Straight Dope Message Board

[LAZombie]

It's disingenuous for ABC to say the story did not meet their journalistic standards. The Epstein story dates back to 2005. "He came under investigation in 2005 and, according to NBC, Palm Beach investigators spoke with five alleged victims and 17 different witnesses." There was an FBI indictment in 2007. Flight logs are public record so Clinton's and other high profile liberals such as Bill Richardson's association with Epstein is completely verifiable. Epstein settled lawsuits related to sex trafficking. He served jail time.

This was hardly a bombshell story. In fact, this story circulated widely in conservative media. If not for the #METoo movement, it would have been buried along with the Weinstein story which Ronan Farrow claims NBC buried. The #MeToo movement has been one of the best things to ever happen for conservatives. 101

[Chingon]

So Qanon makes it to the SDMB... 102

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

You win 20 Virtue points. When you get to 150 you can exchange them for an ice-cream, one scoop.



My point with DRS is not that he is guilty or not, is that some people have to make absolutely everything about him. This thread is about ABC and Epstein and why they hid the story and you want to make it about Trump.

They hid the story, most likely, because they're a wealthy and powerful institution, and as such they default to protecting abusers, especially wealthy and influential ones. Not because of politics.

This society treats women and girls like shit. It's not about politics, it's the whole society. Trump and the GOP are only the most visible and prominent examples of rape culture. It started long ago and politics isn't going to fix it. 103

[LAZombie]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

They hid the story, most likely, because they're a wealthy and powerful institution, and as such they default to protecting abusers, especially wealthy and influential ones. Not because of politics.

This society treats women and girls like shit. It's not about politics, it's the whole society. Trump and the GOP are only the most visible and prominent examples of rape culture. It started long ago and politics isn't going to fix it.

This is the reason so many wealthy people are Democrats. They get their money through unethical ways and understand that if they get caught, a Deep State of media, politicians, judges, and ideologues will cover up their wrongdoings. Trump should have remained a Democrat and his crimes would be still unknown except to the victims. But you've clearly established Trump is not smart. 104

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by LAZombie

This is the reason so many wealthy people are Democrats. They get their money through unethical ways and understand that if they get caught, a Deep State of media, politicians, judges, and ideologues will cover up their wrongdoings. Trump should have remained a Democrat and his crimes would be still unknown except to the victims. But you've clearly established Trump is not smart.

If this is you rejecting and apologizing for your past support of admitted sexual abuser Trump, then good for you. We as a society have a long way to go.

The rest appears to be right wing radio fantasy straw man stuff, and I'll leave it alone. 105

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

If this is you rejecting and apologizing for your past support of admitted sexual abuser Trump, then good for you. We as a society have a long way to go.

The rest appears to be right wing radio fantasy straw man stuff, and I'll leave it alone.

LAZombie seems to still fall for the idea that corporate media follows what liberals or democrats told them. As Snopes reported, there were leftist media on the web that also reported on how a lot of powerful guys from the right were being protected by the witness tampering.

Corporate media has to watch the bottom line and needs more support when confronting guys that can afford a team of lawyers. Epstein is IMHO a very good example of how a lot that can not be confirmed properly thanks to the complicity of media that is too close to their targets. Where LAZombie and others fail to realize is that at the same time non corporate media was "widely" reporting on this, right wing tabloid media was also actively tampering with the witnesses. 106

[LAZombie]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

LAZombie seems to still fall for the idea that corporate media follows what liberals or democrats told them. As Snopes reported, there were leftist media on the web that also reported on how a lot of powerful guys from the right were being protected by the witness tampering.

Corporate media has to watch the bottom line and needs more support when confronting guys that can afford a team of lawyers. Epstein is IMHO a very good example of how a lot that can not be confirmed properly thanks to the complicity of media that is too close to their targets. Where LAZombie and others fail to realize is that at the same time non corporate media was "widely" reporting on this, right wing tabloid media was also actively tampering with the witnesses.

