Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:50 PM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,548

ABC hiding Epstein's story


Project Veritas published a hot-mic speech given by Amy Robach complaining that they new about it three years ago and that ABC canned the story, apparently, because (on top of other things) prince Andrew was part of the ring and the the Royal Family won't give them any interviews if they aired it. The fact that it was in the middle of the election and that Bill Clinton was implicated in it was certainly a factor.

It's astonishing that a story about a pedophile ring by a rich person was canned. How many more minor were raped because of this?


Video
  #2  
Old 11-07-2019, 01:56 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,128
It's awful, but it's not new. The wealthy and powerful (speaking generally) aren't interested in fighting sexual assault, rape, and abuse of women and girls (and boys, in some cases), and in fact are often directly opposed to this fight, because so many of the wealthy and powerful enjoy their relative freedom to sexually assault, rape, and abuse women and girls. This is true across the spectrum of society and in all industries and segments, as far as I can tell. Only recently have a few chunks of society started to publicly recognize this and do something about it. But the progress has been very small compared to what actually needs to be done. We still have abusers in the highest offices and positions in the country (including, quite clearly, the White House and SCOTUS).

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 11-07-2019 at 01:58 PM.
  #3  
Old 11-07-2019, 02:26 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,101
Not to say Epstein or even Prince Andrew were innocent, but...

Robach says the story wasn't buried, it just couldn't be verified.

Quote:
“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...I was referencing her allegations — not what ABC News had verified through our reporting. 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.”
IOW, ABC News felt they couldn't release the story because they didn't want another "Dan Rather/GW Bush AWOL" debacle. Now, you might not believe this explanation. I can't say I blame you. But I don't trust Project VeriTrash farther than I can drop-kick a bowling ball.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #4  
Old 11-07-2019, 02:27 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,606
If she had that much information, there must be at least 20 different social media outlets she could have published the story on.
  #5  
Old 11-07-2019, 02:28 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,128
Project Veritas is an organization with a record of dishonesty and dishonor, but I don't trust any wealthy and powerful organization (like ABC News, or Disney) any more than them, when it comes to stories that could harm the wealthy and powerful like Epstein and his pals. Even if Robach's explanation is accurate, it's a tragedy and a travesty that big news mostly ignored stories like Epstein (and Cosby, Weinstein, and Trump, for that matter) for years and years.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 11-07-2019 at 02:29 PM.
  #6  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:03 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,379
Besides what iiandyiiii points out, IMHO a lot of the media, even from the right, knew about bigger dirty deeds of trump, but as usual, the ton of bad deeds could not be confirmed by two sources as the standard goes and it is even more so when the powerful are confronted.

We should remember the almost complete 'no endorsement' for Trump from large newspapers in the last election. They could not tell us directly about those deeds; they could only describe the reasons why, and in particular to right wing readers, in roundabout opinion articles, that Trump was going to be bad news for anyone that supported or decided to join his administration.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspa...ntial_election
Quote:
Trump received endorsements from only 20 daily newspapers and six weekly newspapers nationwide, of which only two, the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the (Jacksonville) Florida Times-Union, had circulations of above 100,000.[2] The small number of endorsements received by Trump was unprecedented in American history for a candidate from a major party.[3][4][5]
  #7  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:07 PM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
Not to say Epstein or even Prince Andrew were innocent, but...

Robach says the story wasn't buried, it just couldn't be verified.

IOW, ABC News felt they couldn't release the story because they didn't want another "Dan Rather/GW Bush AWOL" debacle. Now, you might not believe this explanation. I can't say I blame you. But I don't trust Project VeriTrash farther than I can drop-kick a bowling ball.
Sorry, it's just covering their asses. It was a pedophile ring, and Epstein's activities were not that secret. THey chose to can it because of fear or money, not journalisim.

