And of course this Epstein fuckhead has links to Bill Clinton, too.
On a related note, what are the rules for giving people FirstName Doe pseudonyms? The victim in the first story is referred to as Jane Doe, and the witness is Tiffany Doe. But Tiffany is also the name of one of Trump's daughters.
And bonus Ken Starr on the legal team connection!
(Although it the facts don't live up to the "Conservative Scold Ken Starr Got a Billionaire Pedophile Off" headline tease.)
I thought that generally aside from John/Jane Doe, the first and last latters were the same. Richard Roe etc. Here we see a case involving Jane Poe, John Doe, Richard Roe, Robert Roe, Mark Moe, and Larry Loe.
That article also notes that it can be burdensome to actually be named "John Doe".
But Tiffany is also the name of one of Trump's daughters.
I wouldn't read much into that. The affidavit says that Tiffany Doe was Epstein's employee from 1991-2000. Tiffany Trump was born in 1993. Also, the whole story seems a little too convenient. I am very wary of it.
Here is my prediction for the arc of this story.
1. Spreads through lefty media.
2. Trump is able to disprove story definitively because Dan Rather kerned fonts or something.
3. Until November: "you know Bill Clinton partied with Jeffrey Epstein over a dozen times after leaving the White House."
So you're voting for "Trumped Up" as the OP title?
Oh yeah, I didn't think Tiffany Doe was Tiffany Trump--it just struck me as an unusual "Doe" name.
Hmmmm. I have conflicting heuristics. My general assumptions are:
1) If an alleged sexual assault victim gets all the way to the point of filing a lawsuit, odds are good something* serious happened.
2) If a person files a lawsuit on their own and then later refiles with an attorney on an explosive, high-profile topic, and the attorney hasn't rounded up more plaintiffs, odds of a legit case decrease somewhat.
3) If a man is a loud, proud, vigorous misogynist in public, allegations that he behaved in criminally misogynist ways in private should be taken especially seriously.
4) Very rich people do illegal things in plain sight all the time and are rarely caught or prosecuted. (i.e., allegations that the assault took place in front of a witness don't raise my skepticism given the alleged offender)
5) Filing a salacious case against a high-profile politician in a heated national election campaign dramatically increases the odds of a garbage case.
So, yeah. I have zero problem believing Donald Trump could have assaulted someone. I'm pretty darn skeptical about this case.
*I am not claiming that odds are good that the alleged offender committed the alleged crime -- just that people don't generally file sexual assault cases unless SOMETHING serious happened. Even if it is a mental health crisis.
There was that amazing moment when Paul Cassell (former Utah judge, super respectable right wing lawyer) was representing the woman who said that Epstein trafficked her to Prince Andrew and to Alan Dershowitz.
But I believe that Cassell has since admitted that suing Dershowitz was a mistake and there was no evidence there, which is basically as close as you can come as a lawyer to admitting that your client was a total liar. So while Epstein is 100% obviously a horrible monster, I'm pretty skeptical of new Epstein-related stories. It seems like whatever could have come out would have come out already -- there's been tons of lawyering and opportunism around Epstein for years. I mean who knows but I'd expect dirt to come from somewhere less previously-well-known and more unexpected.
My question is the inverse: why don't we see similar allegations being made/lawsuits being filed against every single politician seeking major office in every election? (Baselessly, but with the intent just to smear the candidate.) I assume there is some barrier, which my uninformed guess is liability for defamation and for frivolous litigation? So, if we don't ultimately see that here, then I'll assume Trump is guilty.
The article also fails to mention Epstein's Mossad connections, which suggest that E.'s "intelligence gathering" may have been something other than personal blackmail material. Ghislaine Maxwell is allegedly his "handler". It's also nothing short of hilarious that this affair could as easily sink either of the parties nominees and possibly both.