Why is the mainstream media refusing to cover Trump's underage rape lawsuit?

[red dog 1]

Last edited Mon Oct 24, 2016, 09:38 PM - Edit history (5)

What are they afraid of?


BlastingNews.com
October 22, 2016

"Disturbing New Details Emerge Over Donald Trump Rape Lawsuit of a 13-Year-Old Girl"


Over the course of his entire presidential campaign, Donald trump has been in a war with the media, often accusing news outlets of fabricating negative stories about him to hurt his White House bid.
While Trump's battle with the media is at an all-time high, there's one story that most mainstream media outlets have avoided reporting.

In the summer of 1994, a woman known as "Jane Doe" was allegedly raped and threatened by Trump and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
The woman previously filed a lawsuit in California, but the judge dismissed the case.

Attempting to have her voice heard once again, "Jane Doe" made her case once again and it was strong enough to move forward in a New York court.
Federal Judge Ronnie Abrams has since ordered a status conference to be held on December 16, with the legal representatives of both sides being present in the courtroom.

As pointed out by the Bipartisan Report on October 23, new details have been revealed, painting a grim and dark picture of what allegedly went down over 20 years ago.

The victim, known as "Jane Doe," filed the (original) lawsuit under her assumed real name of Katie Johnson,
Details in the lawsuit claim she was the subject of, but not limited to,
"acts of rape, sexual misconduct, criminal sexual acts," as well as "false imprisonment" and "threats of death."
The incident apparently took place on more than one occasion, with the most emotionally scarring encounter occurring during the fourth and final time.

Read more + links
http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/10/disturbing-new-details-emerge-over-donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-of-a-13-year-old-girl-001205103.html


(From October 7, 2016 Lawnewz.com article)
"Federal Judge Orders Hearing in Donald Trump Rape Lawsuit"
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/federal-judge-orders-hearing-in-donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-case/

(From October 10, 2016 Lawnewz.com article)
"High-Profile Attorney Casey Anthony Now Representing 'Jane Doe' in Trump Rape Lawsuit"
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/high-profile-casey-anthony-attorney-now-representing-jane-doe-in-trump-rape-lawsuit/

(From The Guardian, October 12, 2016)
"Trump Lawyers Given Court Date Over Lawsuit Alleging Rape of 13-Year-old"
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit

Some background info on this case:
"Trump and J. Epstein sued for raping 13 year old girl, with witness corroboration."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027980814

Victim's Full Testimony (Warning: Extremely Graphic)
http://www.justiceforkatie.com

For those who wish to help Katie financially,
a "Justice for Katie Legal Fund and Trust" has been set up, and donations can be made by clicking on the "Donate" button at the bottom of the website, or by mailing a check to the address listed there.
http://www.justiceforkatie.com

[jberryhill]

1. For several reasons

For one thing, there is no indication it has been served on Trump. Here are the most recent docket entries:

10/12/2016 10[RECAP] ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Donald J. Trump. (rch) (Entered: 10/12/2016)

10/12/2016 11[RECAP] ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Jeffrey E. Epstein. (rch) (Entered: 10/12/2016)

10/18/2016 12 MOTION for James Cheney Mason to Appear Pro Hac Vice CORRECTED. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Mason, James) (Entered: 10/18/2016)

10/18/2016 >>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 12 MOTION for James Cheney Mason to Appear Pro Hac Vice CORRECTED. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 10/18/2016)

10/19/2016 13 ORDER granting 12 Motion for James Cheney Mason to Appear Pro Hac Vice (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Ronnie Abrams)(Text Only Order) (Abrams, Ronnie) (Entered: 10/19/2016)


When you file a civil suit, you can say all sorts of things about someone and be immune from a defamation claim. This immunity extends to papers filed in court for the purpose of the court proceeding.

HOWEVER, that immunity does not extend to a newspaper taking the same claims and publishing them in a paper. Even though the court document is a public record, and the person making the claims IN the lawsuit is immune from action for defamation, anyone who re-publishes the information is NOT immune from those claims.

So, in a situation where a paper might at all be interested in publishing claims of a plaintiff - claims which have not even been served on the defendant and which the defendant has had no opportunity to answer - what is the paper to do in this instance? The plaintiff and witnesses are Jane Doe, so the paper cannot even rely on an identified source.

The only thing which has happened in this lawsuit is that an anonymous person with anonymous witnesses has filed a suit.

[Journeyman]

3. Thank you for the succinct and considered response . . .

I suspected these were the issues at play, and have been somewhat amused the past few days when this same question was raised at different times.

[jberryhill]

6. It gets posted again and again and again

From a procedural standpoint, this lawsuit hasn't gone anywhere.

Someone paid $350 and filed papers.

The suit was filed by a patent attorney with absolutely no experience whatsoever in this type of litigation.

