Trump has child rape charges filed against him

A peculiarity of this case is that it is a civil suit filed against two individual persons jointly. If it were a criminal complaint, there would be a great danger of one individual turning state's evidence against the other in exchange for immunity from prosecution. Mr. Epstein, with one previous conviction on a sex related charge would have an interest in avoiding prosecution, if he thought the case against him was strong.

Similar fact evidence could have a bearing on a criminal case against Mr. Epstein.

This is what Wikipedia has to say on the admissibility of similar fact evidence in the United States:

en.wikipedia.org...

Under Rule 404 of the United States Federal Rules of Evidence, evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. Additionally, evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

From this, it would seem that a major part of this case would be to tie Mr. Trump to Mr. Epstein, at parties given by Mr. Epstein, on certain dates. If this case goes to court, I think it will be all about alibis, perhaps disputed alibis.

Unless, the complainant kept a DNA souvenir, which is highly unlikely.

Note: I've been thinking about this case a little and I wonder if it was a tactical error to file suit against both Epstein and Trump. From a strategic point of view, it may have been preferable to file suit against Trump alone. The way it is now, the complainant will face a coordinated defense. Filing suit against just Mr. Trump might have had the effect of splitting the interests of the two men. This might turn out to be be a crucial factor in establishing Mr. Trump's whereabouts on the dates in question.

The Manchester Guardian has published a background piece describing their attempts to find out who was behind the filing of the claim against Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump. It is both disappointing and amusing and can be read at the following link.

www.theguardian.com...

The Guardian included a statement from someone claiming to be the person who filed the lawsuit.

“This is Katie Johnson. Why do you keep asking for [Lubow]. I do not know and have never met anybody by this name. If you are really a reporter like you claim are and not just a crank call like thousands of other calls I have gotten since my phone number was published throughout the world, then why don’t you ask how it feels to have the pervert who raped me when I was only 13 years running for President of this great country?

“It sickens me every time I see his evil face on TV. I am not after money, I want revenge for what this evil pedophile did to me. He doesn’t deserve to be President, he deserves to be in jail...

If you really are a reporter like you told my attorney Tom Meagher, then please publish my statement for the millions of other Rape Victims who have no voice. Thank you, Katie Johnson.”

In fairness, here is a statement from an attorney for Mr. Trump and one from the complainant's attorney, also included in the article.

Alan Garten, an attorney for the Trump Organization, described the allegations against Trump as “a complete fabrication” that appeared to be politically motivated. “This is basically a sham lawsuit brought by someone who desires to impact the presidential election,” said Garten.

Trump’s team said the lawsuit was badly flawed. “I don’t even know if there is a plaintiff,” said Garten. “I don’t know a lawyer worthy of the bar who would put his name to this lawsuit.” Meagher, however, insisted that he had met the plaintiff and separately spoken to her over video-conference. “She definitely exists,” said Meagher.

A more comprehensive (minus the sensational elements) article about this case can be found at globalresearch.ca:

www.globalresearch.ca... 676

It points out that even if this case were to go to trial, that would not happen until long after the presidential election was over.

a reply to: ipsedixit

she states she wants vengeance,not justice. That alone would have me tossing it out if i was a judge.

a reply to: yuppa

I don't think you are being fair to the complainant. She does have a witness willing to testify in the case and it does involve Jeffrey Epstein, referred to in a Huffington Post article as follows:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Mr. Epstein is a notorious “billionaire pedophile” who is now a Level 3 registered sex offender - the most dangerous kind, “a threat to public safety” — after being convicted of misconduct with another underage girl.

Mr. Epstein is also an acknowledged acquaintance of Donald Trump, who called him a "terrific guy" and "fun to be around".

If judges tossed out every lawsuit based on a desire for revenge there would be an explosion of extra-judicial vendettas. A lot of lawsuits are filed in anger, seeking revenge or retribution. The complainant said she wasn't after money. The amount being sought, one million dollars I believe, is probably related to her need to pay her attorney.

Where's xuenchen to tell us that Trump has another 1,000 votes for being accused of rape?

Interesting timing to say the least. The case was thrown out in CA due to procedural violations. Also the accuser could not be found (an incorrect address and telephone number). This is a refiling of the same case in NY.

I doubt it's true, but it should be investigated thoroughly (the same as Clinton should be properly investigated for the same).
There is a tried and trusted tactic to accuse your enemies of your own crimes before they bring it up.. I suspect this might be a case of that. Trump is probably aware of Bill's activity through his relationship with Epstein.