The topic of this thread is ABC not Trump. Why are posters endlessly allowed to change the subject? Aren't the hundreds of other Trump hating threads enough? 107

[Wolf333]

Originally Posted by LAZombie

The topic of this thread is ABC not Trump. Why are posters endlessly allowed to change the subject? Aren't the hundreds of other Trump hating threads enough?

Considering that Bill Clinton was brought up in the OP, Trump is pretty much on topic. 108

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by Wolf333

Considering that Bill Clinton was brought up in the OP, Trump is pretty much on topic.

Clinton came up because the reporter herself mentioned him. 109

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by LAZombie

The topic of this thread is ABC not Trump. Why are posters endlessly allowed to change the subject? Aren't the hundreds of other Trump hating threads enough?

Funny, I did not mention Trump there, the last links were to the point about Epstein and the National Enquirer tampering with the victims and witnesses, leading to the plausible explanation of why corporate media like ABC did not dig deeper, while very left leaning sources reported on that also.

That Trump was one of the guys being protected by Epstein and the National Enquirer is only one item to keep in mind. But it is clear that the intention is to ignore that right wing media also helped in the cover up by not telling their viewers or readers about a lot of what Epstein's and the National Inquirer did when they tampered with witnesses. 110

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

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.

If they weren't that secret, why didn't you reveal something, even if only on the SDMB? 111

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

#believeSOMEwomen should be the title of this thread.

Dude, YOU'RE the one who decided what the title of the thread would be. Take a little personal responsibility... 112

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

If they weren't that secret, why didn't you reveal something, even if only on the SDMB?

They weren't a secret for people who knew about him. He'd been prison for sex with a minor and had several local and FBI investigations on him for those issues.

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Dude, YOU'RE the one who decided what the title of the thread would be. Take a little personal responsibility...

I never expected so many people running defense for ABC's killing the story. 113

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

...


I never expected so many people running defense for ABC's killing the story.

Good, honest media doesnt broadcast stories that cant be verified. As they said, even the reporter who found the story- it couldnt be verified.

And that's not "killing the story". 114

[Sam Stone]

Did they verify what Debbie Ramirez told them? Blasie-Ford? How about the Covington Kids? How much work did they do to make sure they got that story right?

How often have they run stories about Trump based on single-source anonymous leaks?

The problem wig the media's 'standards' is that they are unevenly applied depending on whose ox is being gored. 115

[snfaulkner]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Did they verify what Debbie Ramirez told them? Blasie-Ford? How about the Covington Kids? How much work did they do to make sure they got that story right?

How often have they run stories about Trump based on single-source anonymous leaks?

The problem wig the media's 'standards' is that they are unevenly applied depending on whose ox is being gored.

Im willing to believe your point given proper cites. 116

[Sam Stone]

Originally Posted by septimus

OTOH:

If you had to bet, would you guess Blasey Ford (his principal accuser) speaks the truth or not? I am NOT asking whether proof was 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (or whatever you think the standard is for Scotus appointment). I am NOT asking whether you think frat-boy pranks should disqualify. I just wonder what your judgment is of the likelihood Ford was truthful. (Yes, this is a test. )

I have no idea. I have no love for Yale fratboys, and it wouldn't surprise me if a guy like Kavanaugh did some pretty dumb and/or shitty stuff while in college.

However, Blasie-Ford cited three witnesses who she claims were there. All three denied it, including her best friend. Ford can't remember which year this happened, in which house, how she got there, or how she got home, and the three people she said were witnesses denied it, but she is certain that Brett Kavanaugh was the guy, and she's certain she only had two beers. I have a hard time passing the smell test on this.

That's not to say she was lying. She could be conflating events, or even remembering false memories triggered by Kavanaugh's appearance in the media. So I'm not going to call her a liar, and I'm not going to say Kavanaugh didn't do it. What I will say is that the charge itself has no corroboration and is unfalsifiable with the little derails she provided, so it should have never even come up in an official hearing, not having met the minimal test for evidence.

