Who “disappeared” the 12 year old?

he murdered 80 innocent fishermen in the Caribbean and Pacific and he is ultimately responsible for the murders of Alex Pretti and Renee Good.

How many in HiS DOJ have been blackmailed.

back,cant they?

Not the peoples

And remember, we had control of the White House, the Senate, and the House throughout 2021 and 2022. Why was nothing done in those 2 years. Almost everything we are talking about happened 2019 or earlier, so the evidence was all there. Why did nobody act on it when we had the ability to do so?

biased against the "conservatives" so they just turned their heads the other way. Garland had all this information, but damn! he sure as hell didn't want to appear "political". Made me sick then... makes me sick today. So much could be different today if only someone with power had done *anything*. Just look at all the people who'd still be alive today, as well as everyone being better off physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. Just makes you sick to your stomach... not to mention wrenches your heart out of your chest.

Lest anyone forget: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump

All the Hillary ratfucking occurred under a Republican FBI Director that usurped his superior, and more "catch and kill" activities regarding Trump crimes occurred under the next Republican FBI Director who had a meek superior that waited too long to get the right people in there (i.e., Jack Smith) to prosecute the crimes.

The same organization(s) that fucked over Hillary, had Epstein """commit suicide""" under their watch, slow-walked the Trump investigations, have been selectively prosecuting Trump's political enemies as directed, had thousands redacting these files that they were legally requiring to release weeks ago, etc. -- is it that surprising these people didn't go after Epstein's co-conspirators?

When a Democrat gains control of the Executive Branch, the DOJ and FBI need to be completely cleaned the fuck out, from the top to the bottom.

Every time a Democrat has named an FBI Director, they ALWAYS have named a Republican.

This cannot continue.

I’ve despised the “reaching across the aisle” appointments for as long as I can remember. And it feels as though they’re usually legal and military appointees. What? Dem presidents know of no Dem law enforcement or military leaders?

The other thing that sticks in my craw is that Howard Lutnick, a liar when it comes to his Epstein association, was arranging fundraisers for Hillary and now is in Trump’s cabinet. He’s no public servant. He’s interested in protecting his wealth. And, of course, he’s far from alone in that. I’ll never get it, but if the nation survives, I want some action and some genuine national soul-searching when this is over. What a putrid swamp.

are SUPPOSED to have consequences. That doesn't mean we should not talk with Republicans, and even adopt some of their ideas is they are good ones. But when the people work their asses off to win an election, overcoming all the systematic obstacles that favor the few over the many, then dammit, our agenda must be front and center, no matter how much the Republicans cry about it.

And to take it one step farther, we know that any Dem we elect is very likely to be risk averse, going along with the fascists' plans rather than fighting for principles. That means that We, the People really need to advance our own agenda/platform, the equivalent of Project 2025. There are some very fundamental things that must change. We need to get these written into a playbook, and demand that all Dems sign on to that playbook if they want our support.

Co-signed.

and never did a thing with any of it. How come nobody ever mentions this fact?

By now, it is extremely likely that Epstein was murdered in his cell. If we had any doubts, these disappear with the latest info dump that shows the FBI was in discussions with Epstein's lawyer about turning State's evidence, and that was 2 weeks before he died. Trump was President at that time. But Garland was AG 16 months later. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the FBI was aware of this evidence? Are we to believe that Garland was never made aware of it?

Are we to believe that Garland never even asked? Well OK, yeah, I guess we can believe that last one.

Where are all the career FBI agents who had personal knowledge of this case? Where are all the videos and photos the FBI certainly confiscated?

How come nobody asks these most obvious questions?

What the heck has been going on in the FBI/DOJ? SMDH

.... "revelations" from these files. Prima facie, it's ridiculous.

There is so much of it, and it all points in the same direction. I don't know that anybody is denying that all of these things happened. They aren't denying, they are just stonewalling and redacting to protect people.

Why didn't Garland have this brought to trial? Remember, the people inside the FBI know all the names.

... I am saying that Trump did not threaten to murder a twelve year old, and the idea that he did is ridiculous.... I am saying it is a false accusation. A flat out lie.

