Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Are there transcripts or audio recordings documenting Katie Johnson’s sworn statements over time?
Executive summary
Coverage is mixed and incomplete about public transcripts or audio recordings of “Katie Johnson” giving sworn statements: court filings include a plaintiff named Katie Johnson and reference sworn testimony (archive of the lawsuit) [1], contemporary reporting and archival items point to at least one taped interview and an excerpt of a sworn statement circulating online [2] [3]. Fact-checkers and long-form reporting note confusion about whether a single, verifiable, consistent record of her sworn testimony over time exists and whether the person on camera is the same individual named in the 2016 filings [4] [5].
1. What the court record shows: a named plaintiff and references to sworn testimony
The original civil filing that circulated online identifies a plaintiff called Katie Johnson and the complaint text explicitly references sworn testimony and corroborating witnesses — for example, a passage says Tiffany Doe “has agreed to provide sworn testimony in this civil case and any other future civil or criminal proceedings, fully verifying the authenticity of the claims of the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson” [1]. That document is the primary legal artifact tying the name Katie Johnson to sworn allegations in the 2016 lawsuit [1]. Available sources do not provide the full official deposition transcript from court minutes or docket entries in the provided set beyond the archived complaint text [1].
2. Recorded interviews and a “taped interview” entry in a public archive
At least one taped interview labeled as with “Katie L. Johnson Wilson” appears in a public digital collection, indicating that audio or video recordings tied to that name exist in archival holdings [2]. The listing is for a “taped interview … (transcript)” in an Indianapolis Public Library digital collection, which suggests there is a transcript tied to an audio/video object in that archive [2]. The source listing does not, in the results provided, display the full transcript text or contextualize whether this interview is the same person linked to the 2016 lawsuit [2].
3. Circulating sworn-statement excerpts and verbatim claims online
A sworn-statement excerpt attributed to Katie Johnson is hosted on Scribd and circulated widely; it contains graphic allegations and claims that Donald Trump raped her at age 13 [3]. This Scribd posting is an example of a document-format “transcript” or excerpt available to the public, but the origin, completeness, and chain of custody for that excerpt are not established in the provided sources [3]. The presence of the excerpt online does not, by itself, prove it is an official court transcript or deposition transcript unless tied to a verified court record [3] [1].
4. TV/web videos and a 2016 televised “full testimony” clip
Search results point to a video listing described as “Katie Johnson's full testimony of 2/11/16” on Bing’s video aggregation and related TV-interview results, indicating that broadcast segments of her statements have been posted or indexed online [6]. The Bing result is an index entry rather than a primary host page in the results provided, so it signals audiovisual material exists in the public sphere but the direct, authoritative source file and its transcript are not linked in the supplied material [6].
5. Fact‑checking and reporting that question existence and continuity
Snopes’ investigation and other reporting have tracked the origins of the allegations and emphasize confusion over whether the Katie Johnson who appeared on calls or camera is the same person named in legal filings; they note anonymous corroboration claims in the documents and report uncertainty about verifiable, consistent testimony over time [4]. Sacramento News & Review commentary also highlights renewed circulation of a sworn-testimony video clip and public debate over whether the person on camera is genuine or whether the record has been fully authenticated [5]. These outlets present competing viewpoints: some materials circulating online are presented as sworn testimony, while fact-checking and reporting express skepticism or note gaps in provenance [4] [5].
6. What’s missing or not established in the supplied reporting
Available sources do not include a verified, complete court deposition transcript or a definitive chain-of-custody showing that the widely circulated video and Scribd excerpt are the same authenticated sworn statements filed under oath in court (not found in current reporting) [1] [3]. The supplied materials lack a direct court docket entry or clerk-certified deposition that would conclusively document “sworn statements over time” in a single, traceable record [1] [4].
Conclusion — how to pursue confirmation
To confirm whether full, official transcripts or certified audio exist over time you should: [7] request the district court docket and any sealed/unsealed deposition transcripts for Case No. 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS from the Central District of California clerk (the lawsuit text is archived) [1]; [8] contact the Indianapolis Public Library digital-collections steward about the “taped interview” record and obtain its transcript/custody details [2]; and [9] treat Scribd and social-media video postings as secondary material until matched to certified court records or archival metadata [3] [6]. Sources disagree on authenticity and continuity; current reporting documents materials in circulation but does not establish a single, authoritative public archive of sworn statements over time [1] [4] [3].