I know the party line for "conservatives" ( ) is that Ford was lying. My knowledge of human nature tells me they're probably wrong. Recall that Ford isn't an hysterical Trump-hater; she's a respected academic who came forward reluctantly.

I've never bought this argument, Blasie-Ford is a feminist professor at a very liberal college. You don't think she would have been a hero if she brought down Kavanaugh? You don't think she could have landed multi-million dollar book deals? She had an awful lot to gain by doing this.

This refutes the argument that she must be telling the truth because she has nothing to gain by lying. Also, since we know that Ramirez DID lie and had apparently even less to gain than Blasie-Ford, you would have to explain that as well. You know, some people do this stuff just for the attention. Or because they hate the person they are attacking, Or because they were convinced something happened that didn't.

In another thread you refused to make a probability estimate. Are you going to go with that cop-out again?

A probability estimate based on what? My gut? Perhaps reading some tea leaves?

An honest person faced with an accusation that has zero corroborating evidence can only say, "I have no idea. Probability of guilt doesn't even enter into it, because we have no facts from which we can reasonably establish any sort of numbers. All we can say is, "Sorry, in a free country we require rules of evidence before we destroy someone in the public square. Otherwise, we're just hunting witches."

Even if we went down the path of calling forth other character witnesses to establish a pattern of abuse, it turns out that Kavanaugh had a fistful of character references from other women stating that he had always been a perfect gentleman. I'm sure the investigators looked long and hard for anyone since high school who would claim that he mistreated them, and came up empty.

Very large parties; large buildings on Pedophile Island; large numbers of girls. What does Occam's Razor tell you?

I have no idea. Do you deny that any of this even took place? That there were no rich and powerful men there at all? Forget Clinton - what about the other people that appear to have been taking advantage of Epstein's services? Were they all too stupid to understand they might get caught?

Recall that Jane Doe claims she was threatened with death if she pursued her rape charge against Trump. Maybe she was, maybe not. But it is quite naïve to doubt that men like Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Mohammad bin Salman (and yes, perhaps Epstein or Clinton) have thugs they can turn to to make or complete a death threat.

So if Jane Doe made that accusation against YOU, would you accept the argument that 'Men like Septimus have been known to threaten women, so it could be true'? Guilt through association is a terrible substitute for due process.

It sounds like the reporter who 'had the goods' on Epstein but had her story spiked had actual documentary evidence, sworn testimonies from multiple eyewitnesses, flight logs, etc. This wasn't enough corroboration for a news outlet that will run any sort of single-sourced glurge about Republicans without any corroborating evidence at all.

It's possible they weren't protecting Clinton. If I were Jeffrey Epstein trying to set up a lucrative sex island for the wealthy, I would make sure I got customers from across the political spectrum, and I'd try to snare as many media people as I could. Mutual blackmail destruction, If you have dirt on everyone, no one wants to expose you.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if names from all the big media outlets turned up on Epstein's customer list. But I can't give you a probability. 117

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

I have no idea. I have no love for Yale fratboys, and it wouldn't surprise me if a guy like Kavanaugh did some pretty dumb and/or shitty stuff while in college.

However, Blasie-Ford cited three witnesses who she claims were there. All three denied it, including her best friend.

This is false. No one she said was there "denied it" (aside from Kavanaugh and his pal).

Ford can't remember which year this happened, in which house, how she got there, or how she got home, and the three people she said were witnesses denied it, but she is certain that Brett Kavanaugh was the guy, and she's certain she only had two beers. I have a hard time passing the smell test on this.

The "denied it" stuff is false, and she also gave other info that could have been used by investigators to corroborate (like that she ran into Kavanaugh's possible rape-buddy at the grocery store he worked at a few weeks later), though the investigators failed to follow up on this. The Senate committee did not direct investigators to look into this kind of corroborating info, and did not call as witnesses the other potential witnesses, including this possible rape-buddy).

Also, since we know that Ramirez DID lie and had apparently even less to gain than Blasie-Ford, you would have to explain that as well.