For it to be credible there would have to be actual evidence to back this testimony up. If there was such evidence, Trump would have been prosecuted, as he was for the actual crimes he did commit. As stated, the Biden DOJ had this on file for over 1,400 days. That they did not act on it means that it is a false accusation.

This is another instance of the several incredulous, far fetched, false accusations that have been made public and sensationalized. They should not have been.

It seems there is a mountain of evidence that Trump did EXACTLY this kind of thing throughout his entire lifetime, In fact, he stands convicted of exactly this kind of crime.

It should be prosecuted. That is why we have courts, judges and juries. That is how we make the best determination of truth. Let the accusers confront the defendants and then weigh the merits on each side.

.... because there is no evidence. If there was evidence, he would have been prosecuted, just as you point out he has been.

FYI, you can't be prosecuted for one alleged crime using evidence from some other crime. Or using a mountain of evidence from a mountain of other crimes. It has to be evidence for the specific crime that you are accused of. In this case there is none.

Honestly, all of this is hysterical nonsense. This is going nowhere, and is damaging to our reputation as a reality based community.

Most of us were not. It is not up to you, me, or Garland to decide the guilt or innocence. That is why we have a judicial system to try cases. Anything less is cowardly and irresponsible, IMHO.

.... for a prosecutor to try a case without a high level of confidence of conviction. You don't willy nilly drag people into court and put them through the trial of a trial just to see what will happen or what you can get away with.

There is no evidence to present at trial, so there should be no trial. It is as simple as that. Any other course of action is a miscarriage of justice.

I stand by justice, the rule of law, and against the perversion of due process.

I'm just a layman but part of the problem with prosecuting T.... was due to B.S. policies that didn't seem to apply to Hillary Clinton. But the Felon played on those policies to the 10th degree. I hate to rehash the same crap because there is so much of it, so for brevity, I will only highlight.

During the Obama administration, their was tremendous evidence of the Felons collusion with Russia. Investigation and pursuit of prosecution stopped due to policy (too close to election)

Epstein case was fixed from the inside (Acosta) abundance of evidence hidden, not pursued and shutdown as a fesult of a sweetheart deal.

Emoluments clause- violated but not adjudicated

Congress chose not to pursue all possible charges for the impeachment hearings for purposes of simplicity and expediency.

Upon departure from the Whitehouse the former President chose to steal classified documents for which he was indicted but was allowed to escape justice by a politically biased Federal Judge.

Jan. 6 riots were instigated by the Felon along with election interference. The investigation was delayed, resulting in a delayed prosecution hindered further by a politically biased Supreme Court bent on helping the Felon who took advantage of a flawed justice system and pursued a third election like his life dependent on it.

The victims in the Epstein case were child victims, scared to begin with and then threatened directly or indirectly with threats to family members. And then revictimized by people who aren't satisfied with "just" an accusation if they don't provide a video or some other proof of a threat from a person who has proven himself to be fully capable of such a threat.
Ask Stormy Daniel's or everybody that the Felon is trying to lock up because he feels injured by them.
IS THAT THE JUSTICE YOUR TALKING ABOUT?

... lock people up without a trial? Or drag them into court with no evidence to back up the charges? You want to Trump's behavior to be the norm?

Sheesh.

for the Felon for no less than 10 years. Finally we have a law that requires the release of all of the evidence which is coming out selectively with the Felons name and pages and pages completely redacted by a corrupt DOJ but we are to believe the convicted Felon that lies as easily as he breaths, over a victim that swore under oath at the risk of perjury and civil suit.
This "argument" sounds like an audition to serve on the Felon's DOJ. It's one thing to argue the law but quite another to disregard the victim in doing so.
To quote "SHEESH.


BTW, a trial for whom? A sitting President that has received immunity from our corrupt SC to go as far as using Seal Team 6 to kill a political rival as long as it's done while he's President.

If, he were completely innocent, he had the authority and responsibility to release the files but his response was " some of the accused might get hurt. Ya think.

I don't even know if he could be charged but how does that relieve him of responsibility. The truth should be revealed. He's in politics, the leader of the most powerful Country in the history of the world but we shouldn't have an opinion based upon an abundance of information that leads us to believe he is guilty of nefarious actions.
Are you serious. This isn't 3rd year law where your arguing for argument's sake. This is real life with real victims and you want to defend that pig's right to obfuscate the law and then argue the law is for everybody.

