• 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

Puppycow said:
Ziggurat: why are you ignoring my question about Alan Dershowitz?
Click to expand...

I don’t know enough about the specifics regarding Dershowitz to have much opinion. But I don’t see that as much of an obstacle to the story. They could stick to the Epstein only stuff, they could hilight which claims were unsubstantiated, etc. Nor is ABC now claiming that her accusations against Dershowitz (which came out anyways) were the sticking point.

And once again, the fact that ABC got someone fired from CBS on the mere suspicion that they might have leaked this (but probably didn’t) proves pretty well where ABCs interests really lie. And it isn’t with a well informed public.
 
Ziggurat said:
I don’t know enough about the specifics regarding Dershowitz to have much opinion. But I don’t see that as much of an obstacle to the story. They could stick to the Epstein only stuff, they could hilight which claims were unsubstantiated, etc. Nor is ABC now claiming that her accusations against Dershowitz (which came out anyways) were the sticking point.

And once again, the fact that ABC got someone fired from CBS on the mere suspicion that they might have leaked this (but probably didn’t) proves pretty well where ABCs interests really lie. And it isn’t with a well informed public.
Click to expand...

Unless you're a lawyer with knowledge of the specific circumstances of this case I wouldn't put too much confidence in that. There were sealed records. Some of them still sealed apparently. I think that there might have been legal jeopardy for ABC if they had carelessly run the interview without giving those she accused an opportunity to respond. ABC probably ran it through their lawyers as well as reached out for comment from the people she accused which was supposedly a who's who of big shots. Supposedly the full list of people she's accused is under seal. But I've heard it includes prime ministers and others.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/crim...rey-epstein-case-then-is-sued-by-david-boies/


Beginning in late 2014, Giuffre began publicly accusing Dershowitz, now 81, of sexually assaulting her during the time she was with Epstein, purportedly at Epstein’s direction. By that time, the statute of limitations would have passed for a criminal case. Dershowitz immediately began an aggressive campaign to deny Giuffre’s charges, calling her a “certified, complete, total liar” and making statements such as “I can prove conclusively that she made the whole thing up.”
Click to expand...
Because Dershowitz contended that Boies and his partners had reviewed Dershowitz’s documentation, purportedly agreeing that he could not have assaulted Giuffre, Dershowitz moved for Boies’s firm to be disqualified from the case. Last month, U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska agreed and tossed Boies and his partners out of Giuffre’s defamation suit, saying they could not be both witnesses and lawyers in the case.
Click to expand...
Dershowitz also has written a book about the case, “Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo,” which is scheduled for publication Nov. 19.
Click to expand...
 
Puppycow said:
Unless you're a lawyer with knowledge of the specific circumstances of this case I wouldn't put too much confidence in that. There were sealed records. Some of them still sealed apparently.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that's relevant. If someone leaks sealed records, it's the person who leaked them that's in trouble, not the press.

I think that there might have been legal jeopardy for ABC if they had carelessly run the interview without giving those she accused an opportunity to respond.
Click to expand...

Nope. Unless they vouch for the subject's truthfulness, which they wouldn't need to do in order to air the story, then they aren't in jeopardy if she lies. That's on her, not them. And they could have given the accused an opportunity to respond, so that's no impediment to running the story either.

ABC probably ran it through their lawyers as well as reached out for comment from the people she accused which was supposedly a who's who of big shots.
Click to expand...

ABC isn't claiming legal issues dissuaded them. You're making up excuses on their behalf. And yes, I'm sure they reached out to the accused. We know they did, because threats from them are one of the things Robach complained about as to why the story was shut down. ABC didn't want to jeopardize access to the British royals.

And I notice you didn't comment on CBS's firing of Ashley Bianco, even though she's apparently not the leaker. ABC is trying to cover up their cover up, and CBS is willing to be complicit in that.
 
Ziggurat said:
And I notice you didn't comment on CBS's firing of Ashley Bianco, even though she's apparently not the leaker. ABC is trying to cover up their cover up, and CBS is willing to be complicit in that.
Click to expand...

This seems like a separate issue. I watched her interview with Megan Kelly, just now to catch up, and it seems like she probably wasn't the leaker. But I can't be sure. The fact that she saved the clip (which she fully admits) may have been a factor in how it eventually got leaked.

If, hypothetically, they knew for sure who the leaker was, that would probably be reasonable grounds for firing. Again though, this is a separate question from the original decision not to air the interview.
 
Puppycow said:
This seems like a separate issue.
Click to expand...

It isn’t. It’s part of the same pattern: suppress the truth to protect the powerful.

I watched her interview with Megan Kelly, just now to catch up, and it seems like she probably wasn't the leaker. But I can't be sure. The fact that she saved the clip (which she fully admits) may have been a factor in how it eventually got leaked.
Click to expand...

James O’Keefe published a letter from the leaker which made it clear she isn’t.

If, hypothetically, they knew for sure who the leaker was, that would probably be reasonable grounds for firing.
Click to expand...

Legally, yes. Morally, no.

Again though, this is a separate question from the original decision not to air the interview.
Click to expand...

