Reuben Gallego on Epstein witness: "This is sworn testimony under oath. The DOJ needs to answer for it."

[red dog 1]

👇🏽 @gallego.senate.gov amplifying a witness who worked for Epstein swearing under oath Trump/Epstein threatened witnesses with death/disappearance if they revealed the child sex abuse she witnessed

— The Tennessee Holler (@thetnholler.bsky.social) 2026-01-31T20:34:23.094Z

[UpInArms]

1. A pedophile and a possible murderer

Who “disappeared” the 12 year old?

[sheshe2]

3. He is complicit.

[MLWR]

11. I don't have information on the little boys and girls, but

he murdered 80 innocent fishermen in the Caribbean and Pacific and he is ultimately responsible for the murders of Alex Pretti and Renee Good.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

15. Makes you wonder

How many in HiS DOJ have been blackmailed.

[BattleRow]

49. Well with access to the Epstein files..DOJ can blackmail

back,cant they?

[sop]

2. The most serious presidential criminal scandal in U.S. history, and the DOJ is pretending it never happened.

[UpInArms]

5. They believe they are "his" attorneys

Not the peoples

[Bluetus]

7. And so is Congress and most of the press.

And remember, we had control of the White House, the Senate, and the House throughout 2021 and 2022. Why was nothing done in those 2 years. Almost everything we are talking about happened 2019 or earlier, so the evidence was all there. Why did nobody act on it when we had the ability to do so?

[slightlv]

25. It seemed like everyone with any power was terrified to look

biased against the "conservatives" so they just turned their heads the other way. Garland had all this information, but damn! he sure as hell didn't want to appear "political". Made me sick then... makes me sick today. So much could be different today if only someone with power had done *anything*. Just look at all the people who'd still be alive today, as well as everyone being better off physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. Just makes you sick to your stomach... not to mention wrenches your heart out of your chest.

[BattleRow]

50. It should be shouted from the rooftops that con-servative starts with a CON.

[W_HAMILTON]

36. Because the DOJ/FBI was Trumpland, as an article circa 2016 put it.

Lest anyone forget: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump

All the Hillary ratfucking occurred under a Republican FBI Director that usurped his superior, and more "catch and kill" activities regarding Trump crimes occurred under the next Republican FBI Director who had a meek superior that waited too long to get the right people in there (i.e., Jack Smith) to prosecute the crimes.

The same organization(s) that fucked over Hillary, had Epstein """commit suicide""" under their watch, slow-walked the Trump investigations, have been selectively prosecuting Trump's political enemies as directed, had thousands redacting these files that they were legally requiring to release weeks ago, etc. -- is it that surprising these people didn't go after Epstein's co-conspirators?

When a Democrat gains control of the Executive Branch, the DOJ and FBI need to be completely cleaned the fuck out, from the top to the bottom.

[Bluetus]

38. Truth. And let us remember that EVERY FBI director has been a Republican

Every time a Democrat has named an FBI Director, they ALWAYS have named a Republican.

This cannot continue.

[BadgerMom]

41. So, so true.

I’ve despised the “reaching across the aisle” appointments for as long as I can remember. And it feels as though they’re usually legal and military appointees. What? Dem presidents know of no Dem law enforcement or military leaders?

The other thing that sticks in my craw is that Howard Lutnick, a liar when it comes to his Epstein association, was arranging fundraisers for Hillary and now is in Trump’s cabinet. He’s no public servant. He’s interested in protecting his wealth. And, of course, he’s far from alone in that. I’ll never get it, but if the nation survives, I want some action and some genuine national soul-searching when this is over. What a putrid swamp.

[Bluetus]

45. Some Democrats don't seem to understand that elections ...

are SUPPOSED to have consequences. That doesn't mean we should not talk with Republicans, and even adopt some of their ideas is they are good ones. But when the people work their asses off to win an election, overcoming all the systematic obstacles that favor the few over the many, then dammit, our agenda must be front and center, no matter how much the Republicans cry about it.

