(NOT)Breaking: Katie Johnson made it all up!

originally posted by: tinner07

Like the idiots E Jean Carroll, Christine Blaisey Ford, Julie Swetnick, and a cacophony of others given air time and the benefit of the doubt, all turned out to be lying sacks of crap. All of them.

You will say the same of trump right?

Why would I?

She had claimed her motivation was to tell her story was to expose Donald Trump to stop him from becoming president.

Straight out of left field. Who would have thought?

a reply to: thedigirati

How do you know this for a fact, or will you admit you are expressing your opinion of what President Trump thinks?

Of course it's my opinion. But besides that what he is thinking is one thing but recognizing authoritarian tactics is another.
This forum is filled with members willing to point out those tactics when utilized by the left which leaves it up to others to point them out when utilized by the right, or would you prefer not to have anyone keeping an eye on conservative authoritarianism?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lumenari

Again, the court documents are embeded in the article. You can read what was gleaned from their depositions, while the women were under oath for yourself. But be aware it's graphic and included words like "rape, anal and oral".
www.rawstory.com...

Again, please post for me an actual interview of the two made up women so we can see if they are in fact not just fiction.

Thank you in advance...

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Well apparently you took it to heart in 2016 .

We are under attack and we need somebody to beat back the liberal hordes .

For the last 30 years there’s been a ongoing attack on the constitution and law and order .

Reagan stood up for us in the 80s now we need somebody to step up again . So who would the logical choice be? Oh yeah the guy in charge.

Could you please tell me how a completely accurate statement is authoritarian ?

BTW Here’s a quote by Trump Is this authoritarian ? If so any patriotic quote is authoritarian by your reasoning



A oligarchy is what the Democrats are trying to establish. They’re importing voters and trying to consolidate Federal power on the liberal east and west coast . They’ve tried to overthrow a sitting president . And the Democrats along with the main stream media are driving a wedge in this country we haven’t seen since the Civil War .

Which group is more likely to change the form of our government . The group that wants to get rid of constitutional rights that stand in their way or the group trying to preserve them .




Here’s a straight up question. What’s your opinion on trump ?

a reply to: Lumenari

Why? Are you too lazy to read the court documents?

a reply to: Fallingdown

it's clear we disagree about Trump and just who it is that is seeking to control us. From reading some of your posts for a while it seems to me that you have it all laid out in your mind that it is the liberals, or whatever they are being called today. To me, it is not the liberals so much though they share in that control grab. Ignoring conservatives who also are making that grab is lethal. It's both..

Both because there are so many liberals who are not really liberals and many conservatives who are not really conservative. Both parties are riddled with self serving power grabbing crooks who find support from believers on either side to support their quest for power by telling them what they, the followers, what they want to hear. I see Trump as one of these. The Clintons as well. I"m not gonna make a list at this point.

I think that Trump straddled both sides of this political divide for decades, donating and schmoozing with one side as it suited him and then when it suited him, cuddling up with the other. He is a chameleon. For instance,that whole 'birther thing. He made news by coming out questioning Obama's birth. I don't think he really gave a good crap one way or the other but at that point there was a lack of ''establishment'' celebrities that were hocking that particular product so in he stepped to gain big name cred with the birther movement which lacked a clear and familiar face to promote it.
Now I have no proof of that but it does make sense. It was a dearth of central focus on that issue that he then stepped in to, assuming that mantle.

I don't know as what he ever produced in the way of important product for American life. He did however demonstrate just how a kid could take the wealth of his father and use it like a gambler to win sometimes and loose at others.

I think he is taking a whole bunch of people for a long long ride just as Obama took a lot of people on his ride. Just as Clinton took a lot of women on a gonna have a woman president ''ride.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lumenari

Why? Are you too lazy to read the court documents?

Your article clearly is from 4 days prior to this one that you previously posted

Why did you cut this part out, and why haven’t you addressed it?

From left leaning vox

It was the end of an incredibly strange case that featured an anonymous plaintiff who had refused almost all requests for interviews, two anonymous corroborating witnesses whom no one in the press had spoken to, and a couple of seriously shady characters — with an anti-Trump agenda and a penchant for drama — who had aggressively shopped the story around to media outlets for over a year.