They had lots more verification than with many stories. They ran the Covington kid a million times from a simple 20-second clip or Kavannaugh from unproven (or disproven) testimony. If instead of Clinton it'd been Trump or Pence in the plane/apartment/island, they would've run it, 100000% sure.
  #8  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:09 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
Project Veritas published...
Stop right there.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #9  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:10 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,379
As for the item at hand, Dude! Project Veritas is more likely to have found what was discussed earlier in newsrooms across the USA and misleads others by omitting context or are even fabricating news by editing that context, as they have done so before.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...loved-by-trump
  #10  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:18 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
Sorry, it's just covering their asses. It was a pedophile ring, and Epstein's activities were not that secret. THey chose to can it because of fear or money, not journalisim.



They had lots more verification than with many stories. They ran the Covington kid a million times from a simple 20-second clip or Kavannaugh from unproven (or disproven) testimony. If instead of Clinton it'd been Trump or Pence in the plane/apartment/island, they would've run it, 100000% sure.
So I take it your interest is in bashing the libs (your political opponents), not actually fighting abuse of women, then? That's the only reason I can think of to dismiss one set of credible allegations while latching into another.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #11  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:24 PM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
If she had that much information, there must be at least 20 different social media outlets she could have published the story on.
i imagine she had her job in consideration.
CBS just fired the guy who was the whistleblower of the story.
  #12  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:25 PM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
So, does that mean ABC didn't kill the story? I mean, O'Keefe make set puppies on fire and it doens't change the story, does it?
  #13  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:25 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
i imagine she had her job in consideration.
Exactly. It's okay for her to have her job in consideration, but somehow not okay for the executives to have their job in consideration?
  #14  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:26 PM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
So I take it your interest is in bashing the libs (your political opponents), not actually fighting abuse of women, then? That's the only reason I can think of to dismiss one set of credible allegations while latching into another.
So I take it your interest is in bashing the conservatives (your political opponents), not actually fighting abuse of children, then? That's the only reason I can think of to dismiss one set of credible allegations while latching into another. You went for Trump and Kavannaugh on the first reply, so glass houses and all of that.
  #15  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:29 PM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Exactly. It's okay for her to have her job in consideration, but somehow not okay for the executives to have their job in consideration?
If you're a journalist who stops the airing of a story of powerful men running a pedophile ring because of the money, you should either stop being a journalist
or accept that money is you main motivation.
I didn't say it was an accetable reason, just her posible excuse.

--------------
Did I say it was a pedophile ring with tens of victims? Because the ammount of deflecting is astonishing. This wasn't an ilegal póker game, it's a heious crime, and they covered it.

Last edited by Ají de Gallina; 11-07-2019 at 03:30 PM.
  #16  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:35 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
If you're a journalist who stops the airing of a story of powerful men running a pedophile ring because of the money, you should either stop being a journalist or accept that money is you main motivation.
I agree. I think her complaint is stupid because she could have ran the story, but apparently cared more about her job.
  #17  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:36 PM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I agree. I think her complaint is stupid because she could have ran the story, but apparently cared more about her job.
Definitely.
  #18  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:40 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
So, does that mean ABC didn't kill the story? ..
It means that source is unreliable and we would need to see another cite from a more reliable source.
  #19  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:41 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
So I take it your interest is in bashing the conservatives (your political opponents), not actually fighting abuse of children, then? That's the only reason I can think of to dismiss one set of credible allegations while latching into another. You went for Trump and Kavannaugh on the first reply, so glass houses and all of that.
I didn't dismiss any allegations, unlike you.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #20  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:44 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,785
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this "hot-mic speech" even exists?
  #21  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:42 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
If she had that much information, there must be at least 20 different social media outlets she could have published the story on.
Oh, even better! A paid journalist circumvents the networks Legal and Standards Department and releases a story -- which she initially got using the network's resources -- to some blogger working out of his mother's basement, just hoping it doesn't get traced back to her, and ABC. Yeah, that'll shield them from serious litigation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
Sorry, it's just covering their asses. It was a pedophile ring, and Epstein's activities were not that secret. THey chose to can it because of fear or money, not journalisim.
They chose to can it because they didn't want another GWB/Texas ANG/AWOL story blowing up in their faces with every rightwing pundit from Hannity to Limbaugh crowing about it 24/7.

And "not that secret"? I must have missed that episode of Lifestyles of the Rich & Shameless.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)

Last edited by CaptMurdock; 11-07-2019 at 04:42 PM.
  #22  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:53 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,952
They have also done a poor job covering Epsteins murder (suicide).