And to take it one step farther, we know that any Dem we elect is very likely to be risk averse, going along with the fascists' plans rather than fighting for principles. That means that We, the People really need to advance our own agenda/platform, the equivalent of Project 2025. There are some very fundamental things that must change. We need to get these written into a playbook, and demand that all Dems sign on to that playbook if they want our support.

[BadgerMom]

46. Great ideas.

Co-signed.

[calimary]

57. Co-signed by me also.

[BattleRow]

59. Fish rots from the head....

[Joinfortmill]

52. It may be the most serious criminal enterprise anywhere, EVER.

[Bluetus]

4. May I remind everyone, Merrick Garland had these files for 1461 days

and never did a thing with any of it. How come nobody ever mentions this fact?

By now, it is extremely likely that Epstein was murdered in his cell. If we had any doubts, these disappear with the latest info dump that shows the FBI was in discussions with Epstein's lawyer about turning State's evidence, and that was 2 weeks before he died. Trump was President at that time. But Garland was AG 16 months later. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the FBI was aware of this evidence? Are we to believe that Garland was never made aware of it?

Are we to believe that Garland never even asked? Well OK, yeah, I guess we can believe that last one.

Where are all the career FBI agents who had personal knowledge of this case? Where are all the videos and photos the FBI certainly confiscated?

How come nobody asks these most obvious questions?

[littlemissmartypants]

10. I've seen it mentioned. But you bring up several interesting points.

What the heck has been going on in the FBI/DOJ? SMDH

[reACTIONary]

18. The reason is that none of this is credible, just like several other....

.... "revelations" from these files. Prima facie, it's ridiculous.

[Bluetus]

30. Are you saying that the sworn testimony is not credible?

There is so much of it, and it all points in the same direction. I don't know that anybody is denying that all of these things happened. They aren't denying, they are just stonewalling and redacting to protect people.

Why didn't Garland have this brought to trial? Remember, the people inside the FBI know all the names.

[reACTIONary]

32. Yes, I am saying that the sworen testimony is not credible....

... I am saying that Trump did not threaten to murder a twelve year old, and the idea that he did is ridiculous.... I am saying it is a false accusation. A flat out lie.

For it to be credible there would have to be actual evidence to back this testimony up. If there was such evidence, Trump would have been prosecuted, as he was for the actual crimes he did commit. As stated, the Biden DOJ had this on file for over 1,400 days. That they did not act on it means that it is a false accusation.

This is another instance of the several incredulous, far fetched, false accusations that have been made public and sensationalized. They should not have been.

[Blasphemer]

33. I agree and I appreciate that you try to keep DU honest. I'm waiting to see if there is more. nt

[Bluetus]

34. And what is your basis for making this determination?

It seems there is a mountain of evidence that Trump did EXACTLY this kind of thing throughout his entire lifetime, In fact, he stands convicted of exactly this kind of crime.

It should be prosecuted. That is why we have courts, judges and juries. That is how we make the best determination of truth. Let the accusers confront the defendants and then weigh the merits on each side.

[reACTIONary]

35. It can't be prosecuted...

.... because there is no evidence. If there was evidence, he would have been prosecuted, just as you point out he has been.

FYI, you can't be prosecuted for one alleged crime using evidence from some other crime. Or using a mountain of evidence from a mountain of other crimes. It has to be evidence for the specific crime that you are accused of. In this case there is none.

Honestly, all of this is hysterical nonsense. This is going nowhere, and is damaging to our reputation as a reality based community.

[Bluetus]

37. I can see you are one who was perfectly satisfied with Garland's proud recod of service.

Most of us were not. It is not up to you, me, or Garland to decide the guilt or innocence. That is why we have a judicial system to try cases. Anything less is cowardly and irresponsible, IMHO.

[reACTIONary]

39. It is a fundimental injustice...

.... for a prosecutor to try a case without a high level of confidence of conviction. You don't willy nilly drag people into court and put them through the trial of a trial just to see what will happen or what you can get away with.

There is no evidence to present at trial, so there should be no trial. It is as simple as that. Any other course of action is a miscarriage of justice.

I stand by justice, the rule of law, and against the perversion of due process.

[questionseverything]

42. To be clear, you're saying there's no evidence because a woman's word is worthless?

[AllyCat]

44. So the testimony of dozens of women is not credible to you?

Interesting.