It's false to say "we know that Ramirez DID lie". We do not know this. In fact, several of her old friends did say that she told them about the incident at the time, and one of them independently gave the same details to investigators that she did in her account.

Whatever source you're relying on for the Kavanaugh accusations, it's giving you bad data. 118

[Sam Stone]

Friend of Ford told FBI she was pressured into altering statement

A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told the FBI that allies of the college professor, who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her, pressured her to revise her earlier statement that she knew nothing about the alleged incident, according to a report.

That sounds like a denial to me. As a reminder, Blasie-Ford says that this woman is her best friend.

What would you think if a friend of yours was accused by a woman of trying to rape her, and she said her best friend was there as a witness, and her best friend spoke up and said, "I have no idea what she's talking about."? How would that affect your judgement regarding the truth of the accusation? 119

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Friend of Ford told FBI she was pressured into altering statement

That sounds like a denial to me. As a reminder, Blasie-Ford says that this woman is her best friend.

What would you think if a friend of yours was accused by a woman of trying to rape her, and she said her best friend was there as a witness, and her best friend spoke up and said, "I have no idea what she's talking about."? How would that affect your judgement regarding the truth of the accusation?

"No recollection" is not a denial (especially when the incident in question was from 36 years before). Your assertion that Keyser denied the allegation is entirely false:

Keyser stated that she believed Ford's allegation but could not recall the gathering from 36 years prior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_...ember_27,_2018 120

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Did they verify what Debbie Ramirez told them? Blasie-Ford? How about the Covington Kids? ...
....

who broke those stories? 121

[DrDeth]

We are not going to turn this into another Kavanaugh thread, are we? 122

[septimus]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

We are not going to turn this into another Kavanaugh thread, are we?

Sorry for promoting the hijack; I'll stop after this post. But I don't want disinformation to go unanswered.

(a) Trump's FBI refused to run a check on Ford's story. Trump's Senate refused to call other accusers. Instead testimony (other than Ford's) came from pro-Kavanaugh people. Clearly witness selection was biased!
(b) Stopping Kavanaugh was hardly a key goal of liberals. Whoever got the nod was going to be an extreme right-winger.
(c) Lost under one specific accusation against this drunken misognyist frat-boy is that he was a reprehensible partisan who should never have been a judge at all! His original appointment as judge was delayed by three years because of his extreme partisanship. The utter venom and contempt with which he spoke of the Democratic Party and with which he addressed Democratic Senators should have debarred him from being a judge even if we were a teetotalling Puritan and chaste as a monk. 123

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

In fact, several of her old friends did say that she told them about the incident at the time...

Which of her old friends said that she told them about the incident at the time?

Since you are being a stickler about the difference between having no recollection of ever having been at a party with Kavanaugh, and denying that Keyser was at a party with Kavanaugh, please be just as much of a stickler in this.

Several - not one, several. And that she told them at the time. BTW,

While The New Yorker did not confirm that Kavanaugh was at the party, and some of Ramirez’s former classmates disputed her allegation, one former classmate said that he’s “one-hundred-per-cent sure” that another former classmate at the time told him that Kavanaugh exposed himself to Ramirez.

'Somebody else said somebody else said' is not "Ramirez told her friends at the time".

Regards,
Shodan 124

[CaptMurdock]

Frankly the sexual assault allegations on Kavanaugh are secondary to the fact that he's a partisan hack and doesn't have the temperament to adjudicate a pie-eating contest, let alone sit on the Supreme Court.

We're seriously off-topic here, guys. Was ABC engaged in a massive conspiracy to conceal a pedophile ring, or were they merely cautious about breaking a story, perhaps overly so, that they didn't feel had sufficient corroboration? 125

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Which of her old friends said that she told them about the incident at the time?

The links I found don't name them.

Since you are being a stickler about the difference between having no recollection of ever having been at a party with Kavanaugh, and denying that Keyser was at a party with Kavanaugh, please be just as much of a stickler in this.

