Topic: BOMBSHELL: ABC News Killed Epstein-Clinton Story, Says Anchor In Hot Mic Video (Read 769 times)

https://truepundit.com/jeffrey-epsteins-private-banker-at-deutsche-executive-suicide-before-feds-questioned-him/

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/clintons-vacationed-extensively-epsteins-new-mexico-baby-making-ranch-report

Still waiting for that quote.

goodluck with your ignorance

edit to reply to below

the video itself is the quote. along with all other evidence that is PUBLICLY available FOR DECADES
research:
mar a lago
virginia roberts
epstein
search out stuff between 1990-2008

goodluck

I like how you turned this back around on me as if I have the burden of proof of showing Trump is innocent. You made the claim about what was said in the video.


Why don't you quote it chumpy the clown? Oh right, you won't because you will be forced to admit your quote isn't what was said in the video, and you will have to walk it back and will squirm around trying to say it was implied. It was neither said nor implied. You took reality and then took it 8 more steps further to try to imply knowledge and complicity of Trump which is absolutely not supported by the statement in the video.

But everybody else forgot which video.

 

i even told you the time to watch the video

go on.. i dare you to quote the words from 6:50 onwards

i guarantee that if you honestly did quote it. you would have the words wher the context that
at mar a lago virgina roberts was recruited into epsteins scheme and its likely(not far fetched) that others were too

you will also have to admit that trump had connection to epstein so the lawyer would had to contact him and trump had info to help with the case

go on try and do the usual grammar nazi crap...
or atleast understand the context

or just move on with your life because you wont win the debate that trump knew nothing.. sorry but he did.
end of

have a good year

I did watch the video, several times just to be sure. I am not correcting punctuation or word syntax. The words you claimed were in the video simply were not there. You are full of shit, and worse yet you think its A-OK because your imagination works with your confirmation bias, so you just accept it as fact. I just want it to be 100% clear for everyone reading this exactly what you call a standard of evidence, and in this case, it is your imagination and nothing more.

watch the video YOU linked(or are you saying you photoshopped it)
dont be lazy. do some research

you can argue for many many pages about how verbatim letter for letter my word are compared to the video.. like a grammar nazi.. but the context is the context. which is backed up by other sources too

i bet you dont even know the source material on virginia roberts or mar a lago

go play your grammar nazi games elsewhere. it doesnt dis-prove anything but makes you sound like your either dumb or high

Cools series of logical fallacies.

You made a provably false statement to support your argument. That is significant and needs to be addressed. You have fun pointing the finger back at me. Maybe work on some more Photoshopped pics while you are at it.

so many posts and your still not using your brain
ok we get it your a trump loyalist and you only prefer to watch fox news so your knowledge is limited
ok we get it your not even willing to do research

do you even understand the context of what was said
do you even understand the locations, people, timelines involved

atleast take a break from trolling and do your research

That was not said in the video. I know in the fantasy you live in in your mind it is all the same, but for the people who live in reality, the fact that neither of the people featured in the video said that matters. You took what was said in the video, then took it eight steps further and just pretended like its no big deal you just added a bunch of bullshit that was never proven or even said. This is a great demonstration of the complete lack of logic and creative interpretation you call evidence.

i said what i said.
i said it several times..
i quote myself saying it
i quoted you quoting me saying it
do you not understand that!!

if you think its bullshit, then you have never seen a cow have a bowel movement because you obviously have no clue whats bull shit and whats not bullshit
how many times do i have to tell you that the video and media show evidence of it happening.
did you not even bother looking at the evidence or do you think you can change all of media, all of the court documentation, all the lawyers, all the history.. by simply trolling me

how about look at the source material.
look at it properly

have a nice year

Cheerleaders, well shit, flip the switch clearly that is evidence of guilt and not the delusional ravings of an insane person looking to build a narrative against Trump.


