The anonymous plaintiff dropped her lawsuit against Trump, the circumstances around which have been bizarre.

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.”

  • Doomsider@lemmy.world
    22·
    3 days ago

    The former POTUS has been in thousands of court cases. He is one of the most litigious individuals of all time. His entire adult life has been in the courtroom using technicalities to avoid responsibility.

    When someone defends him on a technicality that is the very definition of irony. OP was wrong to do this so they got some ridicule. Rightfully so.

    The situation itself is so absurd it is at times hard to comprehend. For instance, just because it has not or cannot be proven in courtroom beyond a shadow of a doubt does not mean it didn’t happen.

    So OP can take their smugness about being technically correct and stick it.

    • Kusimulkku
      31·
      3 days ago

      Right. But the person said it wasn’t an accusation because Trump lost the lawsuit. And that’s something that’s just wrong. It’s not a technicality or even a defence to point out such an error, they were just wrong about him losing the case. Someone pointing out a big factual error shouldn’t be cause for this sort of shitfit, if you ask me.

      • Doomsider@lemmy.world
        1·
        2 days ago

        No one did and your faux outrage is just as bullshit as you are. You don’t know the difference between a shitfit and sarcasm so pardon me if I don’t trust your reading comprehension.

        You don’t have any skin in this game, you have never been raped nor do you have daughters. Just another rape apologist pretending to be a bro.

        • Kusimulkku
          2·
          2 days ago

          Technically not an accusation, Trump lost the lawsuit to Jane Doe Link to comment

          From the article, right below the title

          The anonymous plaintiff dropped her lawsuit against Trump (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation)

          Wikipedia:

          A lawsuit filed in California in April 2016 accused Trump and Jeffrey Epstein of forcibly raping three 12 and 13-year-old girls at underage sex parties at Epstein’s Manhattan residence in 1994. The case was dismissed the following month. A second version of the lawsuit was filed in New York in June by a Jane Doe claiming to have been raped by the pair at four 1994 parties when she was 13 years old. It was withdrawn in October as the plaintiff said she had received death threats. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Jane_Doe_(1994))

          You don’t have to trust my reading comprehension since the comment and the links are right there. Surely you trust your own comprehension.

          You don’t have any skin in this game, you have never been raped nor do you have daughters. Just another rape apologist pretending to be a bro.

          It’s not rape apologia to say that Trump didn’t lose the case. Unless you are accusing Vox (and Wikipedia) of rape apologia.

          • Doomsider@lemmy.world
            1·
            2 days ago

            I never even disputed that. Yes, you are incapable of reading comprehension. You can’t read the room and often miss the point. It is painfully obvious.

            • Kusimulkku
              2·
              2 days ago

              Person 1:

              Technically not an accusation, Trump lost the lawsuit to Jane Doe. When Trump denied the allegations and accused her of defrauding him, he got sued again for defamation.

              Trump raped a 13 year old girl.

              Person 2:

              Aren’t those different cases?

              You:

              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.

              The person 2 wasn’t even giving the benefit of the doubt, they were just confused about what case the earlier person was talking about (likely because Trump didn’t lose the mentioned Jane Doe case)

              Person 3:

              This particular case is, technically, an accusation, though. Even if we’re all just about certain that it’s true.

              You:

              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

              Person 3:

              Did you even read what I said? I agree with you there. But technically, and I’m only bringing this up because you originally did, it is an accusation.

              I think here Person 3 thought you were Person 1 who originally said the “technically not an accusation” thing.

              You:

              Suuuure, I am just calling bullshit on it. You are okay, even if your playing devils advocate to a rapist.

              That’s when I commented. I really don’t know how this looks to you (and it gets worse from there) but nobody was playing devil’s advocate, nobody was giving benefit of the doubt even, there was no rape apologia. I’m not sure if it was meant to be a joke on your part but it just seems like you misinterpreted what was being said and flew off the handle.

              • Doomsider@lemmy.world
                11·
                2 days ago

                I guess Sarcasm really is above some people. I never disputed what they said no matter how hard you want to twist this narrative.

                I just answered their pondering with sarcasm because of how ridiculous this whole thing is.

                You must be on the spectrum to push this hard on me being snarky.

                • Kusimulkku
                  1·
                  2 days ago

                  Also just to absolutely clarify to everyone, when you said they are “playing devils advocate to a rapist” and called me “rape apologist” and so on, was that also sarcasm?

                • Kusimulkku
                  1·
                  2 days ago

                  I guess Sarcasm really is above some people. I never disputed what they said no matter how hard you want to twist this narrative.

                  Everyone knew it was sarcasm but why you decided to start all sarcastic about it.

                  I just answered their pondering with sarcasm because of how ridiculous this whole thing is.

                  What was ridiculous about it, in your mind?

                  You must be on the spectrum to push this hard on me being snarky.

                  I don’t think they take that kind of comments well here. I don’t mind but just a heads up.

                  • Doomsider@lemmy.world
                    1·
                    2 days ago

                    Classic overreact to my overreaction.

                    I would have probably just pissed off after venting a couple times about the ridiculousness of arguing legal semantics in a case involving one of the most prolific serial rapists of our time.

                    How tone-deaf it looks… but you all haven’t experienced rape firsthand. You don’t have daughters who have been raped.