Thing is this thing ran so deep and had so many high level people in it. Epstein knew so many people they were going to kill him no matter what.
  #23  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:55 PM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this "hot-mic speech" even exists?
It's linked to in the OP. If that's the one you're looking for, it's been all over the internet for a few days now.
  #24  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:57 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
It's linked to in the OP. If that's the one you're looking for, it's been all over the internet for a few days now.
Yeah, but it's linked through Project VeriTrash's site. If I were you, I'd access it through a proxy.

And then take a shower in scalding hot alcohol.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #25  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:58 PM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
How many more minor were raped because of this?
His plane was nicknamed "Lolita Express", so, lots?
  #26  
Old 11-07-2019, 04:58 PM
bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,697
Exactly. These sorts of stories cost money, time and effort, and if they couldn't verify it to their standards and it involves the rich, powerful and public people, then it is either a tabloid story, or a giant journalistic misstep. Both of those would seriously hamper their future efforts to get interviews/information from those people (the Royal Family).

So in absence of adequate verification, they likely passed on it because the potential downsides outweighed the upside for them. And they're not obligated to run down and report on every wild-ass allegation they hear; that's why they have these rules like two credible sources.

Another thing- the law enforcement agencies involved aren't exactly Sheriff Andy and Barney Fife- I suspect they knew something was up for an equally long time, but ran into the same problems that the journalists did- a lack of verifiable evidence.
  #27  
Old 11-07-2019, 05:32 PM
txjim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this "hot-mic speech" even exists?
NPR seems to think so
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/05/77648...ideo-of-anchor
  #28  
Old 11-07-2019, 05:45 PM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
Yeah, but it's linked through Project VeriTrash's site. If I were you, I'd access it through a proxy.

And then take a shower in scalding hot alcohol.
I'm not familiar with the site, but in any case, it's there and I'm sure it's easily findable elsewhere too. I first saw it on Imgur.

Last edited by Joey P; 11-07-2019 at 05:45 PM.
  #29  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:13 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,785
Yes, and there's footage of Robert Downey Jr. blasting aliens with repulsor rays on the Internet, too. Doesn't mean that I believe Iron Man exists.

So, again, does this speech exist anywhere that doesn't have a known felon as the source?
  #30  
Old 11-07-2019, 07:11 PM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Yes, and there's footage of Robert Downey Jr. blasting aliens with repulsor rays on the Internet, too. Doesn't mean that I believe Iron Man exists.

So, again, does this speech exist anywhere that doesn't have a known felon as the source?
I'm confused. You asked for proof that the hot mic speech even exists, but when handed a video of it, you don't believe it exists?

I'm sure I'm missing something, I just don't know what it is.

Here it is from Fox News' youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjwf9F_v5cI
  #31  
Old 11-07-2019, 07:16 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,785
Just like I wouldn't accept a video of Iron Man as proof that he exists, yes.

The source for this video is someone who makes a living making recordings of things that don't exist.
  #32  
Old 11-07-2019, 07:23 PM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Just like I wouldn't accept a video of Iron Man as proof that he exists, yes.

The source for this video is someone who makes a living making recordings of things that don't exist.
Did you, like, actually watch the video? If you're going to discredit it just because of the website that it's hosted on (the one in the OP, someone else linked to it on NPR, I linked to it on Fox's youtube channel) I'm not sure what to tell you. Like I said earlier, it's all over the internet, you can google it and find it on a multitude of sites and and youtube channels.

If you can watch her say the words and not believe that she said the words, why believe anything you see anywhere?

ETA, also, it should be noted that her own network, ABC, has responded to it (explaining? defending? admitting?). If it was just a few soundbites edited to get everyone riled up, wouldn't you have expected either her or ABC to 'set the story straight' instead of ABC coming out and saying 'this is why we did this'.