Do you deny you made this bullshit statement?

you deny that trump and epstein had social activities?
you deny that trump and epstein had many parties involving young ladies at mar a lago?

first of all
the 1992 party video trump/epstein and many cheerleaders at mar a lago

secondly
the lawyer said at another party at mar a lago trump introduced V.Roberts to epstein

by the way. it was not a single party. as time does not work like that.
her age wouldnt fit the time like of the 1992 party video nor what trump told the lawyer

atleast try to use your brainstem, research the evidence do the maths. actually check things out. dont just have blind loyalty to things

you gain nothing from trying to pretend what your pretending
the evidence is there. even if your ignorant. you are the one that remains ignorant. the rest of the world moves on without you

You made a claim certain statements were made in the video. They were not. The rest is an invention of your own misfiring brainstem. Have fun dancing around this fact pretending it is just obvious without proof you are right as all good delusional boys do.

so what are you trying to assert,?
are you saying the girl was a ghost or a time traveller and just appeared.
are you saying the party never happened and trump nver socialied and introduced pople to epstein
are you saying the house wasnt trumps

or you can accept reality.
she walked through the door coz she got an invite to trumps party. and then got introduced to epstein
if you want to make foolish things about pretending she didnt attend such parties or how trump didnt own the house or how epstein was not introduced to her or that epstein didnt even go to the party, or whatever dumb stuff your trying to assum

.. well thats your fail in not realising your video link actually revealed the layer saying how the girl got introduced to epstein via trumps parties

watch the video
or go sober up
maybe atleast think rationally before hitting the reply button
the video speaks for itself
as does all the other quotes and media stuff over the last couple decades

Is that supposed to be clever? Who gets drunk at 8am BTW? You made this claim:


This didn't happen in the video, and the fact you think it did is solid evidence of your inability to examine information critically and free of delusion. Your interpretations are not facts, they are delusions. I would tell you to go sober up, but you probably belong on drugs.

try again when you have sobered up

both video and news articles show this:
trump socialised with epstein alot
epstein main victim was introduced at trumps party when she was younger than 17
trump for years knew of his proclivities.
trump gave info to lawyers that helped convict epstein

the context is the same thing.

because your becoming boring.
you have shown no evidence that trump was not involved. your links actually proved his involvement
he just paid his way to give info in private instead of being summoned to court. purely to distance himself after the fact

now go sober up

Thanks for the lengthy fact avoidan't screed. Let the record show he didn't answer my question. Like I said, everyone can see the giant gaps in your logic, and you don't care to see them, so lets just skip it.

the context is the same, the result is the same, the wording means the same.
just because the words are not written verbatim (every single letter of the alphabet in the same order) does not mean the context and meaning are different.
you can troll all you like about word positioning .. but thats just an empty troll response. the context and meaning = same
whats your next empty troll.. grammar, punctuation?
how boring and predictable when your left scraping the bottom of the barrel for any response

anyways

just watch the video YOU linked
actually watch it
stop being ignorant

the girl introduced and raped by epstein and his pals was introduced at trumps parties
trump also knew of epsteins proclivities before banning him

time does not lie
1992+ parties and social interactions with epstein
2002 trump saying he knew about epsteins preference for the younger ladies and being proud to call him a friend
2008 trump tries to disassociate himself from epstein but only when lawyers started calling trump

trump didnt dis-associate himself in 2002 nor 1992
nor any year inbetween

did you know that UK's prince andrew got divorced due to the revelations of him also being one of the pals that raped the girl mentioned in the video YOU linked. yep. way back before the millenium it was public knowledge. the UK actually supported fergi and treated andrew as a jerk. because the public had morals.
it was public info. and even trump knew that prince andrew was wrapped up in such activities with epstein before the millenium, because it was public knowledge

funny thing is the NEWS media had the footage and the articles and made them public. same goes for clintons ties to epstein..
so this whole topic that it was supposedly hushed up until 2015+ and how it only become public once a person got fired for releasing studio footage of a anchor saying she had evidence is stupid. the footage and evidence was public for decades. even the lawyers knew it all.
thus the recent topic about news anchor bombshell is not a bombshell .. and is just some drama about someone being fired to putting footage on youtube

have fun trying to deny the PUBLIC information of the last couple decades
have a good year,

No, both things you said are not the same. Answer the question.

both things i said say the same thing. underage girls at trumps parties and being introduced to epstein and trump knowing it

Did this happen or didn't it? You seem to have revised your claim.


