• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jeffrey Epstein arrested for child sex trafficking

Ziggurat said:
Robach certainly thought it was plenty, and more than just pictures.

Yes, but I don’t think you appreciate how badly they dropped the ball there. The alleged perpetrator wasn’t innocent, the alleged perpetrator didn’t even exist. Again, not comparable.
Click to expand...

And do you also believe her allegations about Dershowitz?

Because her accusations involved more than Epstein, they involved Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew. Even if they could corroborate the Epstein stuff, or felt like they were on solid ground there, the interview might also have involved accusations against others that they couldn't corroborate.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/07/alan-...berts-giuffre-claims-shes-just-out-for-money/
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Explain how the lawsuits against him proceeded without any kind of investigation.
Click to expand...

Explain how the lawsuits against him proceed without him knowing about them. Because that's the allegation here: that running the story would tip him off to an investigation. And while the police routinely run investigations without the subject knowing about it, and rely upon that lack of knowledge in order to get information (such as tapping their phone), private investigations can't use those tools.
 
Ziggurat said:
Explain how the lawsuits against him proceed without him knowing about them. Because that's the allegation here: that running the story would tip him off to an investigation.
Click to expand...
No, that is only part of the claim and not even my primary claim. My primary claim is that we don't know that Robach had anything that wasn't already known to someone else or that could have help bring this guy to justice sooner.

My secondary claim is that she might have tipped him off about an investigation he didn't know about.

So with those things in mind we can't jump to a conclusion that withholding the story hindered bringing this guy to justice.

And your statement that there was no investigation is simply wrong.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
No, that is only part of the claim and not even my primary claim. My primary claim is that we don't know that Robach had anything that wasn't already known to someone else or that could have help bring this guy to justice sooner.
Click to expand...

News isn't news because nobody knows it. News is news because not everybody knows it. And that absolutely applies to Epstein.

My secondary claim is that she might have tipped him off about an investigation he didn't know about.
Click to expand...

And I'm saying there was no law enforcement investigation for him to not know about, he already knew about private lawsuits, and any ones he didn't know about wouldn't have been compromised by him knowing.

Furthermore, chances are higher that public scrutiny would have prompted law enforcement to take a closer look, which is in fact what ended up happening. Only it happened years later than it could have.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

Let's suppose there was a secret law enforcement investigation back in 2016. What came of it? Nothing. So even if it existed (and there's no evidence it did, even now when there would be no reason to keep it a secret), it's functionally no different from not existing.

Let's recall what actually led to his 2019 arrest. It didn't have anything to do with any secret invetigation. It was because of the Florida court ruling that Epstein's victims should have been consulted about his 2007 plea deal. And because that plea deal was overseen by Acosta, Trump's labor secretary, the press jumped all over it as a way to go after Trump. That renewed scrutiny is what led Federal prosecutors to start going after Epstein again. And in fact, what he was charged with was for stuff that happened between 2002 and 2005. In other words, it was stuff that the federal government already knew about, but decided not to pursue as part of the original 2007 plea.
 
Ziggurat said:
Let's suppose there was a secret law enforcement investigation back in 2016. What came of it? Nothing. So even if it existed (and there's no evidence it did, even now when there would be no reason to keep it a secret), it's functionally no different from not existing.
Click to expand...
You're pretty far out on the silly tree here. So, an investigation that, in the future, isn't going to lead to anything doesn't exist? This reporter is a successful psychic in your world?

Can we inject some reality here? Robach herself describes the material she had as already in the possession of attorneys and rejects the claim that it was unethical to withhold the story. Her wording suggests she even agreed that at least her first version of the story wasn't well corroborated.
 
Last edited:
The media protects its own. Now CBS has fired Ashley Bianco, because Bianco accessed the tapes of Robach when Bianco was working at ABC. First, why is CBS trying to protect ABC's management? Second, it's important to realize that Bianco isn't being fired for leaking the tapes. Neither CBS nor ABC knows who leaked the tapes. They only know Bianco accessed the tapes while she was still working at ABC, and that's enough for CBS to fire her.

The Babylon Bee is supposed to be parody, but for some reason it keeps reporting actual news.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
You're pretty far out on the silly tree here. So, an investigation that, in the future, isn't going to lead to anything doesn't exist? This reporter is a successful psychic in your world?


Can we inject some reality here?
Click to expand...

You want reporters to not report on something newsworthy because of the hypothetical possibility of interfering with a hypothetical investigation that they know nothing about and which they have no reason to believe even exists. And you're asking me to inject reality?

Yeah, no. You aren't dealing with reality at all.

Robach herself describes the material she had as already in the possession of attorneys
Click to expand...

So what? Why does that make it any less newsworthy?

and rejects the claim that it was unethical to withhold the story.
Click to expand...

She's saying that now. But she's got an obvious incentive to publicly say whatever paints her employer in the best light possible. What she said when she thought it was private is far more likely to be what she actually thinks.
 
Ziggurat said:
You want reporters to not report on something newsworthy because of the hypothetical possibility of interfering with a hypothetical investigation that they know nothing about and which they have no reason to believe even exists. And you're asking me to inject reality?
Click to expand...
For god ******* sakes I was pointing on one of many possible things we might not know.
Ziggurat said:
So what? Why does that make it any less newsworthy?
Click to expand...
No, it makes it already known to the victims attorneys which is the freaking point.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
For god ******* sakes I was pointing on one of many possible things we might not know.
Click to expand...

And using that as a justification for not running a story when that justification makes no sense.

ABC certainly didn't know anything about any criminal investigation that their reporting could have interfered with. If they had, they would be talking about that right now. They aren't. It didn't factor into their decision. You're making excuses for them that are so weak they aren't even trying to make those excuses themselves. It's quite peculiar.

No, it makes it already known to the victims attorneys which is the freaking point.
Click to expand...

So what? That isn't a reason to not report the story.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
I have not said one word about whether they should have reported the story.
Click to expand...

Then why are you even posting? The entire issue was about whether or not they should have reported the story. If you have no opinion, then none of this has any relevance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom