It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 9
87
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Waterglass




So you don't want to address significant left out facts in a lawsuit?


No. There are a number of reasons why those things are foggy, the age of the young girls, the trauma they experienced, they may have been drugged, fear, denial and emotional blockage and the distance in time between the violation and the filing of the case. The facts that they do convey are damning enough.

Remember, Donald Trump owned the Miss Teen USA beauty pageant, and relished entering the dressing room, unannounced to check out the girls in various states of dress. Epstein, at the time, was also dabbling in beauty pageants and was actively recruiting young women at high schools.




posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

wow you missed, I did say "unless you are convicted it's innuendo" ( to be clear, accusations do not make it true, no matter how much you wish it was not, like all the accusations against Epstein, are currently innuendo until he is convited, again. )

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury yes?

Bill Clinton was indicted, yes?

President Trump has not been indicted, yes?



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

nope, I cannot, all I have is DNA after the fact.

you mad bro?



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati




1st Divorce court is Civil, not criminal (now you know)


Perjury is still a federal crime in civil court.



2nd President Trump was never convicted of any sexual crimes.


Trump has not yet been held to account in a court of law. Lack of a criminal trial doesn't equal lack of guilt.



3rd Bill Clinton was convicted.


No, he wasn't. Do you still think he's guilty, but Donald Trump isn't? What's the difference? Neither man has been convicted of rape.



4th innuendo is not proof.


Circumstantial evidence sometimes is.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: thedigirati


Trump has not yet been held to account in a court of law. Lack of a criminal trial doesn't equal lack of guilt.


So Hillary Clinton has not been held to account in a court of law, Lack of criminal trial doesn't equal lack of guilt

and you replied she has not been found guilty of anything.

I remember the 2016 threads where you said the exact opposite about Hillary.

thank you

🤣🤣🤣💋💋💋👍👍👌👌😀

edit on 10-7-2019 by thedigirati because: formatting

edit on 10-7-2019 by thedigirati because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I looked into Perjuy laws in New York, it's NOT a federal crime, it's a state crime.

it's is also up to the Judge to persue, the Judge in this case decided not too.

maybe he thought it was hyperbole.

and yes I was inccorect when I typed 3rd he was convicted, I meant indicted, my wife distracted me for a question and I lost my train of thought.

I admit to my error in that.
edit on 10-7-2019 by thedigirati because: I admit my mistake



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati




I looked into Perjuy laws in New York, it's NOT a federal crime, it's a state crime.


Maybe, so what?



it's is also up to the Judge to persue, the Judge in this case decided not too.


Perhaps that because she wasn't under oath when she "explained" to reporters, not the court, how the rape wasn't really rape, it just felt like rape, after she received a generous settlement from Donald. We already know, without a doubt, that Donald Trump often requires people to lie or remain silent about his actions.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha



Trump has not yet been held to account in a court of law. Lack of a criminal trial doesn't equal lack of guilt.


It does in America.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha




. We already know, without a doubt, that Donald Trump often requires people to lie or remain silent about his actions.
We do? Or is it just the testimony of one scumball lawyer that somehow translates into “ frequently”... I mean cmon this is another case with no actual proof or evidence , only the word of the accuser. You just want to believe he paid her off. Just like the Stormy Daniels case.... and she also admitted it didn’t happen and got taken advantage of by her own scum bag atty.
edit on 10-7-2019 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn
They just keep on with the lies and get away with it. It will never stop and with the 2020 elections around the corner it will just get worse. I think it was Joseph Gobels who said that telling a lie long enough it becomes truth.

I do not see all this ending well. With the majority of mainstream media pushing the narrative and ANTIFA being literally protected physically as well as journalistically, I see no other outcome other than outright civil war. It is a sad narrative but discourse with liars is impossible. The stakes are high. The Constitution as it stands or Communism/socialism. I was in the service and swore to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I stand with the Constitution,
UNALTERED!!!!!!



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

CONGRATULATIONS your efforts HAVE MADE THIS THREAD #1 on ATS as of 11:46PM EST.

No, they are specific to dates and time so as to collaborate witnesses to either agree or disagree with the plaintiffs allegations. That's why they never filed with the police. Same as that Christine Ford. No real names, dates and no time offers the plaintiffs the ability to pic and choose a similar plaintiff and run the suit foot loose and fancy free. Sort of like a fishing expedition.

Remember? I remember that you offer opinions rather than face the facts. In fact I now wonder is pizza now back in play again as you do now that pizza guy attended NXIVM events!



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

you mean a Divorce settlement, I like how you do not add that tiny little fact to make it seems as though she was just a gold digger. Or did you not mean that?

Oh I mean that she only shut up cause she got a (big, bigger) pay out, wait that is a gold digger too.

Um, gosh I wonder how to spin this so she doesn't look like a gold digger. Maybe even a gold digger that stretches the truth

( see how innuendo works now)



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: CynConcepts

I don't think I was defending Clinton, was I? He was clearly there, as was Trump

But you can go ahead and defend Trump. Or, obviously you don't need my permission to do that.
It's what you do.

I think they are both up to their asses in alligators.



I didn't say that you were defending Clinton. I asked you why you were including Trump going to the island? Even in this post, you are stating that Trump was clearly there.

I have seen absolutely nothing that shows Trump going to the island. Only flying on Epstein's other plane from Florida to New York one time.

I am here to deny ignorance, so if you have some evidence to prove this claim you keep making about Trump, I would love to see it.

I read all 859 pages of the deposition excerpts of Epstein that another provided and found that Epstein routinely responded by taking the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment, 99.9% of the time! So Epstein taking the fifth regarding the one question about Trump was meaningless.

So please provide me the source for your claim against Trump.

Edit add: I had also provided a link earlier in this thread where Detective Fisten made a statement that they did not find any evidence or testimony to prove that sexual perversion happened at any celebrity social events. Which means simply attending a social event or charity function does not incriminate the attendees. Especially before Epstein's perversion were known.
edit on 7 10 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)

edit on 7 10 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

Who cares if Ivanna Trump looks like a gold digger, or Melania too for that matter? It's her testimony under oath that her husband, Donald Trump, assaulted and raped her that matters.
edit on 10-7-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Waterglass





No, they are specific to dates and time so as to collaborate witnesses to either agree or disagree with the plaintiffs allegations.


Again, a traumatized 13 year old claiming rape, who may have been drugged or under the influence of alcohol. and the traumatized and compromised teenagers that were also involved in 1994, not recollecting exact certain details in 2016 is not that unusual.

3 women claimed that, at least one of them was raped and threatened by Donald Trump in 1994, at an Epstein hosted party. Now, law enforcement has pictures and videos of 100s maybe 1000s of victims. Why doubt these girls, just because their testimony implicates Donald Trump, and not Bill Clinton?

edit on 10-7-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
But there is plenty of evidence that Epstein and Donald Trump were close friends.

Umm... no, there isn't...


That's not even a question

Ummm... yes, it is.


The question is, how did these girls know, when they were crafting their "lies"

Umm, no, the question is, who are these girls? Since they are anonymous, unless and until they are no longer anonymous, they are not real.

This is all a fabrication, you just want it to be true so bad you're willing to believe anything.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl




“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump told New York Magazine for a 2002 profile of Epstein. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Similarly, a 2003 Vanity Fair profile of Epstein named Trump as one of the “businessmen who dine with him at his home,” and several other articles have pegged Trump and Epstein as friends.
dailycaller.com...






posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Keep reaching. We have the flight logs. Trump is on there one time and not even with jeff. Doesn't seem like they were really that good of friends.



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

First picture... really? Seriously? I've got 4 or 5 similar pictures of me and some semi-famous people - none of whom are my friends, they simply posed for the picture with me.

The third picture (with Ivanka) is a well known FAKE, and I'm guessing the second one may well be too. Yeah, I looked at it closely, definitely looks faked/shopped (whats with the weird dark shadows covering part of the back of his head and neck, and other places in the picture?). But even if it isn't, as I said, the fact that they may have socialized at a few parties means nothing...


“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump told New York Magazine for a 2002 profile of Epstein. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Yes, Trump says that about a lot of people.

I'm not saying he didn't know him, or even mix with him at different social gatherings. That is kind of what billionairs do, isn't it?
edit on 10-7-2019 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Then in 2007, Trump apparently became outraged when he discovered Epstein trying to recruit a minor at Mar-A-Lago. Also: after this change of perspective:


Bradley Edwards, an attorney for women who sued Epstein over his alleged attacks, said in an interview this week that “The only thing I can say about President Trump is that he is the only person” who, when Edwards was subpoenaing or threatening to subpoena people in 2009, “who picked up the phone and said, let’s just talk. I’ll give you as much time as you want. I’ll tell you what you need to know.

“He was very helpful in the information that he gave and gave no indication whatsoever that he was involved in anything untoward whatsoever, but had good information.”

Source link

I am trying to find the source who stated that one of Katie Johnson's claims was easily disputed since he was not at that specific Epstein event but elsewhere at a different witnessed event.




top topics



 
87
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join