Jeffrey Epstein is Still Dead (1 Viewer)

[Dadsdream]

ABC's Amy Robach

Yet another female reporter from yet another network has accidently joined MSNBC's Rachel Maddow to call out her own company for years of spiking stories about Jeffery Epstein providing teenage sex partners for rich and powerful men.

ABC News Amy Robach was caught in an open mic video moment which has been published by Project Veratis' James O'Keefe, a self-proclaimed "guerrilla journalist" whose past efforts have drawn heavy criticism.

“I’ve had the story for three years… we would not put it on the air,” Robach said on the hot mic. “It was unbelievable what we had, Clinton, we had everything.”

Fox News contacted Robach, and she confirmed the video was genuine.

“As a journalist, as the Epstein story continued to unfold last summer, I was caught in a private moment of frustration. I was upset that an important interview I had conducted with [Epstein accuser] Virginia Roberts didn’t air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations,” Robach said in a statement provided to Fox News

“We would not put it on the air. Um, first of all, I was told, who’s Jeffrey Epstein? No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story," Robach said on the video recording. "Then, the Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways. We were so afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will that we, that also quashed the story.”

“I tried for three years to get it on to no avail. And now it’s all coming out and it’s like these new revelations and I freaking had all of it,” Robach said. “I’m so pissed right now.”

ABC News' Amy Robach caught on hot mic saying network spiked Jeffrey Epstein bombshell

ABC News anchor Amy Robach was caught on a hot mic admitting that her network spiked a story that would have exposed disgraced money man and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein three years ago.

www.foxnews.com

Since Robach chose to provide a statement to Fox News, it's a sole source, not a news provider of choice for this piece.

 

[SystemShock]

... so, forget the ignorance here... I don't really care for it much, but I keep on seeing memes comments about Epstein's death... what exactly is the big whoop here? That people think Epstein was murdered by someone important?

 

[Dadsdream]

... so, forget the ignorance here... I don't really care for it much, but I keep on seeing memes comments about Epstein's death... what exactly is the big whoop here? That people think Epstein was murdered by someone important?

Female anchors from MSNBC (Rachel Maddow) and ABC (Amy Rorbach) have come forward to accuse the major networks of quashing their stories about Epstein and his rich friends' (Bill Clinton, DJT, Prince Andrew et al ) perversions as much as three years ago.

The networks have gone into panic/protect mode, with NBC saying they're releasing former employees from reporting sexual harassment past or present by anybody and ABC saying they didn't publish the dirt on Epstein because the stories didn't meet their standards, but they're about to come out with a full-blown expose'.

Prince Andrew is denying a picture of him with the 17-year-old girl, who became the subject of Rorch's interviews, is real. That's Epstine's gal pal Ghislaine Maxwell on the right.

 

[Beach Friends]

... so, forget the ignorance here... I don't really care for it much, but I keep on seeing memes comments about Epstein's death... what exactly is the big whoop here? That people think Epstein was murdered by someone important?

Well yeah, that's obviously the question. There was a lot of people suggesting that he would be killed to protect the secrets of the rich an powerful, and it just so happened that he managed to pick just the right time to off hinself - cameras not operating, guards sleeping. And there is at least one prominent physician who has expressed the opinion that the medical evidence is much more consistent with homicide than suicide.

 

[SystemShock]

I see... so Seth Rich didn't work out, now we got this. OK.

 

[Dadsdream]

The Daily Mail recently published photos and a video from 2010, taken at Epstein's townhouse, purportedly of Prince Andrew going to his car, followed by Epstein and a young woman.

EXCLUSIVE: Prince Andrew pictured inside Jeffrey Epstein's mansion

The Duke was spotted peering around the door of the billionaire's Manhattan home in December 2010 on a day where a procession of young women were seen entering the property.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[SystemShock]

Hmmmm.....

 

[BobE]

I see... so Seth Rich didn't work out, now we got this. OK.

Wait. What?

 

[Ayo]

thanks for your reply

all fair questions

1.anecdotally Most every professor that I come in contact with (often, not saying I’m handing out on campi across the country) are very liberal. As a former college debate, most everyone I came into contact with was very liberal. And I don’t think many would argue that college professors are WAY more liberal than most of your common folk.

why are "college professors" not "common folk"? Are bankers not "common folk"? Are lawyers not "common folk"? I really object to this sort of classification - both ways. I don't like it when people in academia look down on people who aren't in academic as unschooled and incapable of critical thought and I don't like it when people categorize college professors as not "common folk"

When I was teaching at university, was I not "common folk"? I had kids. I had a mortgage. I had a commute. Grew up poor. Hunted. Fished. Totally middle class. Kids in public school because we can't afford private. What makes me not "common folk"? I think this is monolithic labeling to be inaccurate and not at all helpful. All it does is create more barriers that are artificial in the first place.