And again, it isn’t. It’s part of the same pattern of suppressing inconvenient truths that led to spiking the story to begin with. And it’s played out many cases where powerful predators were protected by silence.
 
Max_mang said:
We learned earlier in this thread that the former is more important than the latter.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure what this is in reference to, but there’s a difference between what you’re legally required to do and what you’re legally allowed to do. CBS was not legally required to fire Bianca. It was immoral to do so.
 
Ziggurat said:
I’m not sure what this is in reference to, but there’s a difference between what you’re legally required to do and what you’re legally allowed to do. CBS was not legally required to fire Bianca. It was immoral to do so.
Click to expand...

It was in reference to all the posters excusing and even promoting the coverup of the story because there could be legal hassles or it may not have technically met network TV editorial standards (even though Amy Robach said NONE of that in the leaked video).

If it's not clear, I'm in agreement with your position and think the opposing view is a symptom of the sad state of our society.
 
Robach released a statement on Tuesday.

'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,' said Robach in a statement after the release of the video.

'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.'

She then added: '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.'​

Pretty much sums it up for me.

There is ZERO evidence that ABC were trying suppress the truth to protect powerful people. This is just a conspiracy nutter's wet dream.

There is ZERO evidence that Ashley Bianco was fired from CBS for leaking the video.

There is ZERO evidence that CBS and ABC were in some sort of mutual protection collision conspiracy - another conspiracy nutter's wet dream.


If anyone has some actual evidence that the above is wrong, then bring it to the table - and don't bother posting hearsay, innuendo, speculation or unsubstantiated opinion.
 
smartcooky said:
There is ZERO evidence that ABC were trying suppress the truth to protect powerful people. This is just a conspiracy nutter's wet dream.
Click to expand...

Given that exactly this has been demonstrated in other cases (see Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer), I'm not sure why you find it so strange that it might have happened in this case.

There is ZERO evidence that Ashley Bianco was fired from CBS for leaking the video.
Click to expand...

Technically true. They fired her because they thought she might have been the leaker. She wasn't.

There is ZERO evidence that CBS and ABC were in some sort of mutual protection collision conspiracy - another conspiracy nutter's wet dream.
Click to expand...

Sure. It's just a coincidence that she got fired after ABC told CBS that she accessed the tapes. No connection at all to the leaks, or the embarrassment that caused ABC.

Go on, pull the other one.
 
I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Epstein did not commit suicide. However, certainly one of the coolest things about it (leaving aside the fact of Epstein's death removing a prominent pedo-skeeze from the world) is that 1) members of both extremes of the US political spectrum are heavily invested in the theory, and 2) each side's members believe that the "evidence" implicates prominent leaders of the opposing side, in both the alleged killing and Epstein's original crimes.
 
Ziggurat said:
Given that exactly this has been demonstrated in other cases (see Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer), I'm not sure why you find it so strange that it might have happened in this case.
Click to expand...

For those cases, there is evidence.

People have stated that Weinstein was well known to have been abusing women, and there were a whole raft of people, not just the MSM that were saying nothing.

Do you have actual evidence that applies to this case?

Ziggurat said:
Technically true. They fired her because they thought she might have been the leaker. She wasn't.
Click to expand...

True, but....

Ziggurat said:
Sure. It's just a coincidence that she got fired after ABC told CBS that she accessed the tapes. No connection at all to the leaks, or the embarrassment that caused ABC.
Click to expand...

No, she was fired because she accessed the video when she was not legally and ethically entitled to. That's wrong and a serious breach of professional ethics. The fact that she didn't leak it is not really relevant - no harm no foul does not apply.

If you work for me, and I catch you looking through our confidential business stuff, regardless of whether or not you give it to anyone, that is a breach of trust - I WILL fire you, right there, on the spot - hand me your keys and get out.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
For those cases, there is evidence.

People have stated that Weinstein was well known to have been abusing women, and there were a whole raft of people, not just the MSM that were saying nothing.

Do you have actual evidence that applies to this case?
Click to expand...

Seriously? Epstein was already a convicted pedophile at this point. But his social profile even after that conviction was still high. The rich and famous were still attending his parties. And not just the ones who knew him before his conviction, also new people like Bill Gates. And what were they saying? Nothing. What did ABC say? Nothing.

So Epstein was well known to have been abusing women, and there were a whole raft of people, not just the MSM that were saying nothing.
 
In an interview to be televised tonight, Prince Andrew has no recollection of that woman, and says seeing Epstein after his conviction was letting the side down, but due to being too honourable.

I think it’s telling that he says he doesn’t remember, rather than that he’s never met, Virginia Giuffre. Surely he has a record of his whereabouts on any time and date, and could simply say where he was on the date in question?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...taying-with-jeffrey-epstein-right-thing-to-do
 
zooterkin said:
I think it’s telling that he says he doesn’t remember, rather than that he’s never met, Virginia Giuffre. Surely he has a record of his whereabouts on any time and date, and could simply say where he was on the date in question?
Click to expand...

He was even photographed holding her by the waist in the presence of Ghislaine Maxwell, evidently at one of her properties.

I guess that's not memorable enough, because he's been sleeping with so many teenage girls over the years that he can't even hope to keep track of each one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom