Reply to What ever happen to jeffrey epstein files ?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "What ever happen to jeffrey epstein files ?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Trump is a sex predator.

[twitter]https://x.com/politvidchannel/status/1817759581873000555[/twitter][/quote]
I was just wondering about this a few days ago. Trump is pretty obviously a predator, so why hadn’t there been a sexually harassed young woman working there? Age, perhaps, some predators do slow down with time as it takes their testosterone, but I still wondered. [/quote]

The last time we know he had sex was 18 years ago with Stormy.  At 78 he probably isn’t having erections without the blue pill.  He probably offends less often than he did in his prime.  I believe Katie and she was threatened into dropping her case.  I bet when Trump is either dead or retired from the public, women will come forward with some tales. [/quote]

Donald Trump Is Accused Of Raping A 13-Year-Old. Why Haven't The Media Covered It?
There are two big reasons.
By
Ryan Grim
Nov 2, 2016, 02:57 PM EDT
Updated Nov 4, 2016, 09:31 PM EDT

https://www.huffpost.com/...1d9834/amp

“For months, people have wondered why this case isn’t getting more ― or, really, any ― attention in the press, even now that Trump faces an actual court date: a Dec. 16 status conference with the judge.

The lawsuit against Trump includes affidavits from two anonymous women who say they were witnesses. Yet there’s been little coverage of the case. As one of the media outlets that has not published much about it, I can say there are two main reasons we shied away.

The accuser is anonymous.

The accuser in this case is anonymous, and the suit is filed under a pseudonym in New York. A previous case filed in California used the name “Katie Johnson.” To accuse someone in print of forcibly raping a child is about as serious a charge as can be made. To do that with an anonymous accuser would be an extraordinary step, putting the journalist’s reputation on the line.

One senior national reporter who has covered both campaigns said that the anonymity was the main stumbling block. “If it’s something that’s this damaging to a candidate, you better be sure, and she’s anonymous,” the reporter said, asking for anonymity to talk openly about the decision-making process. “Look, if she came out and she would do an interview, that would be different, but she’s an anonymous plaintiff.”

To go forward with an anonymous source shifts responsibility for the veracity of the claims from the accuser to the reporter. If the person is named and on record, the reporter can argue that he or she is merely reporting what the person is saying, and people are free to believe her or not. But giving anonymity says something different to an audience. It suggests, I, as a journalist, have investigated this person and these charges, and find them sufficiently credible to bring them forward without a name attached. Especially in the wake of the Rolling Stone fiasco, that requires an extreme amount of confidence in the source.
And the way the case rolled out did not inspire that confidence.
The accuser’s public backers have been savaged in the press.

One of the leading organizers of the effort to get the press to pay attention to this case is Steve Baer, an outspoken Republican donor. Baer last made news when his effort to out an alleged affair between Reps. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.) contributed to McCarthy dropping his bid to become House speaker. Baer’s style is to liberally cc and bcc an endless stream of powerful people, and it usually has the effect of getting none of them to listen.
When I wrote to him Monday night, for instance, to say I was going to write a story on why the media were avoiding the child rape story, he replied and cc’ed Washington Post Executive Editor Marty Baron, along with a host of other media figures.

And Baer, in fact, is among the more credible advocates the accuser has going for her.
The accuser initially filed the case on her own behalf in California, but it was tossed for not stating an articulable violation of her civil rights. The case has since been refiled in New York, under the representation of a patent lawyer named Thomas Meagher. A patent lawyer handling the case hasn’t inspired the most confidence. (He didn’t respond to a request for comment.)

The least credible backer has to be a man who may or may not be named Al Taylor, but is more likely named Norm Lubow, and was apparently a former producer for “The Jerry Springer Show.”

Media outlets that have tried to get in touch with Johnson have had extreme difficulty doing so. The Daily Beast did a deep dive into the case and the people supporting the accuser in July, and came to a devastating conclusion: “Far from derailing the Trump train, Katie Johnson and her supporters seem to be in an out-of-control clown car whose wheels just came off,” wrote Brandy Zadrozny.

The Guardian and Jezebel also looked into the situation and came up with equally unfavorable takes. A writer who actually talked to Johnson came away confused about what to make of the allegations. It’s unclear if anybody has managed to speak to Tiffany Doe or Joan Doe, the two witnesses cited in the case. “Jezebel, The Guardian and The Daily Beast effectively poisoned the well on Katie’s credibility,” Baer lamented to HuffPost, accurately.“

Have you read why the “Katie Johnson” case is not considered credible by media outlets?

How do you have information regarding Trump being a pedophile? Are you a news reporter or law enforcement officer with a background in investigating sex accusations against Trump?

There is no Katie Johnson.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics