Case 1:16-cv-04642-RA, a civil lawsuit filed by "Jane Doe" (later identified as Katie Johnson) against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein alleging sexual abuse, wasvoluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff on September 16, 2016, meaning it ended without a judgment on the merits, but the allegations remain part of court records. The lawsuit, brought in the SDNY, claimed Trump sexually assaulted her as a minor, with claims resurfacing amidst Epstein's fallout and new document releases, though evidence remains disputed and the plaintiff's identity protected.
It is an allegation only. Never went to trial. While very damning on face value, has never been tried, proven and ruled upon as a real incident.
While you are willing to take it as a proven fact, I can not.
Edit : Let's take this a step further. The case against Omar marrying her brother to allow him to enter the country and gain citizenship since we have recently discussed it. I presented documents and you said that it did not matter as it was just an allegation and was unproven. The same applies here with the case you brought up with Trump. Allegations, yes. Unproven as was was your defense of Omar. A double standard on your part ?
You predictably fail to mention that Katie Johnson withdrew the case because she and members of her family received death threats. She still holds to her story in more recent interviews.
I'm willing to listen if anyone can tell me why buying a presidential pardon is making the nation - particularly the hard workers barely getting by - greater than it was. It doesn't sound like something an honest man would do, but - as the kids like to say - change my mind.
Location: At the dude ranch / above the sea Gender:
Posted:
Dec 27, 2025 - 1:58pm
I'm willing to listen if anyone can tell me why buying a presidential pardon is making the nation - particularly the hard workers barely getting by - greater than it was. It doesn't sound like something an honest man would do, but - as the kids like to say - change my mind.
Funny cuz in the same way, the good people of this country elected Trump, yet you do have a problem with that and that is not fine with you.
A) Despite him only de facto representing MAGA voters, he is de jure mine to complain about.
And then you go on to complain about MY ability to read or comprehend and belch out this...
So you want to make it about me. The standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You have no proof, just a pile of allegations, but that is proof enough for you. So much for due process.
No, I think that you killed Epstein because you wanted him dead.
I guess that you do not listen to yourself or read what you write.
... and still you put yourself in a position of defending a baby raper on technicalities rather than being able to bring yourself to say "he obviously isn't a baby raper." You're really at the same point as the rest of us: we assume it's true but aren't sure the current (or any former) justice system will be able to make anything stick. You hope he's "exonerated" and I hope he's found guilty and castrated (as so many MAGAs propose for other baby rapers); others here are somewhere in between as far as what they think should happen to him but I hear nobody saying it's clearly not true that he's a baby raper.
If you truly believe Trump's not a baby raper, then you should be pushing for him to stand trial and get this slam-dunk case over with.
No, you're right, I don't give a shit about Ilan Omar because she's not my representative. If the good people of her Minnesota district are satisfied with her, that's fine with me.
Funny cuz in the same way, the good people of this country elected Trump, yet you do have a problem with that and that is not fine with you.
But let's talk about you again. You're here pointing at all sorts of technicalities and "let's let the wheels of justice turn at their own pace" in defense of a guy who clearly—very very clearly—raped babies. You're not even really disputing that, you're just saying "we don't know for sure because a million documents blah blah" and "nobody knows why a case might be voluntarily dismissed without prejudice" so HMM what could ever make her drop the case? It's sure a mystery. By the way did Epstein kill himself or no?
So you want to make it about me. The standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You have no proof, just a pile of allegations, but that is proof enough for you. So much for due process.
No, I think that you killed Epstein because you wanted him dead.
I guess that you do not listen to yourself or read what you write.
Case 1:16-cv-04642-RA, a civil lawsuit filed by "Jane Doe" (later identified as Katie Johnson) against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein alleging sexual abuse, wasvoluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff on September 16, 2016, meaning it ended without a judgment on the merits, but the allegations remain part of court records. The lawsuit, brought in the SDNY, claimed Trump sexually assaulted her as a minor, with claims resurfacing amidst Epstein's fallout and new document releases, though evidence remains disputed and the plaintiff's identity protected.
It is an allegation only. Never went to trial. While very damning on face value, has never been tried, proven and ruled upon as a real incident.
While you are willing to take it as a proven fact, I can not.
Edit : Let's take this a step further. The case against Omar marrying her brother to allow him to enter the country and gain citizenship since we have recently discussed it. I presented documents and you said that it did not matter as it was just an allegation and was unproven. The same applies here with the case you brought up with Trump. Allegations, yes. Unproven as was was your defense of Omar. A double standard on your part ?
No, you're right, I don't give a shit about Ilan Omar because she's not my representative. If the good people of her Minnesota district are satisfied with her, that's fine with me.
But let's talk about you again. You're here pointing at all sorts of technicalities and "let's let the wheels of justice turn at their own pace" in defense of a guy who clearlyâvery very clearlyâraped babies. You're not even really disputing that, you're just saying "we don't know for sure because a million documents blah blah" and "nobody knows why a case might be voluntarily dismissed without prejudice" so HMM what could ever make her drop the case? It's sure a mystery. By the way did Epstein kill himself or no?
You are correct that the investigatory file includes as part of the record items that may not be proven at trial or may not even be offered or admissible at trial.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Dec 26, 2025 - 8:54pm
kurtster wrote:
What did I get wrong ?
You are correct that the investigatory file includes as part of the record items that may not be proven at trial or may not even be offered or admissible at trial.
Edit : Let's take this a step further. The case against Omar marrying her brother to allow him to enter the country and gain citizenship since we have recently discussed it. I presented documents and you said that it did not matter as it was just an allegation and was unproven. The same applies here with the case you brought up with Trump. Allegations, yes. Unproven as was was your defense of Omar. A double standard on your part ?
I'm not sure what documents you posted, but I checked several fact checking sites and all said some version of this:
Bottom line: multiple established factâchecks and news organizations conclude there is no credible, publicly available evidence that Ilhan Omar married a brother to obtain U.S. citizenship; the allegation is sustained in some outlets and by eyewitness claims, but those accounts have not produced official findings that would substantiate the charge
So no, not a double standard. One is a claim that never made it to trial due to threats and coercion (and possibly improper influence), one is a claim that doesn't seem to have any merit.
I'm glad that you chimed in. I would like your take on my earlier statement (that I believe you may have missed) that drew a lot of criticism.
I would like your thoughts on what I got wrong about the process that I tried to explain.
. kurtster wrote:
Pardon me for wasting my time saying the following, but ...
This shows how ignorant you are about the government in general. Anything received by an office or agency is included in the record, regardless of credibility at the time of receipt. The veracity is established after receipt if need be, but regardless of veracity, the item is not removed from the file. It remains part of the complete record.
You could have wrote a letter yourself and have had it included in the file had you done so, regardless of content.
Other examples of this kind of behaviour is what is known as SWATTING. Or reports to Children's Services of abuse by a party with malevolent intent towards the parent(s). These reports must be taken seriously and acted on. They are part of the total record regardless of factuality.