Now, if you want to talk about "college professors are more liberal" as a general rule, sure. I'm not quibbling over that. But that was also not my question. First, I think you underestimate the number of economists, engineers, mathematicians, physicists, commerce, and profs in all fields at a university who are also quite conservative. I think you are overstating how 'liberal' university professors are if you start talking about the field in sum.

Secondly, and more to my point, I asked how you reconcile the claim with how universities are run. They are not run liberally at all. In fact, it's swung quite a bit to the conservative/business model side. If universities have become some sort of uber-liberal thought factory, you really need to consider the larger picture of university administration and reconcile that with your claim. because it's a conspicuous oversight, imo. This goes way beyond the professors you have run into.

2. liberal cause of the day- see Beto Rourke, the left has a propensity to make everything an emergency all the whole using it for profiteering. Global warming, We suck because we want legal immigration, trumps the devil etc. Oh and when “the man breaths” it disproportionately hurts women, children and minorities.

I don't know what this means. I think climate change is a pretty big deal. In fact, up here the Conservative Party just funded a 2-year study to the impact of climate change on cities and systems here. They are seeking input from think tanks that are built for this sort of thing. That's hardly a "liberal cause of the day." And I think what follows is more inflammatory than it is substantial. I have no more real idea of "liberal cause of the day" than before I read this, tbh

3. conservative lifestyle. Look at the black community in the south for example. They don’t believe in abortion and love them some Jesus, yet vote democrat. Or, how many people prior to their child being born has the conversation of choosing the child’s name based on if it will apply across the 112 approved genders?

And a bunch of people in Kentucky need relief when it comes to healthcare and prescription drugs and they voted for Bevin. I have no idea what this has to do with a "conservative lifestyle." And, since you raised the criterion, how many people do you think have a conversation about choosing a name that can be multi-gender in case their kid needs to have that versatility. I live in a pretty progressive, liberal place and have worked with some pretty liberal people - and I've never come across one.

That's anecdotal, sure. But Toronto and University (which, as you stated above, is way more liberal than 'common folk') is pretty dang liberal. So, if the "liberal lifestyle" is so defined by this naming approach - you selected the data point, mind you - then I really don't have a clear idea about what "conservative lifestyle"

The last two points you raise didn't help me understand your point at all. It reads as if you want to put people and beliefs into boxes and pre-suppose something about them. And, yes, people on the left do that (I specifically noted that above). I'm in this conversation because I don't want to do that. And I don't think I've done that - not intentionally.

I didn't come in here and say that "Conservatives just want to be able to shoot kids with their Second Amendment and want intersex people to just pick a gender already and they hate blacks and Mexicans" - that's not a fair use of labeling.

You've said, more than once, that you want to talk about individual and perspective - but in your post above, it seems to be you are not abiding by the expectations and wishes you have for others. And this is not meant to be dismissive or insulting - i just want to have a conversation that's not going to devolve into "Libruls jis wanna have theirselfs a billion genders" (obviously an overstatement, but I think you get my point)

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I think there's probably a legitimate complaint that journalistic standards aren't evenly applied for every story.

 

[LA - L.A.]

And now, CBS has fired the staffer who previously worked for ABC for apparently being the person who leaked the hot mic video of Amy Robach saying ABC quashed her Epstein story.

According to Amy Robach, ABC didn't quash her story and that's not the point she was making in her comments picked up by the open microphone:

ABC News Defends Its Epstein Coverage After Leaked Video Of Anchor

A newly surfaced video of an ABC News anchor's unguarded remarks about the network's coverage of the late Jeffrey Epstein has thrown ABC on the defensive. In a leaked video posted Tuesday by the right-wing activist group Project Veritas, news anchor Amy Robach expresses her frustration to a...

madaboutpolitics.com

"As the Epstein story continued to unfold last summer, I was caught in a private moment of frustration. I was upset that an important interview I had conducted with Virginia Roberts [Giuffre] didn't air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC's editorial standards about her allegations," Robach said in her statement. "The interview itself, while I was disappointed it didn't air, didn't meet our standards. In the years since no one ever told me or the team to stop reporting on Jeffrey Epstein, and we have continued to aggressively pursue this important story."