Take a look, he's using the Constitution for toilet paper. There are lawyer's and judges fighting the good fight with righteous decisions that are tossed by the high court that is ignoring precedent and writing law from the bench.
So, I would kindly suggest not trying to stifle public opinion because right now it might keep us out of a civil war by allowing pressure to be released.

.... and you have every right to be.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not there has been revealed strong enough evidence of a specific crime to successfully support prosecution and conviction in a court of law. And so far, despite the examples that have been breathlessly proffered, there hasn't been. And since there hasn't been, there will be no attempt to prosecute, and there will be no conviction.

I'm pretty sure that the Epstein files will not result in such. All of the sound and fury is getting a bit tiresome and is counterproductive. We should be focused directly on the more important and substantive transgressions and issues you have raised rather than this hopeless crusade.

I know he did even though the victims didn't testify in court nor did I see a video of it actually happening.

Interesting.

.... dozens. And it would not matter if there were hundreds. Hundreds of sworn statements about other crimes are not evidence in the case of the one hundred and first alleged crime. If he commited dozens of crimes, and there is sufficient evidence for each one of them, he should be prosecuted for every one. Individually.

Even allegations are enough to sic the DOJ or an AG or any law enforcement on the ones at which they point their fingers.

There's just as much real evidence. Or Barack Obama over being a natural born citizen or the allegations of smoking cocaine with Larry whatever his name was? Or is it only those you don't like who should deal with that harassment?

From another post of mine:

…in court depositions given by Trump’s EARLY TEEN GIRL victims. And by “depositions” - plural!!

I appreciate Ruben's point, and he's right, but OTOH the fact it happened on Obama's watch is not the best look.

I'll also add that assistants to Epstein in that era are quite well known, they all have specific immunity for any wrong-doing during that time (per the infamous 2008 NPA, which named the four of them). There are no "mystery" female assistants that worked for him from 1990-2000.

I'll also add that the Biden administration happened after 2016, which means Garland will also be asked regarding what HE did when it's his turn before the committee.

I hope Ms. Lynch is well prepared for questions about this witness statement, cause she could be backed into a corner with pretty poor optics, and the GQP are lying in wait to do so. I'll leave it at that.

Both court documents have been all over the internet since 2016.

Katie withdrew her suit due to fear of reprisal. I don't think either of them are willing to come forward.

An interesting fact about Katie's case was that one of her lawyers in the 2016 suit was none other than Lisa Bloom.
Lisa Bloom led Ronan Farrow to believe that she supported his investigation of convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein, when, in fact, she was on Weinstein's payroll.

Both are equally likely. By the way, the only involvement of Lisa Bloom in this lawsuit seems to be that it was her who called the press conference just before the election in 2016 that was subsequently cancelled. "Katie Johnson's" (not her real name) main attorney was Thomas Meagher.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/09/03/trump-epstein-katie-johnson/

I doubt it was "BS from the start."
Both are NOT "equally likely."
"Jane Doe" and her eyewitness, "Tiffany Doe," each signed affidavits, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, that Trump did, indeed, rape her when she was 13.
Would they have risked prosecution for lying under oath if their claims against Trump were not true?
I don't think so.

As to whether or not Katie Johnson, (aka Jane Doe) "even exists." the attorney brought in to file Katie Johnson's lawsuit against Trump in New York, Thomas Meagher, insisted he had met the plaintiff and separately spoken to her over video-conference.
"She definitely exists," said Meagher.
https://theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow

Can you find anyone prosecuted for swearing an affidavit that Trump won in 2020? Because a lot of people did sign their name to such affidavits. Even Giuliani being disbarred was a purely private entity action. Was anyone prosecuted for swearing false affidavits?

The Katie Johnson story is almost certainly past the statute of limitations so a sworn affidavit is exceedingly unlikely to be prosecuted.

unlikely to be prosecuted."??

Not true.

"The New York Child Victims Act (CVA), signed in 2019, fundamentally expanded the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse, allowing victims to file lawsuits against abusers until age 55."