[reACTIONary]

47. We are discussing one particular piece of sworn testimony, not....

.... dozens. And it would not matter if there were hundreds. Hundreds of sworn statements about other crimes are not evidence in the case of the one hundred and first alleged crime. If he commited dozens of crimes, and there is sufficient evidence for each one of them, he should be prosecuted for every one. Individually.

[AllyCat]

48. Unless they are men. White men. Their sworn testimony and

Even allegations are enough to sic the DOJ or an AG or any law enforcement on the ones at which they point their fingers.

[EdmondDantes_]

56. So the FBI should have been sent after Hillary Clinton and Comet Pizza?

There's just as much real evidence. Or Barack Obama over being a natural born citizen or the allegations of smoking cocaine with Larry whatever his name was? Or is it only those you don't like who should deal with that harassment?

[Joinfortmill]

54. Hold that statement. We'll circle back and revisit it when more files drop. It's gonna get a LOT worse.

[W_HAMILTON]

53. While we're reminding people, the DOJ/FBI was/is"Trumpland" and the FBI Director has been a Republican.

From another post of mine:

Lest anyone forget: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump

All the Hillary ratfucking occurred under a Republican FBI Director that usurped his superior, and more "catch and kill" activities regarding Trump crimes occurred under the next Republican FBI Director who had a meek superior that waited too long to get the right people in there (i.e., Jack Smith) to prosecute the crimes.

The same organization(s) that fucked over Hillary, had Epstein """commit suicide""" under their watch, slow-walked the Trump investigations, have been selectively prosecuting Trump's political enemies as directed, had thousands redacting these files that they were legally requiring to release weeks ago, etc. -- is it that surprising these people didn't go after Epstein's co-conspirators?

When a Democrat gains control of the Executive Branch, the DOJ and FBI need to be completely cleaned the fuck out, from the top to the bottom.

[Bluetus]

58. Here is the list of every FBI director since the beginning.

REPUBLICAN J. Edgar Hoover (1924–1972)
REPUBLICAN Clarence M. Kelley (1973–1978)
REPUBLICAN William H. Webster (1978–1987)
REPUBLICAN William S. Sessions (1987–1993)
REPUBLICAN Louis J. Freeh (1993–2001)
REPUBLICAN Robert S. Mueller, III (2001–2013)
REPUBLICAN James B. Comey (2013–2017)
REPUBLICAN Christopher Wray (2017–Present)

Webster was appointed by Carter.

Freeh was appointed by Clinton.

Obama did the deed twice, appointing BOTH Mueller and Comey

No Democrat has ever been confirmed as FBI Director. Democratic Presidents have appointed Republicans 4 out of 4 times.

[Grins]

6. This is not new. I read this months ago...

…in court depositions given by Trump’s EARLY TEEN GIRL victims. And by “depositions” - plural!!

[AZJonnie]

8. The GQP Congress is bringing 2016 USAG Loretta Lynch up before them in their upcoming Epstein hearings

I appreciate Ruben's point, and he's right, but OTOH the fact it happened on Obama's watch is not the best look.

I'll also add that assistants to Epstein in that era are quite well known, they all have specific immunity for any wrong-doing during that time (per the infamous 2008 NPA, which named the four of them). There are no "mystery" female assistants that worked for him from 1990-2000.

I'll also add that the Biden administration happened after 2016, which means Garland will also be asked regarding what HE did when it's his turn before the committee.

I hope Ms. Lynch is well prepared for questions about this witness statement, cause she could be backed into a corner with pretty poor optics, and the GQP are lying in wait to do so. I'll leave it at that.

[chowder66]

9. This is a from a party planner that worked for Epstein in regard to the Katie Johnson filing

Both court documents have been all over the internet since 2016.

Katie withdrew her suit due to fear of reprisal. I don't think either of them are willing to come forward.

