politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I’m not saying this is true or isn’t true.
But the article does credit Katie Johnson as the source and there is reasonable doubt as to whether she even exists. The only person who claims to have spoken to her is a Jerry Springer Story Producer.
What We Know About Origins of Trump Child Rape Allegations
The reason why I say this is I think it’s important to be factual even when making allegations against scum like Trump. Any false rumor we spread is another victory for MAGA and the right. It’s a way for them to convince more people that the left is evil.
Apparently there are logged FBI interviews in the house report of a woman making these claims:
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2026-03-06/justice-department-releases-missing-fbi-interviews-in-epstein-files-with-woman-who-made-claims-against-trump
Also I think Katie Johnon is an anonymised victim name so what you are talking about might be a different "claim" than what appears in this document.
Thank you for providing a detailed and skeptical response.
I have fallen victim of sharing/spreading political claims without enough due diligence.
We must ensure that credibility is the most important criteria. Otherwise, even the most spurious claims are used to frame things against other evidence.
Fuck Trump forever, he is a pedophile. We must pursue the highest standards of evidence to compel the Judiciary.
The answer is simple, release the Epstien files...
100% AGREE.
And the rabid knee jerk reactions of a lot of people make them more and more like MAGA. Staying skeptical and asking for evidence is a good thing, that's how society works. Otherwise we're just going into actual witchcraft accusations where the accusers are always and by default in the right and beyond reproach, which does not make for a great society to live in.
Have you watched Katie Johnson's testimony? This was before trump was elected. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnib-OORRRo&lis=
What is the source for this video? None of the links in the description include this video.
The link to the court case shows that Katie Johnson was completely unreachable by the court system and letters were repeated returned to sender.
Snopes and the Guardian researched Katie Johnson and neither were able to find credible claims.
I’m not saying she doesn’t exist only that there is reasonable doubt here.
This video was out when I first joined reddit around 2016. Not only was she real, but there is a witness. Also, there are plenty of verifications during that time period. You can say that you don't believe her, but you can't say it's not real.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mikehayes/attorney-donald-trump-will-have-to-answer-teens-rape-accusat#.gtDdpq85m
I don't think it's fair to say that he's saying he doesn't believe her. He's saying that it's not easy to prove her existence. Just because you ask for facts and evidence does not mean that you side with the accused. That would mean that the whole justice system sides with the accused at all times because they require facts and evidence in a court of law.
I can say Katie Johnson might not be real because if you had read the article I linked to, you would know that Norm Lubow is the person who actually filed the lawsuit, not Katie Johnson.
Norm Lubow was also pretending to be someone named Al Taylor, who was also aggressively pushing the accusation with journalist.
Even Radar Online, which is linked in the post here is a known gossip site that didn’t believe Katie Johnson story to be credible either.
How does that work, filing a lawsuit on someone's behalf, without the court being able to even verify their existence? That doesn't make too much sense to me. She would have testify, no? It seems otherwise that'd be a pretty glaring issue with the justice system, if you can just make up people to represent without identifying them?
She would have to testify and the courts couldn’t reach her so the case was dropped. The filer gave a fake address.
Read the article, my dude.
Also I can tell you didn’t read my article because it addresses the sketchy video of the pixelated woman.
What article did you link? You seem to be trying to discredit this video for no reason. A person afraid for their life is usually hard to find.
You replied to me linking a Snopes article on this.
You didn’t even read what you replied to?
You seem to be confused and/or trolling.
if you look at their original comment there is blue text. That is something you can click, genius. It leads to an article. I've got no dog in this fight, but you being so obtuse made me need to respond.
Fact one
Fact two
Note: It's to buzzfeed
Fact three
Last comment.
I don’t think you provide the Snopes link, I’m saying I did in the original comment that you replied to.
I’m actually wondering now if we are using different Lemmy platforms and we’re fighting because maybe what you see in your site isn’t what I see on mine.
Like…are we mad at each other for no reason?
Maybe? There is no link for me.
Oh that’s weird! Sorry for coming across as a jerk.
I’ll post it again here. Highly worth the read. It doesn’t make a claim whether it’s true or false, just says why we should be cautious about spreading this without any evidence.
If the link doesn’t work again, you can find it on the Snopes site. The title or the article is called What We Know About Origins of Trump Child Rape Allegations.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/09/03/trump-epstein-katie-johnson/
Page 24:
https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2026-10.hjc-dems-staff-report-epstein-and-trump.pdf
That’s not really enough to prove much. There are two paragraphs on that page and one of them seems inaccurate.
Trump was running for office when this accusation occurred in 2016. And his relationship with Epstein was already known. Remember Epstein had already been in trouble for under age sexual assault prior to 2010.
I want to be clear, I’m not saying Katie Johnson is or isn’t real. I’m just saying it’s not the nail in the coffin that we think it is.