And even if it wasn't, that still wouldn't have been a consideration in 2016 because there were civil statute of limitations in New York. Florida's law on sex crimes against minors was expanded in 2020 to not have a statute of limitations, but because the claims happened prior to that, statute of limitations would apply and the case would be beyond them I believe.

And then there's that the lawsuit was filed in California which was dismissed for failure to state a proper claim. But since the attacks referenced didn't occur in California, there was no chance of a criminal case being filed there. The suit was later refiled in New York before being dropped. The New York lawsuit was filed by a patent attorney which doesn't lend a lot of credibility given that's not who you would go to for this sort of thing and a good lawyer wouldn't take that case due to inexperience in the field. A divorce lawyer for example shouldn't take a murder case in good conscience for not being able to put forth a good defense.

It's exceedingly unlikely a prosecutor is going to go after a false affidavit in a civil case due to the high bar of proving the lie and intent.

NY law: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/n-y-suspended-its-statute-of-limitations-on-child-sex-abuse-a-flood-of-claims-emerged
Florida law: https://helpingsurvivors.org/statute-of-limitations/florida/

Last edited Mon Feb 2, 2026, 09:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Re: your statement:
"The New York lawsuit was filed by a patent attorney which doesn't lend a lot of credibility given that's not who you would go to for this sort of thing and a good lawyer wouldn't take that case due to inexperience in the field."
Katie Johnson didn't "go to Thomas Meagher" (the patent attorney), he came to her, pro bono.
"Meagher said he had never been involved in a case of this kind before. He said he became involved after reading on a minor gossip website that Johnson's legal action had faltered and that she was seeking representation."
(Click on link in reply # 60)

As I said, a competent attorney wouldn't have taken a case in an area he has no experience in.

And when I said statute of limitations in the context of being prosecuted for perjury that's in a criminal case. It simply doesn't happen in civil cases, so there was no threat of prosecution resulting from a civil matter.

But even after the extended statute of limitations changed in New York, it's not retroactive, so it still doesn't apply.

If this was in the hands of DoJ, arrests should have been made immediately when Barack Obama was still President. Did Obama ever know about this? Did DoJ fail to tell him?

Chump was running for President when this testimony was given.

We have questions!

Their argument goes something like, "why didn't the Biden admin do something about it?" Or something like that.

Last edited Sat Jan 31, 2026, 08:42 PM - Edit history (3)

This is not anything remotely new.

Article from Snopes fromJune 23, 2016 here:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

excerpt here referring to the Tiffany Doe "testimony" that Gallego refers to:

from the concentration (deportation) camps, boarded onto planes, and never heard from again. Where did they go? What happened to them?

any republican Senators or Congresspeople? Will it matter to Trump's cult?

No, I don't think so either.

I really want there to have been more dresses kept.

There was a witness who saw Krasnov rape her. She disappeared. I remember reading about her many years ago.

evidence provided by the DOJ which is part of the court records. Why would that be? Somebody here... doesn't want you to believe what your eyes see, your ears hear or what your mind has concluded is probably true. Once again, why would that be? Senator Gallego has made a very valid point and it is timely considering the recent release of Epstein files. This somebody thinks there must not be a child victim, now adult, that was threatened because that child went into hiding and the lawyer representing her didn't follow through with a civil suit. Because, of course, this lawyer must have made it all up at the risk of losing her license. I'm no fan of Lisa Bloom due to her involvement on behalf of Weinstein, so I have no compunction to defend her but the victim she represented absolutely deserves to be heard and believed. Otherwise, they win. And I'm not talking about politics.

I think somebody is exposing their true agenda, IMHO.

In fact, if you look at all the replies to this thread, this person is not the only one wanting to discredit Katie Johnson's rape allegations.

It doesn't prove they actually carried them out, and it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't. Not because they wouldn't (let's be real, here), but because the intimidation was all that was necessary.

Also, killing people is a dead-end result. You can't rape the 13 year old anymore if you kill her.

-- Mal

I happen to know the guy, and his name is Rubén (roo-BEN). He is turning out to be a rather good Senator, and does not at all resemble a pastrami sandwich likely to be found at a New York deli.

(My mistake)