Woman Who ‘Credibly Accused’ Trump of Sex With a Minor Reportedly Had Her Records Removed From Epstein Files

S

signalmankenneth

Verified User
The New Republic reported this week that accusations made by a woman who “credibly accused Donald Trump of having sex with a minor he met through Jeffrey Epstein,” appeared to have been removed from the Epstein files.

TNR reporter Edith Olmsted wrote that “A 21-page slideshow buried in the massive trove of Epstein-related documents included allegations that sometime between 1983 and 1985, Trump forced a woman to give him oral sex when she was in her early teens,” Olmsted wrote. “When the woman bit down on Trump’s exposed penis, he allegedly punched her in the head and kicked her out. That same woman told the DOJ that Epstein had introduced her to Trump in 1984.”

The report continued:

Justice Department records indicate that the FBI spoke to this woman not once but at least four separate times, according to independent journalists Roger Sollenberger and Nina Burleigh. Now those records appear to have been removed from public viewing — despite the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which requires all documents relating to the alleged sex trafficker to be made public.
Click to expand...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/woman-credibly-accused-trump-sex-220809049.html

1771795504867.png

1771795573838.png
 
4858717.jpg
 
signalmankenneth said:
The New Republic reported this week that accusations made by a woman who “credibly accused Donald Trump of having sex with a minor he met through Jeffrey Epstein,” appeared to have been removed from the Epstein files.

TNR reporter Edith Olmsted wrote that “A 21-page slideshow buried in the massive trove of Epstein-related documents included allegations that sometime between 1983 and 1985, Trump forced a woman to give him oral sex when she was in her early teens,” Olmsted wrote. “When the woman bit down on Trump’s exposed penis, he allegedly punched her in the head and kicked her out. That same woman told the DOJ that Epstein had introduced her to Trump in 1984.”

The report continued:



https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/woman-credibly-accused-trump-sex-220809049.html

View attachment 75984

View attachment 75985
Click to expand...
"Credibly Accused" according to hack commie sites Mediaite and New Republic? C'mon man, gimme a break. Why didn't the Biden DOJ persue this, if it was so "credible"?
 
Mediaite and The New Republic are not classified as “hack” or extremist sites by any reputable media‑bias or media‑reliability organization. Both outlets do have clear political leanings, but they fall within the normal spectrum of U.S. partisan media rather than anything resembling extremist or “communist” ideology.

The search results you triggered provide detailed, third‑party assessments of The New Republic, which help anchor the broader picture.


📰 Mediaite: how it is generally classified​

Mediaite is typically rated as:

  • Center‑Left to Lean‑Left in political bias
  • Mixed reliability, because it blends reporting with commentary
  • Focused heavily on media analysis, political coverage, and commentary
Mediaite is not considered extremist by any major evaluator. It is a commercial media‑watch site founded by Dan Abrams, a mainstream legal analyst.


📰 The New Republic: what independent evaluators say​

Two independent rating organizations—Ad Fontes Media and AllSides—provide detailed assessments.

Ad Fontes Media​

  • Bias: Strong Left
  • Reliability: Mixed (a blend of analysis and opinion)
  • Source:

AllSides​

  • Bias: Left
  • Confidence level: Low/initial (meaning they may refine the rating with more data)
  • Source:
These ratings place The New Republic firmly on the progressive/liberal side of the spectrum, but still within the mainstream of U.S. political commentary.


🧭 What these ratings​

None of the major evaluators classify either outlet as:

  • “Communist”
  • “Extremist”
  • “Propaganda”
  • “Disinformation”
  • “Hack” in the sense of being non‑credible or fabricated
Instead, they classify them as opinion‑heavy, left‑leaning political media—similar to how right‑leaning outlets like National Review or The Federalist are categorized on the opposite side.


🧩 How to interpret these outlets in practice​

When reading Mediaite or The New Republic, it helps to keep in mind:

  • They often mix analysis and opinion with reporting.
  • Their framing tends to align with liberal or progressive viewpoints.
  • They are not neutral, but they are also not fringe.
  • Their content is best balanced by reading across the spectrum.
 
signalmankenneth said:
The New Republic reported this week that accusations made by a woman who “credibly accused Donald Trump of having sex with a minor he met through Jeffrey Epstein,” appeared to have been removed from the Epstein files.

TNR reporter Edith Olmsted wrote that “A 21-page slideshow buried in the massive trove of Epstein-related documents included allegations that sometime between 1983 and 1985, Trump forced a woman to give him oral sex when she was in her early teens,” Olmsted wrote. “When the woman bit down on Trump’s exposed penis, he allegedly punched her in the head and kicked her out. That same woman told the DOJ that Epstein had introduced her to Trump in 1984.”

The report continued:



https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/woman-credibly-accused-trump-sex-220809049.html

View attachment 75984

View attachment 75985
Click to expand...
I read that earlier. Do they really think that removing the stuff after we've seen it will convince us it didn't happen?
 
countryboy said:
"Credibly Accused" according to hack commie sites Mediaite and New Republic? C'mon man, gimme a break. Why didn't the Biden DOJ persue this, if it was so "credible"?
Click to expand...
the issue is not the "credibility" and is 'why it was not investigated', by any DoJ since Bush Sr and the original criminal deal done by Acosta with Epstein.

We know that answer generally and that is because no DoJ wanted to get in to this knowing very rich and powerful people and donors from both parties would be implicated.
 
QP! said:
the issue is not the "credibility" and is 'why it was not investigated', by any DoJ since Bush Sr and the original criminal deal done by Acosta with Epstein.

We know that answer generally and that is because no DoJ wanted to get in to this knowing very rich and powerful people and donors from both parties would be implicated.
Click to expand...
How do you know it wasn't investigated? You don't. Can you go a single day without making something up?
 
BartenderElite said:
Oh, you have to be kidding now. You're trying to create some sort of equivalency w/ this.....and SEX WITH MINORS?

That's truly embarrassing.
Click to expand...
No. I'm trying to point out that sexual proclivity isn't a basis for selecting people to a position. If they're doing criminal shit, like Breton was, then they deserve to be charged. But don't use innuendo and rumor in the court of public opinion to that end.
 
countryboy said:
How do you know it wasn't investigated? You don't. Can you go a single day without making something up?
Click to expand...
Trumps DoJ has admitted it was not investigated over and over. They say there is nothing there to investigate as they have combed thru all the files and what we think would justify an investigation is just not there.

The victims have all spoken out on how they have not even been interviewed as part of any investigation. If you do not start with the victims of a crime and try and build an investigation out based on who they point out to you and the time and places you are not investigating.

Stop being a dupe and magat tard. We are now seeing other countries CHARGE people based on the same files Trump and his DoJ told us there was nothing worth looking in them for as there was nothing to find. A now, obvious lie.
 
QP! said:
Trumps DoJ has admitted it was not investigated over and over. They say there is nothing there to investigate as they have combed thru all the files and what we think would justify an investigation is just not there.

The victims have all spoken out on how they have not even been interviewed as part of any investigation. If you do not start with the victims of a crime and try and build an investigation out based on who they point out to you and the time and places you are not investigating.

Stop being a dupe and magat tard. We are now seeing other countries CHARGE people based on the same files Trump and his DoJ told us there was nothing worth looking in them for as there was nothing to find. A now, obvious lie.
Click to expand...
If what you say is true, then it obviously wasn't credible in the first place. Which was easy to determine since the two sources cited were Mediaite and New Republic. But that's a big if. You people never tell the truth. Ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top