Amy Robach - "She told me everything. She had pictures. She had everything. She was in hiding for 12 years. We convinced her to come out. We convinced her to talk to us. It was unbelievable, what we had. Clinton, we had everything. 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. I’m so pissed right now. Like, every day I get more and more pissed, 'cause I’m just like, oh my God. What we had was unreal. Other women backing it up…"
There appears to be plenty of evidence to run this story according to the leaked tape. I thought ALL women should be heard.
As the evidence of how many witnesses were bought or threatened, your conclusion is incomplete still. Even on your bolded part the other women were in reality not so willing to back it up back then.
Yes, the video is all over the Internet. But what is the source? The OP tells us that the source is a known liar and felon. If a bunch of other sites copy a faked video, that doesn’t make it any less faked.
So, again, does this video exist from any other source?
So? Free flights on a private jet, why not? And none to Epsteins little island. I notice you ignore trumps close relationship with Epstein.
It’s not only likely but pretty well proven Epstein had sex with underaged girls. There no evidence at all he had pedophile parties with trump, clinton, Prince A and the pope or whoever’s name they want to blacken.
No, it was barely legal women, so he’s got that going for him. Maybe Epstein kept a few 18 year olds around so his buddies qualified for nternet absolution.
The thread is about ABC squashing a story. It was a big story which is something they should have continued to pursue.
As for Monday morning quarterbacking we could ask the Secret Service Agency. But they would probably just say it was one of things where you had to be there.
No one here is going to bat for Epstein. And if you find us direct testimony from a woman, we will believe her. But not hearsay and not some bad site that is known for bullshit. Even Robach herself agrees- she couldnt verify. Why dont you believe HER?
Well, except for Brett Kavanaugh, The Covington Kids, and ‘leaks’ against Trump by anonymous single sources. Then the media will run with whatever thin sliver of bullshit they can find.
The media’s requirements for corroboration depend very much on whether their target is a Republican or a Democrat.
So, as reported, sleazy; but legal. Not what I would approve anyhow, but still, there was no corroboration as to Clinton being involved in sex acts. Epstein was more likely doing illegal things.
And that is why it was pointed that there were good reasons why it was “squashed” (as pointed out, in hindsight, it would have been the right thing to do, but at the time it was not when witnesses were suddenly becoming quiet thanks to threats and payouts. The word you should be using is cover-up, and clearly ABC was not doing that) and a lot of the time witnesses were silenced thanks to the help of the tabloids, tabloids that were not apolitical at all, but in cahoots with Trump and other powerful people. The squashing you are pointing at is grossly incomplete or misleading if that is not pointed at.
As pointed before by conservative sources, with the clear intent of continuing with the innuendo, Clinton avoided* the Secret Service, so to ask them would be a useless effort.
And to make it more moot, what FOX reported then that that was not so clear, the word they used was “‘apparently’ avoided” that is a weasel way to pump up just allegations that Clinton ditched the secret service.
Please read again and notice that the right wing media and other powerful guys (like the Trump allied National Enquirer) were involved in the spiking of reports or the silencing of witnesses, hence making the task of other mainstream sources of information to come up with little, as it happened to ABC and others.
There no evidence clinton was even on that island.
For example :In 2002, as New York has reported, Clinton recruited Epstein to make his plane available for a week-long anti-poverty and anti-AIDS tour of Africa with Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker, billionaire creep Ron Burkle, Clinton confidant Gayle Smith (who now serves on Barack Obama’s National Security Council), and others. The logs from that trip show that Maxwell, Kellen, and a woman named Chauntae Davis joined the entourage for five days. https://gawker.com/flight-logs-put-clinton-dershowitz-on-pedophile-billio-1681039971
However, there were quite a few people on that plane. No allegation any funny stuff went on, no underage women even.
Only that Clinton got a free plane for week-long anti-poverty and anti-AIDS tour of Africa . That’s a Good Thing.
*Clinton has not been accused of any specific sexual misconduct connected to Epstein. As for Trump: During the 2016 campaign, Trump was sued by an anonymous woman who claimed he raped her at an Epstein party when she was 13 years old. However, several journalists who dug into this allegation back then came away voicing caution or downright skepticism, and the accuser withdrew her lawsuit shortly before the election.
So there hasn’t yet been corroboration of Epstein-related wrongdoing on Trump’s part by media outlets, or any accusation against Clinton at all.*
So, why is Clintons name being brought up, and not trumps? Clinton has absolutely no allegations at all, while trump is alleged to have raped a 13 yo girl Epstein provided.
And that’s what happened to Brett Kavanaugn and the Covington Kids? The media ran every piece of bullshit that Avenatti fed them. Not only did they lack corroboration, they had witnesses who said the stuff never happened. They ran it anyway. They smeared a kid on nothing more than what looked like a smug smile in a photo.
In the meantime, they were sitting on a mountain of evidence against Epstein, including documentation, multiple witnesses, etc. The same evidence that was recently used to jail him. And they sat on it, even though the abuses were ongoing and other women were hurt in the interim.
The same people who thought that every salacious allegation against Trump, no matter how thinly sourced, should be aired in the public interest, also sat on persuasive evidence that Bill Clinton had been inserting cigars into the vagina of an intern in the oval office because the president’s private life was no one’s concern.
More specifically, the source is a felon who was convicted specifically for making fake videos to push a political point of view.
So the null hypothesis is that any video sourced from Project Veritas is fake, and it’s up to those who claim otherwise to provide contrary evidence. The most obvious form would be to find someone else releasing the original, unedited video. Another would be just finding people involved at the time who could corroborate the story.
Both mean finding another source–one that can be trusted.
This is like Trump saying he didn’t cheat on his taxes, and then citing people quoting Trump saying he didn’t cheat on his taxes as proof that he is telling the truth. No, you need another source.