The case didn't have legs in 96 so it certainly didn't get better with age.

The timing alone should pretty much indicate exactly where this is coming from folks.

And a pretty dumb move, as Billy boy has been out to Orgy Island numerous times, which is FAR worse than the NY manor by most accounts.

a reply to: UKTruth

Did you not read the part where Trump, Bill, and Epstein are all big fans of each other? Kinda puts a dent in your whole left versus right bullsht. That crap isn't working for anyone, certainly not you.

It's a safe bet to say that they're all perverts. Personally, I don't cheat on my wife with my secretary and I don't talk about dating my daughter while calling her attractive. I've never come close to behaving in such ways because it's sub human.

Wtf is wrong with you people? The rich and powerful are allowed to rape, steal, and destroy lives and here we are again blaming those who stand up to it. You have already casted your doubts while knowing nothing of the evidence. I don't care about the timing or motivations for this case. We should be objectively looking at whether or not a self presented sexual deviant raped someone. Is it really that big of a stretch to consider that a person who enjoys the company of a child molester and wants to date his own daughter might have the capability to rape?

a reply to: Gazrok

Fact is stranger than fiction.
Everyone is entitled to a free and fair trial.
Do you know Trump personally? What makes you vouch for this guy with such vigor?
I think all the politicians are corrupt, so I have no horse in this race.

But I think you should step back for a second and analyze your perspective

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
This is getting very ugly. Tbh, I don't know what to believe anymore. I hope it isn't true simply because it will further destroy our country. I'm not saying any of it is true, but if it is then we have been given the choice between the most immoral despicable human beings alive and a pedophile (see what I did there?).

What in the world is going on and how have we sunk so low? I know the Trump cult on ATS will be here asap to defend him, but I think it's time to take a serious look at this person. If he's innocent, I'll feel really bad for him because essentially, he's done. He's already so far behind, spent so little, and has zero support. I don't know how anyone could come back from this. Hanging with Epstein too? Not good.

uproxx.com...

I woudn't put it passed him it's what they do.

A Lie Detector Test would clear things up very quickly. We need to start using this very accurate tool to shame people into willingly taking these tests when they are accused of something this serious. An innocent person would welcome the opportunity to clear their name of such a heinous crime.

The Police, FBI, CIA use them all the time, so they certainly believe them to be accurate and useful...even if it can't be used against them in court, it certainly could be used to sway the court of public opinion if they refused to take one.

I would really like to hear his response if he was asked outright to take the test and clear up this whole matter.

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
A Lie Detector Test would clear things up very quickly. We need to start using this very accurate tool to shame people into willingly taking these tests when they are accused of something this serious. An innocent person would welcome the opportunity to clear their name of such a heinous crime.

The Police, FBI, CIA use them all the time, so they certainly believe them to be accurate and useful...even if it can't be used against them in court, it certainly could be used to sway the court of public opinion if they refused to take one.

I would really like to hear his response if he was asked outright to take the test and clear up this whole matter.

Use this "very accurate tool"? You mean the one that can be fooled by someone slipping a tack in their shoe to cause pain and thereby fool the 'lie detector'? Really accurate. Lie detector tests are not admissible in court for a reason.

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
A Lie Detector Test would clear things up very quickly. We need to start using this very accurate tool to shame people into willingly taking these tests when they are accused of something this serious. An innocent person would welcome the opportunity to clear their name of such a heinous crime.

The Police, FBI, CIA use them all the time, so they certainly believe them to be accurate and useful...even if it can't be used against them in court, it certainly could be used to sway the court of public opinion if they refused to take one.

I would really like to hear his response if he was asked outright to take the test and clear up this whole matter.

That is BS! If a person is innocent they should not be shamed into anything.

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
A Lie Detector Test would clear things up very quickly. We need to start using this very accurate tool to shame people into willingly taking these tests when they are accused of something this serious. An innocent person would welcome the opportunity to clear their name of such a heinous crime.

The Police, FBI, CIA use them all the time, so they certainly believe them to be accurate and useful...even if it can't be used against them in court, it certainly could be used to sway the court of public opinion if they refused to take one.

I would really like to hear his response if he was asked outright to take the test and clear up this whole matter.

Use this "very accurate tool"? You mean the one that can be fooled by someone slipping a tack in their shoe to cause pain and thereby fool the 'lie detector'? Really accurate. Lie detector tests are not admissible in court for a reason.