"At the time, not all of our reporting met our standards to air, but we have never stopped investigating the story," the ABC News statement says. "Ever since we've had a team on this investigation and substantial resources dedicated to it." The network said it intended to run a two-hour documentary and launch a six-part podcast on Epstein in January 2020.

Robach was relying on Giuffre's allegations, entered into the record in a court case, as corroboration for her story on Epstein. When U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra struck those allegations from the record, Robach no longer had corroboration for her story.

Yet Marra also ruled that many of the specifics of Giuffre's allegations — whom she accused Epstein of trafficking her to and for what sexual interactions — should be struck from the record.

According to a network executive, that put a far greater burden on ABC's reporting team, led by investigative producer Jim Hill. When allegations are contained in court documents, they are generally considered "privileged" under libel law — giving journalists latitude to report accusations accurately, whether or not they have been substantiated out of court. Once those details were removed from the formal court record, ABC had to corroborate Giuffre's claims more concretely, on its own authority, the executive said. And in subsequent court filings, Giuffre has amended some of her recollection of precise dates and details in her allegations of activities that occurred close to two decades ago.

 

[BobE]

Yet amazingly the "Syria" air footage DID meet the ABC standards.

 

[wardorican]

 

[Intensesaint]

Surprise.. NPR saying it's not really as bad as it sounds.

 

[wardorican]

Surprise.. NPR saying it's not really as bad as it sounds.

Well, they're saying what Robach is saying now. Robach is back tracking. They even said she's back tracking. Then they brought up a legal case that made the corroboration more difficult.

It sounds pretty fair. They were honest about Project Veritas past, but also said this video seemed unedited and has forced ABC to re-evaluate what they did.

I don't think they said "it doesn't sound as bad as it did". They're discussing what has been going on, what changed, and what they're saying. Can they prove what is or isn't true?

 

[BobE]

and then they had CBS fired the alleged video maker.

 

[Lazybones]

thanks for your reply



why are "college professors" not "common folk"? Are bankers not "common folk"? Are lawyers not "common folk"? I really object to this sort of classification - both ways. I don't like it when people in academia look down on people who aren't in academic as unschooled and incapable of critical thought and I don't like it when people categorize college professors as not "common folk"

When I was teaching at university, was I not "common folk"? I had kids. I had a mortgage. I had a commute. Grew up poor. Hunted. Fished. Totally middle class. Kids in public school because we can't afford private. What makes me not "common folk"? I think this is monolithic labeling to be inaccurate and not at all helpful. All it does is create more barriers that are artificial in the first place.

Now, if you want to talk about "college professors are more liberal" as a general rule, sure. I'm not quibbling over that. But that was also not my question. First, I think you underestimate the number of economists, engineers, mathematicians, physicists, commerce, and profs in all fields at a university who are also quite conservative. I think you are overstating how 'liberal' university professors are if you start talking about the field in sum.

Secondly, and more to my point, I asked how you reconcile the claim with how universities are run. They are not run liberally at all. In fact, it's swung quite a bit to the conservative/business model side. If universities have become some sort of uber-liberal thought factory, you really need to consider the larger picture of university administration and reconcile that with your claim. because it's a conspicuous oversight, imo. This goes way beyond the professors you have run into.



I don't know what this means. I think climate change is a pretty big deal. In fact, up here the Conservative Party just funded a 2-year study to the impact of climate change on cities and systems here. They are seeking input from think tanks that are built for this sort of thing. That's hardly a "liberal cause of the day." And I think what follows is more inflammatory than it is substantial. I have no more real idea of "liberal cause of the day" than before I read this, tbh



And a bunch of people in Kentucky need relief when it comes to healthcare and prescription drugs and they voted for Bevin. I have no idea what this has to do with a "conservative lifestyle." And, since you raised the criterion, how many people do you think have a conversation about choosing a name that can be multi-gender in case their kid needs to have that versatility. I live in a pretty progressive, liberal place and have worked with some pretty liberal people - and I've never come across one.

