Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Jeffrey Epstein arrested on sex trafficking charges

Options
1…3839414344…58

Comments

  • Options
    #1202
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Overheal wrote: »
    Why did they cut off the start of the hot mic conversation?

    I don't know, why did they cut off the mike at the start?

    At a guess it would have been something actionable. They don't have the money to defend law suits, even ones that they would likely win.


  • Options
    #1203
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,686 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    I don't know, why did they cut off the mike at the start?

    At a guess it would have been something actionable. They don't have the money to defend law suits, even ones that they would likely win.

    Which would imply that their portrayal of her comments is potentially libelous and misleading.


  • Options
    #1204
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Overheal wrote: »
    Which would imply that their portrayal of her comments is potentially libelous and misleading.

    We don't know. Maybe if a lot of people call out O'Keefe on it we'll find out a bit more.


  • Options
    #1205
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    Overheal wrote: »
    Why did they cut off the start of the hot mic conversation?

    You know what, you're right. They should have started recording when she got out of bed that morning.

    That's the only way we'll know for sure that "the portrayal" of HER OWNS WORDS and statements aren't misleading.

    Just admit you're being so dismissive of black and white statements because it was made public by O'Keefe, that way we can cut through the BS.


  • Options
    #1206
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,686 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    peddlelies wrote: »
    You know what, you're right. They should have started recording when she got out of bed that morning.

    That's the only way we'll know for sure that "the portrayal" of HER OWNS WORDS and statements aren't misleading.

    Just admit you're being so dismissive of black and white statements because it was made public by O'Keefe, that way we can cut through the BS.

    What's wrong with wanting to know what she said in the moments before the Veritas person literally pressed play on a video they had scrubbed to whatever salacious point in the recording they wanted, sans anything that happened before. Or does context not matter?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1207
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    Overheal wrote: »
    What's wrong with wanting to know what she said in the moments before the Veritas person literally pressed play on a video they had scrubbed to whatever salacious point in the recording they wanted, sans anything that happened before. Or does context not matter?

    What more do you want to hear? She hasn't denied the accuracy of the video. Just listen to her own words. This is ALL from one segment, no edits, no pauses, no nothing.

    "We would not put it on the air. First of all I was told "Who's Jeffrey Epstein?" "Nobody knows who this is". "This is a stupid story". Then the palace found out we had her 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 so that also quashed the story. And then Alan Dershowitz who was also implicated, she (Virginia Roberts Giuffre) Told me everything. She had pictures, she had everything. She was hiding for 12 years. We convinced her to come out.We convinced her to talk to us, we was unbelievable what we had, Clinton.. Everything. I tried for three years to get it on and to no avail. Now it's all coming out like it's some new revelations and I freaking had all of it. I'm so pissed right now. Everyday I get more and more pissed because I'm like, Oh my god, it was what we had, it was unreal. Other women backing up? Hey, Yep. Brad Edwards, the attorney, three years ago saying like there will come a day when we will realise Epstein will become the most prolific paedophile this country has ever know. I had it all, three years ago."

    While at NBC Ronan Farrow had the goods on Weinstein yet they quashed the story, why do you think ABC in this case would be any different?

    You're trying to argue some stupid irrelevant semantic for god knows what reason, I assume it's some twisted political one since it was O'Keefe who published the story.


  • Options
    #1208
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,686 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    peddlelies wrote: »
    What more do you want to hear? She hasn't denied the accuracy of the video. Just listen to her own words. This is ALL from one segment, no edits, no pauses, no nothing.

    "We would not put it on the air. First of all I was told "Who's Jeffrey Epstein?" "Nobody knows who this is". "This is a stupid story". Then the palace found out we had her 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 so that also quashed the story. And then Alan Dershowitz who was also implicated, she (Virginia Roberts Giuffre) Told me everything. She had pictures, she had everything. She was hiding for 12 years. We convinced her to come out.We convinced her to talk to us, we was unbelievable what we had, Clinton.. Everything. I tried for three years to get it on and to no avail. Now it's all coming out like it's some new revelations and I freaking had all of it. I'm so pissed right now. Everyday I get more and more pissed because I'm like, Oh my god, it was what we had, it was unreal. Other women backing up? Hey, Yep. Brad Edwards, the attorney, three years ago saying like there will come a day when we will realise Epstein will become the most prolific paedophile this country has ever know. I had it all, three years ago."

