> I am hesitant to throw fuel on the fire but:
> 1. An investigative journalist made a best effort
> to try and talk to the accuser of the "13 year old
> rape" story. This was the conclusion:
I don't know if Johnson wrote that letter.
What letter? I've read nothing about a letter.
In fact, I don't know if the Katie Johnson I spoke
> to is the same girl who Trump allegedly raped in
> 1994, or if that girl even exists. I have never
> seen Johnson — in person, or via FaceTime, as I
> was originally promised — and I have not spoken
> to her only eyewitness, Tiffany Doe. To my
> knowledge, no journalist has.
So she talked to the eyewitness but that doesn't mean a thing. Eyewitnesses always lie
> 2. The name "Katie Johnson" is apparently an
> admitted pseudonym.
Using a pseudonym is not surprising considering the threats and ridicule rape victims get. Unless you are a rape victim or personally know one, you wouldn't understand. Where is the evidence it's a fake name?
> 3. A contrary account may be found
From that article :
"According to a new exclusive report, the woman who claimed Trump raped her when she was a young teenager made up the entire story and that’s why the lawsuit was dropped."
Wrong, it was her attorney who said the lawsuit was dropped because of threats
"A source reveals that Trump is cleared of any wrongdoings in the case."
What source? How could he or Epstein be cleared if it didn't go to trial? Nonsense
"The woman’s lawsuit was abruptly dropped last week and it was quickly assumed she was intimidated or received death threats."
Noooo, her attorney said it was death threats, nothing was "assumed".
"The Donald Trump rape accuser could be one of many women who are falsely charging that the Republican presidential candidate sexually assaulted them."
Now just how in the hell would that author know which, if any, are falsely accusing the blessed one?
"It’s reported that Johnson has a troubled past with two DUIs, felony drug possession, and has a history of drug abuse."
Reported by whom, where? The evidence?
Typical tactic used to discredit rape victims. You had a DUI so NOTHING you say about anything is true.
"She shared with Daily Mail how she had dreams of becoming a model and took a Greyhound bus from Oklahoma to New York at the age of 13 in pursuit of her ambitions."
Oh look at that, a common story amongst the 80+ victims.... being lured by promises of a modeling career.
And where did you get that article... from a BLOG owned by Daniel Treisman "an entrepeneur, business man and father of eight who lives in Beit Shemesh". An Israeli business man. (had to throw that in there since you guys are so freaked out about the Jews)
And the author of that article...… Heather Tooley.. a nobody..... a freelance writer. Freelance doesn't mean shit other than you write for blogs. She essentially repeated an article in the Daily Mail, which is a piece of shit TABLOID equal to our INQUIRER. But I wouldn't be the least surprised if you also read the Enquirer.
Why do you guys have an aversion to trained journalists with a degree in journalism?
> 4. If the account was credible, Clinton would have
> repeatedly referenced it in her campaign against
> Trump. She never did, which implies the charge was
Bullshit. Maybe she didn't bring it up because of Bill's connection to Epstein. Duh
> 5. In the USA, a person is assumed innocent until
> convicted in a court of law.
Really? So in other words you won't listen to a rape victim unless it's proven by trial. What about those molested by priests? Presumably you don't believe them since none of those have gone to trial. Or maybe you do believe them and are just a bigot.
> Anyone can believe anything. Feel free to accuse
> anyone of anything, believe the worst in anyone.
> It is your choice.
And THAT'S another way the chauvinist pigs discredit women. Women accuse for no reason and to believe them is to believe a lie and look for the "worst" in a man.
Helll-lo.... child molesting IS the WORST in a man.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17-Jul-19 23:49 by Audrey.