Lawyers made sure they are not admissible in court, because they can't cloud the facts once a lie detector is in play. Why do you think the police, FBI and CIA use them so frequently then ? An experienced examiner isn't getting fooled by a tack in the shoe, c'mon...and besides, one would only do that to FOOL the test, not if they are innocent !

originally posted by: MountainLaurel

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
A Lie Detector Test would clear things up very quickly. We need to start using this very accurate tool to shame people into willingly taking these tests when they are accused of something this serious. An innocent person would welcome the opportunity to clear their name of such a heinous crime.

The Police, FBI, CIA use them all the time, so they certainly believe them to be accurate and useful...even if it can't be used against them in court, it certainly could be used to sway the court of public opinion if they refused to take one.

I would really like to hear his response if he was asked outright to take the test and clear up this whole matter.

Use this "very accurate tool"? You mean the one that can be fooled by someone slipping a tack in their shoe to cause pain and thereby fool the 'lie detector'? Really accurate. Lie detector tests are not admissible in court for a reason.

Lawyers made sure they are not admissible in court, because they can't cloud the facts once a lie detector is in play. Why do you think the police, FBI and CIA use them so frequently then ? An experienced examiner isn't getting fooled by a tack in the shoe, c'mon...and besides, one would only do that to FOOL the test, not if they are innocent !

www.hg.org...

Unfortunately, dozens of other factors can also affect the readings detected by a polygraph machine. For instance, nervousness of any kind could read with the same increase in activity as a lie. This nervousness could simply be caused by being concerned about the test giving a false positive, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, some polygraph administrators, particularly in law enforcement, are given training on how to induce a false positive response or to ask questions in a fashion that makes them difficult to answer with a yes or no. On the other hand, those taking the test have reported being able to evade the detection of a lie by using various techniques such as faking a cold, squeezing the muscles of one's posterior, and so forth. These techniques would cause a reading on the polygraph that would show increased physiological activity even when the person is not lying, making it difficult to detect any variation when the person does tell a falsehood.

There are several ways to get around a lie detector. That is why they are not admissible in court.

originally posted by: Blueracer

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
A Lie Detector Test would clear things up very quickly. We need to start using this very accurate tool to shame people into willingly taking these tests when they are accused of something this serious. An innocent person would welcome the opportunity to clear their name of such a heinous crime.

The Police, FBI, CIA use them all the time, so they certainly believe them to be accurate and useful...even if it can't be used against them in court, it certainly could be used to sway the court of public opinion if they refused to take one.

I would really like to hear his response if he was asked outright to take the test and clear up this whole matter.

That is BS! If a person is innocent they should not be shamed into anything.

I disagree, average people are asked to take them all the time to prove their innocence by law enforcement agencies. An innocent person would gladly take the test if falsely accused of a crime they didn't commit.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
Where's xuenchen to tell us that Trump has another 1,000 votes for being accused of rape?

Actually for this one, I bet he gets 1 million more votes.

dp

a reply to: Khaleesi

The experience and integrity of the examiner certainly are important. They have ways to ask several test questions to account for nervousness. With record high disapproval rates for politicians these days I think offering to take a lie detector test would be a big show of faith of their innocence. IDK...they are all such big liars and snakes, perhaps it just would be paying off lie detector examiners, not sure how that would be managed so we could even trust those.

originally posted by: MountainLaurel

originally posted by: Blueracer

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
A Lie Detector Test would clear things up very quickly. We need to start using this very accurate tool to shame people into willingly taking these tests when they are accused of something this serious. An innocent person would welcome the opportunity to clear their name of such a heinous crime.

The Police, FBI, CIA use them all the time, so they certainly believe them to be accurate and useful...even if it can't be used against them in court, it certainly could be used to sway the court of public opinion if they refused to take one.

I would really like to hear his response if he was asked outright to take the test and clear up this whole matter.

That is BS! If a person is innocent they should not be shamed into anything.

I disagree, average people are asked to take them all the time to prove their innocence by law enforcement agencies. An innocent person would gladly take the test if falsely accused of a crime they didn't commit.

You are wrong. Can you back up your claim that

average people are asked to take them all the time to prove their innocence by law enforcement agencies.

I have never been asked.

An innocent person would gladly take the test if falsely accused of a crime they didn't commit.

You might but that does not mean everyone else would. I would not.

It is idiotic to think that innocent people should be shamed into proving their innocence. You ever hear of the Bill of Rights?