[red dog 1]

14. Katie likely withdrew her lawsuit due to threats by Trump/Epstein that if she ever told, she & her family would die.

An interesting fact about Katie's case was that her lawyer in the 2016 suit was none other than Lisa Bloom.
Lisa Bloom led Ronan Farrow to believe that she supported his investigation of convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein, when, in fact, she was on Weinstein's payroll.
(I wonder if things would have turned out differently if Katie had been represented by a more honest attorney)

[Wiz Imp]

24. Or the lawsuit was withdrawn because it was BS from the start.

Both are equally likely. By the way, the only involvement of Lisa Bloom in this lawsuit seems to be that it was her who called the press conference just before the election in 2016 that was subsequently cancelled. "Katie Johnson's" (not her real name) main attorney was Thomas Meagher.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/09/03/trump-epstein-katie-johnson/

For the New York case, Doe was represented by a New Jersey patent attorney, Thomas Meagher, who later confirmed to news outlets that his client was the same person who filed the Johnson claims. By then, a widely shared video of a woman identified as Johnson, shown with a pixelated face and disguised voice, accompanied press coverage of her case.

Numerous journalists, advocates and political operatives had attempted to get, or had been promised, in-person access to Johnson. These promises never panned out. Steve Baer, a conservative mega-donor whose extensive email contacts helped to push the claims, for example, told Jezebel that he never met the accuser in person, despite many attempts.

Only one outlet, the now defunct millennial-targeting site Revelist, scored any sort of interview with the accuser. In July 2016, after first being promised an in-person meeting by Meagher, Revelist's Emily Shugerman had to settle for a conference call that left her questioning whether Johnson really existed. "I don't know if the Katie Johnson I spoke to is the same girl who Trump allegedly raped in 1994, or if that girl even exists," she wrote.

The next month, Lisa Bloom, a prominent attorney known for fighting high-profile sexual abuse cases, helped organize and publicize a news conference at which Johnson was to appear and outline her allegations against Trump. But the accuser backed out at the last minute, leaving "a room full of waiting reporters," as Vox described, without answers — and dropped the New York case days later.

[red dog 1]

60. "Or the lawsuit was withdrawn because it was BS from the start. Both are equally likely."??

I doubt it was "BS from the start."
Both are NOT "equally likely."
"Jane Doe" and her eyewitness, "Tiffany Doe," each signed affidavits, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, that Trump did, indeed, rape her when she was 13.
Would they have risked prosecution for lying under oath if their claims against Trump were not true?
I don't think so.

As to whether or not Katie Johnson, (aka Jane Doe) "even exists." the attorney brought in to file Katie Johnson's lawsuit against Trump in New York, Thomas Meagher, insisted he had met the plaintiff and separately spoken to her over video-conference.
"She definitely exists," said Meagher.
https://theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow

[somaticexperiencing]

12. OMG

[FakeNoose]

13. The affidavit is dated 2016 - where has it been all this time?

If this was in the hands of DoJ, arrests should have been made immediately when Barack Obama was still President. Did Obama ever know about this? Did DoJ fail to tell him?

Chump was running for President when this testimony was given.

We have questions!

[progressoid]

16. I guarantee that the right wing media will blame Biden for this.

Their argument goes something like, "why didn't the Biden admin do something about it?" Or something like that.

[Wiz Imp]

22. It's been all over the internet for the past 10 years.

Last edited Sat Jan 31, 2026, 08:42 PM - Edit history (3)

This is not anything remotely new.

Article from Snopes fromJune 23, 2016 here:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

excerpt here referring to the Tiffany Doe "testimony" that Gallego refers to:

A federal lawsuit filed in New York accuses Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump of repeatedly raping a 13-year-old girl more than 20 years ago, at several Upper East Side parties hosted by convicted sex offender and notorious billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein.

The suit, first reported by the Real Deal, accuses Trump and Epstein of luring the anonymous plaintiff and other young women to four parties at Epstein's so-called Wexner Mansion at 9 East 71st Street. Epstein allegedly lured the plaintiff, identified in the suit only as Jane Doe, with promises of a modeling career and cash.

Another anonymous woman, identified in additional testimony as Tiffany Doe, corroborates Jane's allegations, testifying that she met Epstein at Port Authority, where he hired her to recruit other young girls for his parties. Trump had known Epstein for seven years in 1994 when he attended the parties at Wexner, according to the suit. He also allegedly knew that the plaintiff was 13 years old.