    While at NBC Ronan Farrow had the goods on Weinstein yet they quashed the story, why do you think ABC in this case would be any different?

    You're trying to argue some stupid irrelevant semantic for god knows what reason, I assume it's some twisted political one since it was O'Keefe who published the story.

    Why don't her own words from earlier today matter? Full context, no pauses no edits no nothing:

    "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 Virginia Roberts didn’t air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations. My comments about Prince Andrew and her allegation that she had seen Bill Clinton on Epstein’s private island were in reference to what Virginia Roberts said in that interview in 2015. 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."

    (So uhm yes, she is denying the accuracy of the video)


  • Options
    #1209
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    Overheal wrote: »
    Why don't her own words from earlier today matter? Full context, no pauses no edits no nothing:

    "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 Virginia Roberts didn’t air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations. My comments about Prince Andrew and her allegation that she had seen Bill Clinton on Epstein’s private island were in reference to what Virginia Roberts said in that interview in 2015. 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."

    (So uhm yes, she is denying the accuracy of the video)

    Statements after the fact matter about as much as Trump's explanation for the pussygrab video.

    Three simple words even you can comprehend, Ronan Farrow NBC.


  • Options
    #1210
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    peddlelies wrote: »
    What more do you want to hear? She hasn't denied the accuracy of the video. Just listen to her own words. This is ALL from one segment, no edits, no pauses, no nothing.

    "We would not put it on the air. First of all I was told "Who's Jeffrey Epstein?" "Nobody knows who this is". "This is a stupid story". Then the palace found out we had her 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 so that also quashed the story. And then Alan Dershowitz who was also implicated, she (Virginia Roberts Giuffre) Told me everything. She had pictures, she had everything. She was hiding for 12 years. We convinced her to come out.We convinced her to talk to us, we was unbelievable what we had, Clinton.. Everything. I tried for three years to get it on and to no avail. Now it's all coming out like it's some new revelations and I freaking had all of it. I'm so pissed right now. Everyday I get more and more pissed because I'm like, Oh my god, it was what we had, it was unreal. Other women backing up? Hey, Yep. Brad Edwards, the attorney, three years ago saying like there will come a day when we will realise Epstein will become the most prolific paedophile this country has ever know. I had it all, three years ago."

    While at NBC Ronan Farrow had the goods on Weinstein yet they quashed the story, why do you think ABC in this case would be any different?

    You're trying to argue some stupid irrelevant semantic for god knows what reason, I assume it's some twisted political one since it was O'Keefe who published the story.

    Did somebody say Dershowitz?

    6yquH0x.jpg


  • Options
    #1211
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,686 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    peddlelies wrote: »
    Statements after the fact matter about as much as Trump's explanation for the pussygrab video.

    Three simple words even you can comprehend, Ronan Farrow NBC.

    So you're saying, that words that happen the earliest are the most important?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1212
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    It's looking grim for Andy. At the end you will see reference to feet, Sarah used to be into something similar if you all remember..

    https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/04/more-trouble-for-prince-andrew-his-new-master-p-r-spin-doctor-quits-after-just-one-month/


  • Options
    #1213
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    Overheal wrote: »
    So you're saying, that words that happen the earliest are the most important?

    It's not hard to comprehend, people act real and say what they think when they believe they're talking in private, it's when we're at our most truthful. Some typed statement with lawyer lingo walking back claims isn't comparable. If it was anyone who's ever said anything bad could just say "Oh gee, I didn't mean that" with zero consequences.


  • Options
    #1214
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,686 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    peddlelies wrote: »
    It's not hard to comprehend, people act real and say what they think when they believe they're talking in private, it's when we're at our most truthful. Some typed statement with lawyer lingo walking back claims isn't comparable. If it was anyone who's ever said anything bad could just say "Oh gee, I didn't mean that" with zero consequences.

    So you're agreeing that I'm not wrong to want the start of the conversation, which informs the rest of the conversation. Cool. We agree then.


  • Options
    #1215
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    Overheal wrote: »
    So you're agreeing that I'm not wrong to want the start of the conversation, which informs the rest of the conversation. Cool. We agree then.

    Not at all, but whatever floats your boat.


  • Options
    #1216
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,686 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    peddlelies wrote: »
    Not at all, but whatever floats your boat.

    I’m not sure why you’d disagree having just established that the earlier and more candid the recording the more authentic. So why am I wrong to wonder why Veritas cherry picked the starting point they did when they clearly had a more full video?