Several - not one, several. And that she told them at the time. BTW,
'Somebody else said somebody else said' is not "Ramirez told her friends at the time".

I withdraw the specific language I used, and thank you for urging me to be careful with language. It's important to get things right, especially on this kind of issue, and I am grateful for the opportunity to improve myself. I also applaud you for recognizing that the claim that Keyser denied Ford's account is entirely false.

I should have said the following:

One fellow student independently recalled numerous details of the story that matched Ramirez's account, including Kavanaugh's name and the location of the party; another classmate recalled overhearing, after the same party, a female student recounting near-identical sexual assault behavior; another classmate reported that he had witnessed Kavanaugh being frequently, incoherently drunk; and Ramirez told her mother and sister at the time of an upsetting incident, though without details.

In other words, it was entirely false for Sam Stone to claim that we know that Ramirez lied. There's far more reason to believe Kavanaugh lied (about his drinking habits and yearbook messages, most notably and obviously) than Ford or Ramirez. 126

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

It sounds like the reporter who 'had the goods' on Epstein but had her story spiked had actual documentary evidence, sworn testimonies from multiple eyewitnesses, flight logs, etc. This wasn't enough corroboration for a news outlet that will run any sort of single-sourced glurge about Republicans without any corroborating evidence at all.

It's possible they weren't protecting Clinton. If I were Jeffrey Epstein trying to set up a lucrative sex island for the wealthy, I would make sure I got customers from across the political spectrum, and I'd try to snare as many media people as I could. Mutual blackmail destruction, If you have dirt on everyone, no one wants to expose you.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if names from all the big media outlets turned up on Epstein's customer list. But I can't give you a probability.

It was very clear what the reporter said, she has remarked that in the end she agrees with ABC, there was not enough to confirm and then other reports about Epstein were not stopped. History already has shown that O'Keefe and Project Veritas are experts on finding frustrated opinion that is turned by the right wing media as "fact".

And again, a lot of the lack of confirmation was due to Epstein and other guys like Pecker (National Enquirer) that tampered with witnesses, victims and evidence. 127

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by CaptMurdock

Frankly the sexual assault allegations on Kavanaugh are secondary to the fact that he's a partisan hack and doesn't have the temperament to adjudicate a pie-eating contest, let alone sit on the Supreme Court.

We're seriously off-topic here, guys. Was ABC engaged in a massive conspiracy to conceal a pedophile ring, or were they merely cautious about breaking a story, perhaps overly so, that they didn't feel had sufficient corroboration?

As the evidence shows, the conspiracy was from Epstein, and other powerful guys tampering with witnesses and evidence, aided also by what turned to be very conservative and reactionary media guys like Pecker at the National Enquirer. 128

[Shodan]

We don't know that Ramirez lied, but it is far more likely than that she told the truth. Because all of the claims you made about her story are false.

I also applaud you for recognizing that the claim that Keyser denied Ford's account is entirely false.

Also untrue - I said nothing of the sort.

Leland Keyser, the high school friend Christine Blasey Ford counted on to corroborate her sexual assault charges, has told the FBI she has no knowledge of the supposed 1982 party or the accused, Brett Kavanaugh.

Cite.

This is a denial. You are wrong.

Regards,
Shodan 129

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by CaptMurdock

Was ABC engaged in a massive conspiracy to conceal a pedophile ring, or were they merely cautious about breaking a story, perhaps overly so, that they didn't feel had sufficient corroboration?

Neither of the above. The standard of what constitutes corroboration is different when it comes to Republicans, as we have seen from Kavanaugh and Covington and so on. When it threatens their ability to run puff pieces on the British royal family, or Hillary's chances in an election, then the standard immediately becomes much higher.

Regards,
Shodan 130

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Shodan

We don't know that Ramirez lied, but it is far more likely than that she told the truth. Because all of the claims you made about her story are false.

They all came from the New Yorker story about Ramirez's allegations. If you have a cite that this story inaccurately reported these assertions, feel free to provide it.