Last edited by Joey P; 11-07-2019 at 07:26 PM.
  #33  
Old 11-08-2019, 07:32 AM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
It means that source is unreliable and we would need to see another cite from a more reliable source.
For three years? What happened to "believe all women"? It wasn't high journalistic standards, it wa fear and/or money.
In the Kavannaugh case, everyone run the story with just one person's 30-year-old memories which nobody else could verify. Here, there is a pedophile ring of powerful people, including a former US president, and suddendly they need a note from mom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Exactly. These sorts of stories cost money, time and effort, and if they couldn't verify it to their standards and it involves the rich, powerful and public people, then it is either a tabloid story, or a giant journalistic misstep. Both of those would seriously hamper their future efforts to get interviews/information from those people (the Royal Family).

So in absence of adequate verification, they likely passed on it because the potential downsides outweighed the upside for them. And they're not obligated to run down and report on every wild-ass allegation they hear; that's why they have these rules like two credible sources.

Another thing- the law enforcement agencies involved aren't exactly Sheriff Andy and Barney Fife- I suspect they knew something was up for an equally long time, but ran into the same problems that the journalists did- a lack of verifiable evidence.
If instead of Epstein the name had been Trump, they would've run the story faster than Ussain Bolt on steroids with with a torando tailwind and on a downslope.


Even now, even with Epstein dead and knowing 100% that he's guilty, the story has almost died with him. Nobody cares about the victims and it is because the criminals are the "wrong" people and they don't want to upset them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Just like I wouldn't accept a video of Iron Man as proof that he exists, yes.

The source for this video is someone who makes a living making recordings of things that don't exist.

This is amazingly silly. THere is video on mutiple platforms. ABC has commented and accepted that the video exists but has tried to downplay it with "out of context" comments. Also, her complaint isn't that "it looks good but we need more data" the complain is "we have everything, but they don't want to upset powerful people."
CBS has fired the person who possibly leaked the video, very possibly at ABC's request.

______________________________

The ammount of deflecting in this thread is, again, astonishing. Some motherfucking rich people rape minors for years and what we get "I don't like the website". I never expected this strong defense of child rapists here.

With the Covington kid, they ran he story with a 30second video of a kid smirking and they decided to ruin his life and, after the whole exchange was seen, nobody decided to change the story to reflect what happened.

This was the failure of traditional media.
  #34  
Old 11-08-2019, 07:42 AM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Just like I wouldn't accept a video of Iron Man as proof that he exists, yes.

The source for this video is someone who makes a living making recordings of things that don't exist.
Then, instead of asking multiple times for proof it exists, you should be denying it exists. Life is easier when people tell us what they're thinking instead of beating around the bush.
  #35  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:15 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,179
One big mystery is:
How did Epstein get his huge wealth in the first place?

Nobody seems to know. He was a failed nobody with expensive tastes and suddenly started throwing huge parties. Maybe the IRS should know where his money came from, but they aren't talking. I just watched the FoxNews video; Amy Robach says that Epstein "made his whole living blackmailing people." Occam's Razor says she's right. Wikipedia suggests Epstein's business was rather like Madoff's. Voluntarily being fleeced ŕ la Madoff is one way for a rich man to funnel large sums to Epstein without leaving an undesirable paper trail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
... They ran the Covington kid a million times from a simple 20-second clip or Kavannaugh from unproven (or disproven) testimony.
I hardly know the Covington details, and would be guessing to venture at Prince Andrew's guilt. But lumping in the hideous harasser Kavanaugh, along with "unproven/disproven" tells me what I need to know about your opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
If instead of Clinton it'd been Trump or Pence in the plane/apartment/island, they would've run it, 100000% sure.
Wow! Just wow!!!! I guess FoxNews/Limbaugh/Infowars are responsible media who would never impugn the Clintons. But ABC is a Lie Machine that would jump all over Trump or Pence. Is that it? WOW!
  #36  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:22 AM
eenerms is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Finally...Wisc...!
Posts: 2,927
The reporter in the hot mic isn’t on ABC GMA for the past few days.
  #37  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:36 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
For three years? What happened to "believe all women"? It wasn't high journalistic standards, it wa fear and/or money.
Society has a long, long way to go. Folks like you are still dismissing allegations if they're against someone you support, and the powerful and wealthy are still paving over allegations in the fear that their own misdeeds will be uncovered. This problem isn't going to be solved by powerful news organizations -- it's going to be solved by everyday people, when we decide we have enough, and when folks like you (based on your posts, at least) decide that fighting sexual assault and abuse of women is more important than beating your political/ideological opponents.