Jane Doe filed a similar suit in California in April, under the name Katie Johnson, also accusing Trump and Epstein of rape. That suit was dismissed on the grounds of improper paperwork — the address affiliated with her name was found to be abandoned. Today's suit confirms that the plaintiffs are one and the same.

I have no idea why he's jumping on this now when it has been completely public for 10 years.

Note, there are strong reasons to doubt the authenticity of the "plaintiff" in this lawsuit. It may be true, but nobody should just automatically assume it as such.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/09/03/trump-epstein-katie-johnson/

[progressoid]

17. And what about the 12 year old that "disappeared"

[Wiz Imp]

23. What 12 year old that disappeared?

[progressoid]

26. From the deposition.

I personally witnessed Defendant Trump telling the Plaintiff that she shouldn't ever say anything if she didn't want to disappear like the 12-year-old female (redacted) and that he was capable of having her whole family killed.

[Wiz Imp]

28. Thank you!

[slightlv]

27. What about all the little girls and boys marched out in the dead of night

from the concentration (deportation) camps, boarded onto planes, and never heard from again. Where did they go? What happened to them?

[SergeStorms]

19. Does anyone think this will bother....

any republican Senators or Congresspeople? Will it matter to Trump's cult?

No, I don't think so either.

[dalton99a]

20. Kick

[dickthegrouch]

21. Everybody since Monica knows to keep the dress

I really want there to have been more dresses kept.

[gab13by13]

29. The other 12 year old girl was named Maria,

There was a witness who saw Krasnov rape her. She disappeared. I remember reading about her many years ago.

[Buddyzbuddy]

31. Somebody here is trying hard to discredit this

evidence provided by the DOJ which is part of the court records. Why would that be? Somebody here... doesn't want you to believe what your eyes see, your ears hear or what your mind has concluded is probably true. Once again, why would that be? Senator Gallego has made a very valid point and it is timely considering the recent release of Epstein files. This somebody thinks there must not be a child victim, now adult, that was threatened because that child went into hiding and the lawyer representing her didn't follow through with a civil suit. Because, of course, this lawyer must have made it all up at the risk of losing her license. I'm no fan of Lisa Bloom due to her involvement on behalf of Weinstein, so I have no compunction to defend her but the victim she represented absolutely deserves to be heard and believed. Otherwise, they win. And I'm not talking about politics.

I think somebody is exposing their true agenda, IMHO.

[Joinfortmill]

55. It'a all gonna come out. All. Of. It. I'm not sure how, but it will all come out.

[malthaussen]

40. Which proves they used threats as intimidation.

It doesn't prove they actually carried them out, and it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't. Not because they wouldn't (let's be real, here), but because the intimidation was all that was necessary.

Also, killing people is a dead-end result. You can't rape the 13 year old anymore if you kill her.

-- Mal

[neohippie]

43. What about Ghislane Maxwell's new statement

Apparently she is claiming that at least 25 people who victimized others in the Epstein scandal were able to settle out of court and never had to face further investigation/indictments?


https://people.com/ghislaine-maxwell-claims-people-reached-epstein-settlements-not-indicted-11894739

Ghislaine Maxwell claimed that 29 people, including four co-conspirators, reached "secret settlements" in connection to the Jeffrey Epstein case.

The claim is found in a lengthy habeas corpus petition filed by Maxwell on Dec. 17, 2025. Courthouse News obtained the entire petition.

Maxwell, Epstein's co-conspirator, is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence after she was convicted of sex trafficking in 2021.

Now, as the files related to the Epstein investigation have become a major political flashpoint, Maxwell is attempting to have her conviction vacated.

In the habeas petition, Maxwell says that "4 named co-conspirators" and 25 men "with secret settlements" were not indicted as part of the investigation.


t is not clear who the 29 individuals referenced in the petition are.

Over the summer, Maxwell met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and reportedly spoke about 100 ex-associates of Epstein. She was also subpoenaed to testify in front of Congress.

[Joinfortmill]

51. And, that may not be the worst of it. Get ready 'cause one way or the otherr, the files will be released.