Johnson claimed that Trump violently raped her when she was 13 at a 1994 orgy hosted by Jeffrey Epstein — the billionaire who was convicted in 2008 of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution and has been accused of having sex with more than 30 underage girls.
Johnson said Trump had sexual contact with her at four of those parties, including tying her to a bed and violently raping her in a “savage sexual attack.” The lawsuit said Johnson “loudly pleaded” with Trump to stop, but that he responded by “violently striking Plaintiff in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted.”
Aren’t those different cases?
No. But Trump does have like 30 other allegations, so I could see why you were confused.
I’m not sure what case they mean but this particular Jane Doe doesn’t seem to have won against Trump on rape allegations. First case was dismissed and second was dropped after there were death threats. Seems like there’s four Jane Doe lawsuits against Trump, two about the rape, but two of them have nothing to do with that. Pretty confusing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Trump
Sure, the guy who says his friend likes girls on the younger side and that they are okay with it deserves the benefit of the doubt. Excuse me while I throw up.
This particular case is, technically, an accusation, though. Even if we’re all just about certain that it’s true.
Sure, I heard he totally respects women’s rights. He would be never think of purposely walking in on a young girl changing… Ohh wait
Did you even read what I said? I agree with you there. But technically, and I’m only bringing this up because
youthe original commenter* originally did, it is an accusation.*Edit: I thought you were the same person, but my point still stands.
Suuuure, I am just calling bullshit on it. You are okay, even if your playing devils advocate to a rapist.
Jesus fucking Christ with you people.
For real, it gets old giving an admitted and adjudicated rapist the benefit of the doubt. Here you are though exacerbated by the cruelty of calling a spade a spade.
Apparently we can’t talk shit about a piece of shit because we may hurt your sensibility.
It’s amazing how relentlessly someone can misjudge the intention of messages.
Justified sarcasm, but not relevant to this particular thread about technical legal language.
The situation is so perverse but we are to hold a logical detached conversation about a child rapist. Excuse me while I go throw up again.
Again. Not arguing about the red team rapist.
Holy crap, I hope that’s not what you think I was saying.
It is hard to tell when you are dealing with a serial rapist.