Those shady characters — a former reality TV producer who calls himself “Al Taylor” and a “Never Trump” conservative activist named Steve Baer — had been mostly unsuccessful in getting the media to bite. There are a few very good reasons for that, which the Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim succinctly summed up: Taylor and Baer have been really sketchy about the whole thing, and since the accuser is anonymous, journalists can’t do anything to verify her claims. The only journalist who has actually interviewed Johnson, Emily Shugerman at Revelist, came away confused and even doubting whether Johnson really exists.

So you can lost the court case all you want, but even vox, that you posted, thinks the story is incredibly shady

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Give me an example of where Trump or any conservative is making a power grab by subverting the constitution or ignoring laws .



I’m not playing the excuse justification game of all the other silly points you brought up .

Birther!

Trump’s daddies money!

A businessman donating to both parties in New York that’s unheard of !!!! 😱

Quit with the silliness and let’s stay on topic .

a reply to: Fallingdown

Give me an example

No. You have already labeled everything I have to say as 'silly''. You asked for an opinion.

What would be silly would be for me to on with this any further.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

My apologies I just find it aggravating to discuss those same topics over and over for years .

a reply to: Fallingdown

As do I yet still we come here where''those topics' are battered around and around. Where liberals and conservatives might have been more lenient or flexible in discussing their differences now it seems that that flexibility is gone or at least dying and the blame is placed always on those other guys, those guys across the isle.

Why do I come here? Because I find any liberal chatroom vacuous, just as I find much of what goes down around here as vacuous. As you say, the same topics over and over. Responses vary very little from day to day. Conservatives here are often pointing out how liberals all seem to be of a hive mind, repeating the stuff they hear on their favored media and I get that. But what I don't get is in recognizing this in liberals conservatives fail almost always in recognizing the same style patterns in their own daily patter, over and over again.

Don't believe me?? Try reading some of these contentious threads from a perspective of believing NOTHING, reading them just to simply watch the patterns of threads and replies. Man, it's unsettling how patterned it is. Both sides.....

So I come here because I am of such a liberal nature that I believe that discussion with those whom we disagree with might, and I say might, divulge further truth, more encompassing truth that both sides when they come together might transcend the more common and repetitive regurgitation of both.
edit

And I hope you recognize I accept your appology, thank you.

a reply to: Grambler

Why? Because it's pure opinion. Just because it's "strange" doesn't mean it isn't true. Jeffry Epstein's whole story, and everything surrounding it is strange. The whole Nxivm scandal was strange too, but true.

The court papers document the accusations and the testimonies made under oath.

I know you guys are all kerfuffled up because your orange god is implicated, but how can you defend Jeffry Epstein? He had no less than 30 underage minors accusing him of sexual assault. Now that Epstein has been arrested again, and they found 100's if not 1000s of pictures and videos of underage girls, I wouldn't be surprised if they find pictures of these very girls.

Fact: Jeffrey Epstein is guilty of sex trafficking minor throughout the 1990's.
Fact: Donald Trump partied hard with Jeffrey Epstein throughout the 1990's.
Fact: No less than 22 women have accused Donald Trump of sexual assault.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Unbelievable

You post an article, and now denounce it when it shows that these allegations are incredibly suspect

Pointing that out is not defending Epstein

I hope you are never accused of a horrendous crime

If so you would deserve to have people believe it no matter how suspect it was

a reply to: Grambler

I'm not denouncing the factual documentation that the article provides, or the factual citation I quoted. I don't care about the author's interjected opinion. I didn't post their opinion because facts matter, not opinions.


The fact is, there are 3 people, in this case, who claim that Donald Trump raped and threatened the plaintiff, while he was a guest of Jeffrey Epstein. Given Donald Trump's established fetishes, and admitted friendship with Epstein, I have no reason to doubt them.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The court papers document the accusations and the testimonies made under oath.

Thank you for pushing your narrative but I did indeed read the court documents. So here we have Jane Doe and Tiffany Doe along with some one else named Katie Johnson. All three in my opinion are suspect and are criminals themselves.

