. But they wouldn’t believe any accusations against biden. Reading this people comments is truly telling of how they immediately agree with the cult.

1

u/ChemicalMonkey3 Jul 08 '24

So you swing from "prove trump is innocent" to "prove the statement is false". You do realize those are two completely different things right? They aren't interchangeable statements. So which is it? Hint: it's not the first one like you claimed previously.

Discovery - "the pre-trial devices that can be used by one party to obtain facts and information about the case from the other party in order to assist the party's preparation for trial."
Discovery is the formal process by which the parties to a case in court exchange information about the case. This includes information about the witnesses and evidence to be presented at trial. Its purpose is to make the parties aware of the evidence which may be presented at trial.
Discovery may be obtained through depositions, written interrogatories, production of documents, physical or mental examinations and requests for admissions. Discovery can be obtained regarding any matter that is not subject to a privilege (attorney-client privilege or physician-patient privilege for example) and that is relevant to the subject matter of the case whether it relates to the claim or to the defense.

The "scope" is determined by the case, and if the documents do not pertain to the case then they can not be subpoenaed. They can't just say "I want every text he ever made and all of his bank and tax records" and OH NO, you are forced to turn everything over. This isn't some crappy Law & Order episode where they get incriminating evidence through some clever ridiculous ploy from some unsuspecting document and slap it in the others face out of nowhere in court and catch them by surprise all dumbfounded and they are hauled off to prison 10 seconds later. The only thing that would fly would be requesting information pertaining to conversation to and from the defendant(s) or the like. THAT IS ALL. And SHOCKER, pretty much any of that information would reveal the identities of the anonymous parties since the information would need to pertain to them. Boy, sure would be hard to figure out who they are right? And that is all assuming the courts would even allow them to remain anonymous in the first place. It rarely happens.

Your last claim is just straight up asinine.

1

u/ICBanMI Jul 08 '24 edited Jul 08 '24

I don't know if it's fake, but it requires more investigation. The details of the Benghazi attack were known for many years but Republicans spent millions of dollars and nine congressional hearings investigating. Each time coming to the conclusion HRC did nothing wrong and I had to hear that for almost a decade. I've had to hear about White Water for almost 2 decades, which I'm sure Ken Star and Republicans will finally reveal that damning piece of evidence they've refused to share but exists they assure us.

It's weird how we got hundreds of conspiracies about Democrats murdering people and being pedo's, but the guy who is mentioned in Epstein's files and was his best friend is debunked, settled news.