  • Options
    #1217
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    Overheal wrote: »
    I’m not sure why you’d disagree having just established that the earlier and more candid the recording the more authentic. So why am I wrong to wonder why Veritas cherry picked the starting point they did when they clearly had a more full video?

    Because after actually listening to her words I don't need any further context. Notice how she begins with the words "First of all I was told who's Jeffrey Epstein? This is a stupid story". The meaning of the words "first of all" don't need explanation.

    There's no argument to be had and all the major news outlets who wrote stories about it don't argue on anything to do with context.

    Do you believe NBC news did purposely quash the Weinstein story? Yes or No answer please.


  • Options
    #1218
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,686 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    peddlelies wrote: »
    Because after actually listening to her words I don't need any further context. Notice how she begins with the words "First of all I was told who's Jeffrey Epstein? This is a stupid story". The meaning of the words "first of all" don't need explanation.

    There's no argument to be had and all the major news outlets who wrote stories about it don't argue on anything to do with context.

    Do you believe NBC news did purposely quash the Weinstein story? Yes or No answer please.

    How can you say she begins with certain words when it’s clear whatever she had initially said had been scrubbed past by Project Veritas?


  • Options
    #1219
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    Overheal wrote: »
    How can you say she begins with certain words when it’s clear whatever she had initially said had been scrubbed past by Project Veritas?

    I'm done arguing a nonsensical defence of ABC news, she's caught on camera admitting she had the story 3 years ago yet you argue she "might" have said something beforehand to rule her 5 minute confession without edits void.

    You continue to ignore the NBC/Weinstein point I'm making, yes certain corporate media bow to special interests and pressure from powerful individuals.

    As Erik Wemple put it in the Washington Post while calling the video "airtight".

    "Which Amy Robach do you believe: The one chatting candidly in her studio, believing that she’s just exchanging gossip with colleagues? Or the one who comes to you through a prepared statement distributed by ABC News?"

    If you believe the latter good luck to you.


  • Options
    #1220
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,686 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    peddlelies wrote: »
    I'm done arguing a nonsensical defence of ABC news, she's caught on camera admitting she had the story 3 years ago yet you argue she "might" have said something beforehand to rule her 5 minute confession without edits void.

    You continue to ignore the NBC/Weinstein point I'm making, yes certain corporate media bow to special interests and pressure from powerful individuals.

    As Erik Wemple put it in the Washington Post while calling the video "airtight".

    "Which Amy Robach do you believe: The one chatting candidly in her studio, believing that she’s just exchanging gossip with colleagues? Or the one who comes to you through a prepared statement distributed by ABC News?"

    If you believe the latter good luck to you.

    Playing devils advocate. As one has to, especially with Project Veritas which has a tendency to pass off grossly misleading 'evidence' to 'confirm' a convenient conspiracy - like abortion clinics wheeling and dealing in fetal remains. In this case the convenient theory that an Epstein story was caught and killed. I'm not as wholly convinced as Mr. Airtight.


  • Options
    #1221
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    Overheal wrote: »
    Playing devils advocate. As one has to, especially with Project Veritas which has a tendency to pass off grossly misleading 'evidence' to 'confirm' a convenient conspiracy - like abortion clinics wheeling and dealing in fetal remains. In this case the convenient theory that an Epstein story was caught and killed. I'm not as wholly convinced as Mr. Airtight.

    That's fair, but there is a certain irony in your sentiment given how ABC knew about Epstein 3 years ago and NBC quashed a story on Weinstein.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1222
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,686 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    peddlelies wrote: »
    That's fair, but there is a certain irony in your sentiment given how ABC knew about Epstein 3 years ago and NBC quashed a story on Weinstein.

    I mean Ochams razor they probably did but to cover all the bases - I mean, this is Project Veritas. Broken clocks can still be right some of the time but they don't just have a rep for being inaccurate, but maliciously misleading and deceptive.


  • Options
    #1223
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    Overheal wrote: »
    I mean Ochams razor they probably did but to cover all the bases - I mean, this is Project Veritas. Broken clocks can still be right some of the time but they don't just have a rep for being inaccurate, but maliciously misleading and deceptive.

    I don't dispute that, I have little time for them. Some of their stuff is good, most of it isn't.

    In this case the source matters little, to me it's black and white and the major admissions contain no editing at all. The person who obtained it could have brought it to a more reputable outlet and it would still be a big story. It's a good scoop for O'Keefe.