That's anecdotal, sure. But Toronto and University (which, as you stated above, is way more liberal than 'common folk') is pretty dang liberal. So, if the "liberal lifestyle" is so defined by this naming approach - you selected the data point, mind you - then I really don't have a clear idea about what "conservative lifestyle"

The last two points you raise didn't help me understand your point at all. It reads as if you want to put people and beliefs into boxes and pre-suppose something about them. And, yes, people on the left do that (I specifically noted that above). I'm in this conversation because I don't want to do that. And I don't think I've done that - not intentionally.

I didn't come in here and say that "Conservatives just want to be able to shoot kids with their Second Amendment and want intersex people to just pick a gender already and they hate blacks and Mexicans" - that's not a fair use of labeling.

You've said, more than once, that you want to talk about individual and perspective - but in your post above, it seems to be you are not abiding by the expectations and wishes you have for others. And this is not meant to be dismissive or insulting - i just want to have a conversation that's not going to devolve into "Libruls jis wanna have theirselfs a billion genders" (obviously an overstatement, but I think you get my point)

Long post.

1. Common folk, people who are not ultra left. College professors are way more liberal than joe the electrician. I want trying to be insulting, I was just explaining in a having a beer kinda way.

2. Liberal cause of the day. The left and the media freak out about something different on a consistent basis. I understand you and many others think climate change is “the hot topic”. According to the left the 10 year time frame had come and gone time and time over. The point isn’t that climate change isn’t something that needs to be talked about and addressed, but it doesn’t need to be blown out of proportion which the left does often.

3. Living a conservative life. I think I was pretty clear on this one. I didn’t say liberals want to kill all babies via abortion. I used the example of black Americans, especially in the south, line one way yet vote another. I’m not putting anyone in boxes. I don’t think it is a stretch to say that black Americans vote overwhelmingly for democrats.

I’m not a fan of replying to long post as it is hard to cover point by point and I only access from my phone. (I know, not your problem). For conversation sake, and you know I don’t mind the interaction, it would help me if we went one at a time instead is all in one post......if possible.

 

[Ayo]

Long post.

I'll try to be shorter then.

1. Common folk, people who are not ultra left. College professors are way more liberal than joe the electrician. I want trying to be insulting, I was just explaining in a having a beer kinda way.

Are "ultra right" not common folk, then, too? I'm not ultra left. Do I get to be "common folk"? I think I'm pretty damn "common folk" in a lot of ways, tbh. I still don't understand your criteria.

Also, you still haven't discussed the conservative/business model of the postsecondary. That's a *huge* issue. It's absolutely material to your point about 'influence' but you don't address it at all.

2. Liberal cause of the day. The left and the media freak out about something different on a consistent basis. I understand you and many others think climate change is “the hot topic”. According to the left the 10 year time frame had come and gone time and time over. The point isn’t that climate change isn’t something that needs to be talked about and addressed, but it doesn’t need to be blown out of proportion which the left does often.

I never said it was "the hot topic." In fact, I've spoken against the "alarmist" element of the discussion before on those other boards. But this still doesn't illustrate your point - or maybe I'm not getting it - what's the point of the 'liberal cause for the day'? I also added that it's not really a "liberal" issue. There are a lot of moderates and conservatives, the world over, who are paying more attention to the issue. Are you talking about issues that are "blown out of proportion", then? Because the right does the same thing.

I said I'm not really interested in those discussions on the margins.

3. Living a conservative life. I think I was pretty clear on this one. I didn’t say liberals want to kill all babies via abortion. I used the example of black Americans, especially in the south, line one way yet vote another. I’m not putting anyone in boxes. I don’t think it is a stretch to say that black Americans vote overwhelmingly for democrats.

I’m not a fan of replying to long post as it is hard to cover point by point and I only access from my phone. (I know, not your problem). For conversation sake, and you know I don’t mind the interaction, it would help me if we went one at a time instead is all in one post......if possible.

But conservatives vote 'against their interests' all the time, too. You continue to make points as if they just relate to one side and not the other. That's what I'm not getting.

And you are absolutely 'putting people in boxes' when you talk about who gets to be "common folk" and who doesn't. How universities are this but can't be that. How liberals change baby names. And so on.

I'd like to see less of that categorizing is all.

anyway, I don't know how else to address multiple points. You made a list and I'm just replying to the list. Not sure how else to do it.

But regardless, I appreciate the replies. I really do wanna try and find a space here. Thanks

 

[SystemShock]

Wait. What?

... meaning the Seth Rich assassination conspiracy theory didn't pan out, so on to the next conspiracy theory it is.