We're not there yet. Hopefully we're on our way.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 11-08-2019 at 08:37 AM.
  #38  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:42 AM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
One big mystery is:
How did Epstein get his huge wealth in the first place?

Nobody seems to know. He was a failed nobody with expensive tastes and suddenly started throwing huge parties. Maybe the IRS should know where his money came from, but they aren't talking. I just watched the FoxNews video; Amy Robach says that Epstein "made his whole living blackmailing people." Occam's Razor says she's right. Wikipedia suggests Epstein's business was rather like Madoff's. Voluntarily being fleeced ŕ la Madoff is one way for a rich man to funnel large sums to Epstein without leaving an undesirable paper trail.
This is a very interesting angle that hasn't come up enough.


Quote:
I hardly know the Covington details, and would be guessing to venture at Prince Andrew's guilt. But lumping in the hideous harasser Kavanaugh, along with "unproven/disproven" tells me what I need to know about your opinions.

How do you know Kavannaugh is a hideous harasser? What proof? Would you accept that proof against you?


Quote:
Wow! Just wow!!!! I guess FoxNews/Limbaugh/Infowars are responsible media who would never impugn the Clintons. But ABC is a Lie Machine that would jump all over Trump or Pence. Is that it? WOW!
FoxNews/Limbaugh/Infowars being good or bad is immaterial to this thread. However, I am more tan willing to concede that their bar for a "fuck Clinton" story is much, much lower than for a "fuck Trump" one, no question about it. If Limbaugh had the Epstein story and it implicated Trump he would sat on it, hard, or at least hide DJT's involvement, for sure, no question about it.
ABC is not specifically bad, the state of media is terrible. As I said, CBS fired the whistleblower of an ABC story, that's how bad they are.
In this specific story, "believe all women" didn't quite work, even in child rape. The Smollet story, which was dodgy from the very start, had headlines without any further corroboration; it didn't matter how ridiculous it was.

Last edited by Ají de Gallina; 11-08-2019 at 08:44 AM.
  #39  
Old 11-08-2019, 09:27 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,536
Dopers can be very very stupid when they want to be. And screw Kavanaugh and forget about Sandmann, the Epstein story is important in its own right and the fact is that the media has done a lousy job in reporting it.
Powerful People always get their way.
  #40  
Old 11-08-2019, 09:34 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,952
Ever heard the phrase "a broken clock is right twice a day"?

I dont care how crazy the website or source is, sometimes they actually DO get something RIGHT.

We are talking about a political and economic power group that has influence in not just the US, but also the UK and apparently several other countries.

The only news outlet that could run it is some oddball one like Veritas. Every other news outlet is too tied into this group.
  #41  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:44 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,161
The media isn't going to initiate a story about somebody committing a crime unless it has evidence to back it up. There's a significant exception; if people start talking about the crime, then the media will report of the talk.

Neither candidate wanted to raise the issue of Epstein in the 2016 campaign because both were implicated. So neither candidate initiated talk on the topic. And the media didn't have enough evidence to initiate the story.
  #42  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:53 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,179
What do we all think of Alan Dershowitz's comments? I think Epstein would have been happy to have a top criminal lawyer owe him favors.

Dershowitz says that he kept his underwear on when an old Russian woman massaged him at Epstein's party. But then he goes on to say that paying for sex with a 16-year old girl should be perfectly legal for the john even if the girl is guilty of prostitution.
  #43  
Old 11-08-2019, 11:03 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
What do we all think of Alan Dershowitz's comments? I think Epstein would have been happy to have a top criminal lawyer owe him favors.

Dershowitz says that he kept his underwear on when an old Russian woman massaged him at Epstein's party. But then he goes on to say that paying for sex with a 16-year old girl should be perfectly legal for the john even if the girl is guilty of prostitution.
Dersh is a disgusting scumbag. Do you have a cite for these particular comments? He's already a disgusting scumbag based on past comments, but I'm curious about these particular ones.
  #44  
Old 11-08-2019, 11:18 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,179
My cite is my memory. It might have been a Youtube in which Dershowitz himself is seen saying these things. I could Google, but I'd be starting from the same point as you.
  #45  
Old 11-08-2019, 11:24 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
FoxNews/Limbaugh/Infowars being good or bad is immaterial to this thread.
Actually, no.

https://www.mediamatters.org/shannon...trump-included
Quote:
Farrow then mentioned another instance when the Enquirer covered up a story, involving allegations of Trump assaulting underage girls in concert with the late Jeffrey Epstein. “That's another one where we're not sure if there's a there there, but … it's interesting that in those cases, there were still — there were still resources extended to kill these stories whether they were rumors or real.”

Bream then said that the love child story, as well as an anonymous rape allegation, were “not backed by convincing evidence, so it didn’t go anywhere.”
The reality is that if it was not for the threats to and buying of silence of many involved by the Enquirer, other partisan media or other powerful groups then a lot would have been reported, and corporate media in the end does love to report about train wrecks. But, usually after the disaster can not be hidden or when someone does stick their neck first.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 11-08-2019 at 11:27 AM.
  #46  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:14 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The wealthy and powerful (speaking generally) aren't interested in fighting sexual assault, rape, and abuse of women and girls (and boys, in some cases), and in fact are often directly opposed to this fight
Unless you count Bill and Melinda Gates, Peter and Jennifer Buffett (NoVo Foundation), Fred Meyer (Meyer Foundation) and other wealthy philanthropists who've donated $$$ as part of efforts to combat rape and sexual abuse.

Your ridiculous generalizations are not helpful nor do I see any relevant connection to the alleged Epstein Coverup.
  #47  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:17 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
Unless you count Bill and Melinda Gates, Peter and Jennifer Buffett (NoVo Foundation), Fred Meyer (Meyer Foundation) and other wealthy philanthropists who've donated $$$ as part of efforts to combat rape and sexual abuse.



Your ridiculous generalizations are not helpful nor do I see any relevant connection to the alleged Epstein Coverup.
A few good folks don't exculpate our society and powerful institutions, which are largely geared against victims and survivors of abuse. This has only barely begun to change, and we still have a long way to go.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #48  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:41 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii
The wealthy and powerful (speaking generally) aren't interested in fighting sexual assault, rape, and abuse of women and girls (and boys, in some cases), and in fact are often directly opposed to this fight.
Especially if it threatens their access to the British royals, or Hillary's chances in an election.

Regards,
Shodan
  #49  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:44 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Especially if it threatens their access to the British royals, or Hillary's chances in an election.

Regards,
Shodan
Very likely so. The royals and Clintons are by no means exempt from my criticism.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #50  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:48 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
For three years? What happened to "believe all women"? It wasn't high journalistic standards, it wa fear and/or money.
In the Kavannaugh case, everyone run the story with just one person's 30-year-old memories which nobody else could verify. Here, there is a pedophile ring of powerful people, including a former US president, and suddendly they need a note from mom.


...


....

The ammount of deflecting in this thread is, again, astonishing. Some motherfucking rich people rape minors for years and what we get "I don't like the website". I never expected this strong defense of child rapists here.
....
No one doubts that Epstein did some horrible things.

It's that Prince Andrew part "Project Veritas published a hot-mic speech given by Amy Robach complaining that they new about it three years ago and that ABC canned the story, apparently, because (on top of other things) prince Andrew was part of the ring and the the Royal Family won't give them any interviews if they aired ..."

So, in order to back up this Extraordinary claims we require extraordinary evidence, and Project Veritas doesnt count- as being extraordinarily UNrelaible is not what is meant by extraordinary evidence.

And other that Bill Clinton availed himself of a few free flights on a private jet back in 2002 and 2003, there is nothing linking him to any sort of "pedophile ring". Trump also had dealings with Epstein- and much more recently.

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-...-theories-lin/

and in fact your cite has been specifically debunked by Snopes:
https://www.snopes.com/ap/2019/11/05...-ready-to-air/

In fact , your casual assertion that there was a "pedophile ring" is doubtful and unproven:

https://www.thecut.com/2019/08/jeffr...mes-house.html
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017