1. Tiffany Doe should be put into prison for life as she was not only a recruiter for Epstein but an enabler of sexual abuse of minors by adults.
2. Why are no exact dates presented by Tiffany Doe in the suit as she was employed by Epstein as a Party Planner from 1991 - 2000?
3. Why does Tiffany Doe and Jane Doe come forward as under an alias name? Death Treats and Harm? Actually to stop being killed, murdered, harmed or whatever else you come forward in your real name, in public. That's done so a direct link is made between you and Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein such that if you are murdered, they would be convicted and sentenced to death as it would be a Capital charge of premeditated retaliation either by them or others.
4. Does Tiffany Doe not think that Epstein doesn't know who she is. She states in the court documents that she was employed directly by him from 1991 - 2000 as a Party Planner. That would make her approximately 51 years old in 2019.
5. Same goes for Jane Doe. Come forward in your real name if you want to be safe from being murdered or whatever.
6. This lawsuit was launched in 2016. Only 16 years after Tiffany Doe left employment at Epstein. I guess since she was witness to rape and other sexual acts of brutality she either covered up her own crimes or was attempting a financial blackmail on Epstein via the courts and via Trumps name.
7. This entire lawsuit as filed reeks of gainful extortion as why didn't these woman contact the US Attorney in 2008 in Florida. That would have sealed their financial wind fall.
8. All of the above was started because of Trump running for President. The lawyer will be investigated along with these three. Several will go to jail.
9. So Katie Johnson says that someone called her cell phone and gave her a death threat. Yet the call could not be traced as it was under 20 seconds. True so how does she know about the 20 seconds and phone trace. So who cares about the threat. Its supersized ammo to be used in court. So she drops the suit? That's because she lied and has no claim or ties to Trump.

So Sookiechacha as a former Federal witness I have been threatened via phoned in death threats along with surviving a drive by shotgun blast attempt on my life. The Feds couldn't stop it so I filed a separate law suit and went on CNN to tell my story. Guess what. It all stopped, I won the suit and am here to tell you that you are pushing disinformation in this matter. The women involved here are very suspicious and it doesn't add up. They should have won the $$$ lotto lawsuit against Epstein but some of them are as guilty as Epstein

Plus it will all come out as in the truth as no one can stop it now. Not Sir Donald, Barr, Epstein. Team Clinton?

originally posted by: madmac5150
The establishment wants to destroy President Trump, and will use any means possible. Why?

They have spent decades, monopolizing power to forward their agenda... and, they have amassed tremendous wealth.

They believe they are above the law... HRC's flagrant, and criminal use of her personal server is proof. ANY OTHER government employee not named "Clinton", would get prison time for what she did.

President Trump upset the proverbial apple cart. He isn't dangerous to the American people... he is dangerous to corrupt politicians.

The politicians that continually call for his impeachment, are probably the ones with the most to hide...

Except.... he hasnt done anything to any of those politicians.... so.... what use is he to anyone?

a reply to: projectvxn

You know, another major aspect of this is to look at the language used in the reporting of this vs the epstein case. The girls in the epstein case are "prostitutes" and "willing." In the trump case they were "forced into rough sex" and there's no mention of "prostitutes" anywhere.

a reply to: flice

45+ republicans retired from the house. The congressional slush fund was exposed. FISA abuses have been exposed. Comey was fired. McCabe, fired. Sally yates, fired. Sessions, fired. Obama has been implicated. Clapper has been disgraced. Brennan also disgraced. CNN's ratings are functionally zero. Epstein has been brought back up on charges. Word is the evidence is there for dozens more indictments of highly placed execs and political elites. Hollywood has been exposed for their degeneracy. And that's just the things I can think of off the top of my head.

So to say nothing has happened is simply false. If you don't think trump has some master plan, go back and watch his speech to the CIA rank and file. His reference to a room with no collumns is obviously not actually about the building. If it were, why would he ask "do you understand that?" Here's an article about it.

a reply to: Waterglass

My narrative? The title of this thread claims that the Daily Mail learned it was all a lie, offering no proof.

Now that Bill Barr, whose father hired Epstein to teach high school, without a college degree, refuses to recuse himself from overseeing the new charges against Epstein, I doubt that we'll see any of the photos or videos documenting the girls and possible their rapists.

But, the allegations are credible, given the testimonies of some 30 other women, who talk of being recruited by young women and subsequently raped and trafficked. We've seen this before, like the NXIVM scandal.

There is no doubt of Jeffrey Epstein's guilt, and that he has deep dark secrets about some very powerful men. Allegedly, Donald Trump being one of them. You have no problem believing that Bill Clinton is guilty of participating in Epstein's orgies with underage kidnapped girls. Yet, even with all of Donald Trump's own admissions of entitlement and lack of understanding of the concept of consent, and the 22 women who have accused him of sexual assault, and his documented friendship and consort with Epstein, you blinding defend him.

Donald Trump is a rapist. In my mind, there is no doubt. In your mind, he can do no wrong.