  • Options
    #1224
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Happy to see Megyn Kelly is re-entering the media arena.
    Looking forward to her piece on the ABC Epstein whistleblower.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/media/469570-megyn-kelly-teases-interview-with-woman-reportedly-fired-after-leak-of-hot-mic


  • Options
    #1225
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    Happy to see Megyn Kelly is re-entering the media arena.
    Looking forward to her piece on the ABC Epstein whistleblower.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/media/469570-megyn-kelly-teases-interview-with-woman-reportedly-fired-after-leak-of-hot-mic

    Translation: Glad someone who's opinion I generally agree with will have an opinion on this.
    She sure is decent and fair ;)


  • Options
    #1226
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Translation: Glad someone who's opinion I generally agree with will have an opinion on this.
    She sure is decent and fair ;)

    I'll admit that I'm a sucker for good looking women. Even Shannon Bream makes the bad news sound good.


  • Options
    #1227
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Here is a message from a real whistle blower. You should all realise by now that the MSM news are colluding with friends of Epstein.


    “By Ignotus,

    To my fellow man:

    I came forward with this information bearing no motives other than to have this information public. I did not and do not seek any personal gain from this information whether it be financial or otherwise and will always decline. When I became aware of this moment, I had the same reaction as many of you did. Anger, confusion and sadness. I care not about petty political quarrels and only hope for the best in all of us.

    To my fellow ABC News employees:

    I’ve walked the halls experiencing similar feelings we are all having right now. All of you regardless of your own personal differences in one form or another do an outstanding job. I sincerely enjoy working with each and every one of you and will continue to do so throughout our careers.

    To those wrongfully accused:

    It is terrible that you have been lashed out at by the company. I know some may put the burden of guilt on me, but my conscience is clear. The actions of the company towards you are the result of their own and not anyone else. The public outcry, from coast to coast, of all people, creeds, and political affiliations, is clear. I have not one doubt that there will always be support for you, and you will have prosperous careers. For neither you, nor I, have done anything wrong.

    To Amy Robach:

    You are the only person deserving of an apology. I am most certainly sorry. Not for my actions or for this to center around you, but for what is clear to have happened. When I first stumbled across this, my initial reaction was outrage. But this soon turned towards empathy. I cannot imagine doing all the hard work to only have it shelved. If the past few years have taught us anything, it is the truth that some of us have endured many hardships in this industry. From the spiking of stories regarding prominent and powerful people in this world, and to yours. I believe you are an outstanding reporter and have done such tremendous work in the community as well.

    To ABC News:

    I sit right here with you all in complete shock. I, like many, are at a loss for words on how this has been handled. Instead of addressing this head-on like the company has in the past, it has spun into a mission of seek-and-destroy. Innocent people that have absolutely nothing to do with this are being hunted down as if we are all a sport. I challenge all of you to actually look inwards and remember why this company engages in journalism. We all hold the First Amendment at the foundation of this company, yet forget its history, its purpose, and its reasoning for even coming into existence to begin with. How lost we are... yearning to be found. I went to Project Veritas for the sole reason that any other media outlet else would have probably shelved this as well. I thank all of them, and James, for seeking truth.

    We are all human and mortal, creatures of mistakes and redemption.

    The road to redemption favors no soul.

    Sincerely,

    Ignotus”

    From Project Veritas.


  • Options
    #1228
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Robach does not deserve an apology. How many more children were raped as she sat on this information only to be annoyed that she lost the scoop?

    Where are all the femenists with their vagina hats protesting for this female whistle blower to get her job back?

    No, all we get from the feminists at the time this heroic woman spoke up against a literal patricarchy is some bullcrap about the "wage gap".

    Absolutly shameful.


  • Options
    #1229
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,686 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.mediaite.com/online/republican-congressman-hides-epstein-didnt-kill-himself-message-in-tweets-railing-against-impeachment/

    gosar0-778x1200.jpg
    gosar1.jpg
    gosar2-773x1200.jpg
    gosar3-779x1200.jpg
    gosar4.jpg


  • Options
    #1230
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    https://www.behindthebastards.com/podcasts/an-update-on-our-old-pal-jeffrey-epstein.htm

    Very interesting update to his previous episodes on Epstein.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1231
    SJW Lover
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 322 ✭✭SJW Lover


    The ABC video is completely damning. To say that you need to see what went on before filming began is obfuscation. It is clear as day and on tape.


Advertisement