Is there a legitimate video of Katie Johnson, talking about trump raping her at age 13? Where is it published?

1. The provenance: lawsuits, pseudonyms and a media interview

Court filings in 2016 included allegations by a woman who used the pseudonym “Katie Johnson” and later “Jane Doe,” claiming rape at Epstein-associated parties in 1994 when she said she was 13; those suits were filed, amended and ultimately dropped or dismissed in various jurisdictions, and their existence is reported by Politico and other outlets ^{[3] [4]}. PBS’s recap of assault allegations notes that the plaintiff, under the name Johnson in court papers, gave an interview to the Daily Mail in which she said she later identified Trump on television — indicating at least one media appearance in print tied to her claims ^[1].

2. What reporters have found about a video or visual record

Reporting by Sacramento News & Review recounts that a 10‑page document circulated to investigators included an unblurred image “from her video interview,” and that advocacy or political operatives used that material to press for further investigation — which demonstrates that a recorded interview or footage existed in some campaign or advocacy materials, but does not provide an open-source video link for independent viewing ^[2]. The Times of India piece and other contemporary resurfacing coverage describe social media posts and tweets that have revived attention to the 2016 filings and related media, but they do not supply a verifiable, journalistic repository-hosted video file for public scrutiny ^[5].

3. Credibility disputes and intermediaries shaping the narrative

Multiple reports flag credibility questions and the role of intermediaries: The Guardian reports that some of the litigation activity was coordinated or facilitated by figures such as Norm Lubow, a former TV producer whose involvement, and the pseudonymous nature of filings, prompted scrutiny ^[6]. Politico notes the suits’ procedural problems and withdrawals, and that lawyers and judges questioned the legal basis for some filings, which has been used by critics to argue the allegations’ procedural weakness even as advocates emphasize the seriousness of the claims ^[3]. These dynamics show competing agendas — from advocates seeking investigation to skeptics pointing to procedural flaws and operatives with political aims ^{[6] [3]}.

4. What cannot be confirmed from available reporting

None of the supplied sources includes a publicly accessible, verified original video file or a stable link where a full on-camera testimony of “Katie Johnson” describing the alleged rape can be watched and authenticated; while press accounts reference interviews and an image drawn from a “video interview,” the underlying footage is not published in these reports for independent verification ^{[2] [1]}. Therefore, claiming a single definitive, verifiable public video is not supported by the provided reporting.

Conclusion: measured answer

The reporting establishes that a woman using the name Katie Johnson/Jane Doe made allegations in lawsuits and gave at least one media interview referenced by outlets, and that advocates circulated images drawn from what they called a video interview ^{[3] [1] [2]}. However, based on the sources provided here, there is no corroborated public posting of a complete, authenticated video of Katie Johnson on-camera recounting the alleged rape that can be cited; interested parties point to press interviews and circulated document images rather than a single verified video file ^{[2] [5]}. Readers should treat circulated clips or social media posts with caution, consult original court filings and reputable investigative reporting, and note the contested credibility and potential political uses highlighted in The Guardian and other coverage ^{[6] [3]}.