Also untrue - I said nothing of the sort. Cite.

This is a denial. You are wrong.

Regards,
Shodan

This is not a denial, and Keyser has specifically stated that she believes Ford's account is truthful and accurate:

Keyser "does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford's account."

She does not refute Ford's account, and she believes Ford's account. Your assertion about Keyser is factually inaccurate. 131

[Shodan]

"It just didn't make any sense," lifelong friend Leland Keyser told New York Times reporters about Ford's allegations, adding "I don't have any confidence in the story."

Cite.

Regards,
Shodan 132

[Bone]

This thread should be about ABC and/or Epstein. Drop all other hijacks including Ford, Kavanaugh, Clinton, etc. unless directly related to Epstein or ABC.

[/moderating] 133

[Shodan]

Didn't see the note when I posted.

Regards,
Shodan 134

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by Bone

This thread should be about ABC and/or Epstein. Drop all other hijacks including Ford, Kavanaugh, Clinton, etc. unless directly related to Epstein or ABC.

[/moderating]

Assuming that Clinton (and Trump, in the same way) is directly related to Epstein... I wonder who would have been harmed more if ABC had run the story? 135

[eenerms]

Even if only 10 % of the story is true, why was it dropped and not pursued. Think of all the children that were exploded. Pisses me off. 136

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by eenerms

Even if only 10 % of the story is true, why was it dropped and not pursued. Think of all the children that were exploded. Pisses me off.

Because responsible journalists dont publish stuff without verification. 137

[eenerms]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Because responsible journalists dont publish stuff without verification.

I’m going to call bullshit on this. The media does run with stuff an if it’s found to be unverifiable, it’s retracted. But, he was in jail for the sexual offender. So a follow up on other victims shouldn’t be swept under the rug. 138

[Tamerlane]

Originally Posted by eenerms

I’m going to call bullshit on this. The media does run with stuff an if it’s found to be unverifiable, it’s retracted.

That's second sentence is actually the part that's often bullshit. People have been complaining for decades that news organizations are far too often lax about fact-checking and just throw crap about there then quietly retract after the fact. Now suddenly it should be "publish and damn the torpedoes"?

There have certainly been credible allegations that certain stories get quietly suppressed for politics/money/expediency reasons at times( see for example Ronan Farrow's recent accusations against NBC and the Weinstein story ). So it's not such an outré idea. But in the absence of the writer being upset about this one I'm inclined not to get that outraged about it myself. Because there is also and long and storied tradition of mud-slinging propaganda. Suetonius is a lot more interesting for his juicy gossip, but I wouldn't put too much credence in many of his personal details. 139

[eenerms]

Originally Posted by Tamerlane

That's second sentence is actually the part that's often bullshit. People have been complaining for decades that news organizations are far too often lax about fact-checking and just throw crap about there then quietly retract after the fact. Now suddenly it should be "publish and damn the torpedoes"?

There have certainly been credible allegations that certain stories get quietly suppressed for politics/money/expediency reasons at times( see for example Ronan Farrow's recent accusations against NBC and the Weinstein story ). So it's not such an outré idea. But in the absence of the writer being upset about this one I'm inclined not to get that outraged about it myself. Because there is also and long and storied tradition of mud-slinging propaganda. Suetonius is a lot more interesting for his juicy gossip, but I wouldn't put too much credence in many of his personal details.

I love you ❤️ 140

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by eenerms

I’m going to call bullshit on this. The media does run with stuff an if it’s found to be unverifiable, it’s retracted. But, he was in jail for the sexual offender. So a follow up on other victims shouldn’t be swept under the rug.

It wasnt a "follow up on other victims"- it was unverified claims that various famous men were taking part in pedophile ring parties. 141

[CurtC]

I came across this article at National Review the other day, and it mentions that Amy Robach said that she thinks "100%" that Epstein didn't kill himself. I had not heard that from other sources, and don't care to watch a Veritas video. Did she say that? 142

[eenerms]

MSM has picked this up. 143