The complaint itself admits the claims are beyond the statute of limitations. The reasons for tolling are not strong.

A celebrity lawyer has signed onto the case. Because he defended a dramatic criminal proceeding, and was on TV a lot, it is assumed that he is a fantastic civil litigator in this sort of case. His experience is primarily in family law and criminal defense.

When you file a case, the court automatically sets dates for certain events, the first being what is called a "status conference". Basically, on that date, one of two things happen. One - the plaintiff's attorney explains that the case hasn't been served yet, explains why, and is urged to effect service before 120 days runs out. Two - if the suit has been served, then counsel for the plaintiff and defendant, who have conferred in advance of the hearing, propose a set of deadlines for dispositive motions, discovery, trial, and a few other procedural milestones. The parties themselves do not attend. They can if they want to, but there is no point.

Because of that automatic date, you have a thread about twice a week here on DU claiming "Donald Trump's Rape Trial Starts in December".

There is nothing that is going to happen in this case by November 8 that is going to change any of those facts.

[mucifer]

2. I wish they wouldn't print her real name and you might want to edit it out

of your post. Since she changed it to Jane Doe, I really don't think her name should be out there.

[red dog 1]

8. Her real name has been publicly known since she filed her 1st lawsuit in CA earlier this year

so her name has been "out there'" since then.
Also, she has set up her own website, www.justiceforkatie.com/

If she had filed her original lawsuit under the pseudonym "Jane Doe" ..her identity would likely not be known now; but she chose to use her real name.

Several other articles written about the filing of her second lawsuit on June 20, 2016, in New York Federal Court, mention her real name as well.

Another reason I chose not to "edit it out". is because she apparently doesn't have much money, and her website, which uses her real name, has a "Donate" button for the
"Justice for Katie Legal Fund and Trust" (Or you can send a check to the address listed)

(The other two witnesses have not revealed their real names, so they remain known only as "Tiffany Doe" and "Joan Doe.&quot
,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512502424

[Jarqui]

4. I may not have all the answers but here's a thought:

The mainstream cannot blindly publish a story about every lawsuit against a candidate for President - because that would basically invite merit-less lawsuits against those candidates that would damage their reputation while garnering attention to the plaintiff.

If the plaintiff wins a case against a candidate for president, by all means, publish away. But if it is just alleged, the media have to be careful and usually have been.

With Larry Sinclair's allegations against Obama, the Obama campaign got out in front of it, met with the media and reviewed what was going on and killed it before it hurt his candidacy severely because the claims were bogus. Sinclair sued to try to get attention but it didn't work because of how the Obama campaign handled it. And to me, that is how it should be - both parties working the issue reasonably and responsibly.

It may well be that the Trump campaign has handled this behind the scenes to help keep it out of the media.

[red dog 1]

14. I doubt if "the Trump campaign has handled this behind the scenes to help keep it out of the media"

Trump COULD have "handled this behind the scenes to help keep it out of the media" by one simple act....i.e. he could have settled the case out of court, with all parties having to sign non-disclosure agreements

If he had done that, who would ever know?

[Jarqui]

22. Or he could say behind the scenes

"I'll sue the crap out of any media who publishes this garbage"

Now, we saw recently what the NYT had to say about Trumps threats to sue them over reporting the story of the two sexually assaulted women. They assessed their legal situation and felt comfortable running the story.

The NYT probably looked at the 13 year old rape story. They may still be looking at it - trying to verify it. If they could get to a place where they felt that they could run the story and not get sued by Trump, I think they'd run the story. But their lawyers probably told them to put the brakes on running with it until they could get more verification.

Even Ben Bradlee had to be careful with the Watergate story. It is a healthy check and balance in the system. It doesn't always work but it works a lot more than people realize because you don't hear about it very often when it works properly.

Knowing Trump, he probably threatened the crap out of media considering running with it. It's his modus operandi.

[red dog 1]

24. You make some good points;

but i still think the MSM could at least "mention" the fact that Trump, and his good friend Epstein, are being sued in New York Federal Court for the rape and assault of a very young girl, and, according to several witnesses, Trump did attend at least four of Epstein's "Lolita" parties.

[Jarqui]

26. When Trump loses, statute of limitations for defamation is usually around 2 years

He's vindictive:
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/richard-branson-donald-trumps-vindictive-streak-dangerous-for-the-world/news-story/d8e6491ad947e3e71f4f9069f50538ad

He's going to grope the vulva of the postmortem of his campaign and his twisted, narrow mind is going to go after anyone he can try to find fault with - especially the media.

If you're the media, you can play it smart like NYT did and produce stories that he cannot litigate against and leave the trashy lawsuits to the National Enquirer.

To me, a key reason for his survival was that the media cashed in by letting him go on. Now, the thing we all thought was inevitable is finally happening - long after most expected it. The media is destroying him by exposing who he really is. He says it's rigged. He's kind of right in that they rigged it to let him get as far as he did using him for ratings, ads and subscriptions. But like a cat that's caught a rodent, it's time to stop playing with it and devour it. For the next couple of weeks, they'll be chowing down on the carcass of his campaign.

[red dog 1]

28. + 1

[pnwmom]

18. Good point. If every unserved lawsuit was given full press attention,

then it would just encourage more spurious lawsuits.

[jberryhill]

27. The "lawsuit as political theater" has been a thing for a while

Birthers would put insane stuff in their filings, so that bloggers could say:

"According to official court papers...."

It's done.

[Angry Dragon]

5. this man scares me

[red dog 1]

11. He scares me too!

Can you imagine how terrified Katie must be of that bastard, who allegedly threatened to kill her and her family if she ever told anyone about the rape?

[Coyotl]

7. Maybe because Trump would tie them up in exoensive lawsuits

Who has the deepest pockets can be a powerful deterrent.

[JCMach1]

9. Because it's not Bill Clinton's scandal...

[Gabi Hayes]

10. so, what's Dan Abrams' exposure on this? is he liable for his coverage?

thx, and thx for explaining why it doesn't sound too smart to rush into coverage til papers are served, etc, jberryhill

[red dog 1]

12. If you're referring to Dan Abrams of Lawnewz.com, why should he be "liable for his coverage"?

The 2nd lawsuit was also covered by HuffPo, the New York Daily News, a New York real estate news site called "The Real Deal" as well as newspapers from the U.K., including The Independent and The Guardian, as well as alt/right news sites such as Snopes.com & others.
Are they all "liable for their coverage" as well?

Re; your sarcastic remark "thx for explaining why it doesn't sound too smart to rush into coverage til papers are served"
Here's what Trump's lawyer, Alan Garten, said:
(From the Lawnewz.com article cited above)
"In the event we are actually served this time, we intend to move for sanctions for this frivolous filing."

[Gabi Hayes]

19. no sarcasm, friend.

Last edited Tue Oct 25, 2016, 02:37 PM - Edit history (1)

I've started myriad threads on this, getting reamed for my legal ignorance for decrying lack of coverage

so, wise up. I want this out there, and have been posting on it for months

check it out for yourself

see the main one:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027980814

[red dog 1]

20. Sorry. my mistake.

Last edited Wed Nov 2, 2016, 03:10 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm glad someone else cares enough to want to help Katie by writing about the MSM's total refusal to cover this story.

(I added a link to your post in the OP above)

[Moosepoop]

21. Snopes.com is an "alt/right news site"?

The 2nd lawsuit was also covered by HuffPo, the New York Daily News, a New York real estate news site called "The Real Deal" as well as newspapers from the U.K., including The Independent and The Guardian, as well as alt/right news sites such as Snopes.com & others.
Are they all "liable for their coverage" as well?

[red dog 1]

23. "Putin Gives Obama Ultimatum"

(Snopes.com from 2 hours ago)

"Snopes.com, also known as the Urban Legends Reference Pages, is a website covering urban legends, internet rumors, e-mail forwards, and other stories of unknown or questionable origin...
The site is organized by topic and includes a message board where stories and pictures of questionable veracity may be posted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com

According to FactCheck.org, Snopes.com co-founder David Mikkelson
"was an Independent who was once registered as a Republican."

What do YOU call Snopes.com?

A "progressive' news site?

[mythology]

25. Posts like this make my head hurt

You're seriously calling snopes.com an alt-right site because one of the co-founders used to be a Republican. Does that make Elizabeth Warren a member of the alt-right because she used to be a Republican?

It must be rather awkward for you that the two people who helped resuscitate the case after the first filing was thrown out of court are Republicans, including one who ran for office as a Republican.

The so-called case against Trump on this issue is really not believable at this point. It would be like reporting on Larry Sinclair as proof Obama is gay, or claims that Vince Foster was secretly murdered by the Clintons.

You want the rumor to be true, but there has been no evidence presented and everything on the plaintiff's side looks like a giant clusterfuck. It's blind partisanship. You believe the worst just because it's the other side.

There are plenty of horrible things about Trump that are true that you don't need to go hunting for the holy grail on the infinitesimal chance it's true.

[Coyotl]

13. Why are they showing him speaking?

Given what comes out of his mouth, shouldn't he be censored and banned.

If someone working for the networks said those things, they get a quick, "You're FIRED."

Maybe they want him to be heard for obvious reasons, what his true impact is?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

15. They will

Give it time.

[red dog 1]

16. I hope you're right about that.

[pnwmom]

17. Last I heard the claimant's attorneys hadn't served the lawsuit

on Trump. And they never served a previous version.

So until this is served, it's not real. The judge will cancel or postpone the hearing if it doesn't get served in time.