I would take the time to explain the massive gaps in your logic, but everyone else already sees and you don't care, so lets just skip it.

Thank you. Sworn in, right?    

^^^ And you have proof of this how?!     

a. mar a lago was trumps house
meaniing he set the guest list.

b. the video of the lawyer said that trump had info that helped the case against epstein

c. the video with the lawyer was talking about virginia roberts who was raped at 17 meaning that to be introduced to epstein shw had to be younger than 17.. (thats how time flows.. intro, then assault)
its logic.. atleast review the evidence and dont review how deep you can stick head in the sand

You also quoted yourself as my quote. Don't do that, I don't want your words ever confused for mine.

See that's interesting speaking of quotes...


They said no such thing in the video, I was just making sure there wasn't some like ultrasonic frequency speech hidden in the clip or something. This is a great example of the kind of bullshit you call evidence along with your Photoshop job. Your interpretations and assumptions are not evidence, that is called fantasy.

oh and yes i quoted your quotes of you quoting my quotes where i quoted the sources. that way you cant keep playing ignorant because you quoted me giving you the information. thus obviously you cannot pretend to have never seen the sources before
P.S trump banned epstein in 2008. yt was quoting him in 2002 as someone that liked young girls.
trump was partying with epstein and had under 18's attending the party. (virginia roberts)

1. Great, just tell me the minute and second mark and quote. Also, tell me how is it you came to be aware what happened in Trumps mind, and how exactly you expect to prove this?

2. Once again, with those psychic abilities being able to know what is in the minds of others you should be working for Mrs. Cleo making the big bucks instead of wasting your time here. Most people would call a claim to know what a person knew and intended at a certain point in time in the past without substantiation a flimsy premise, but you have those special ESP powers, so that doesn't apply here.

That's not funny. What is funny is the pule of shit on your chest.


Its almost like I already addressed this and Trump banned him from Mar-a-Lago once he found out...

You keep imagineering Trump crimes while the real evidence against Epstein and the Clinton's stacks up to the sky. Maybe some one will buy your pathetic attempts to distract from it.
[/quote]

1. the video YOU linked both says that trump invited underage girls to his parties to meet epstein. and how trump knew of epsteins proclivities YEARS before it went to court. and how trump only "banned him from mar-a-lago AFTER IT STARTED TO CAUSE LEGAL ISSUES

2. trump knew about it in the 90's and millenia but didnt distance himself untill AFTER the lawyers started calling trump.
thats not finding out about epstein coz the lawyers said trump provided good info that helped the case
also was the quotes from trump praising epstein for his proclivities
what he then did was just try to distancing himself from being tied to any legal issues AFTER THE FACT. once it started getting dicey with lawyers phone calls

do you not even bother to listen to the video. or just found a website that said it was a trump defence and you blindly accepted a websites summary and linked the video without checking it out

That's not funny. What is funny is the pile of shit on your chest.


Its almost like I already addressed this and Trump banned him from Mar-a-Lago once he found out...

You keep imagineering Trump crimes while the real evidence against Epstein and the Clinton's stacks up to the sky. Maybe some one will buy your pathetic attempts to distract from it.

even funnier is techshares own link


at 6:50 it shows that one of epsteins victims who was not even 18 was at mar a lago
who owned mar a lago
trump

its funny how tecshare tried to use a link to defend trump. but the link actually reveals trumps involvement

i see you both still ignoring the video footage from ncb in 1992
it really must be silent in your world of head in the sand living

He's got Photoshop.

^^^ Talk, talk, talk. Can't even show a pic, or even a link.

you said 'Trump had a minor business relationship with Epstein that fell through, had very little social contact with him,'
i debunked the minor business relationship as theres proof everywhere it was more then a decade of friendship
i debunked the lack of social contact again via the proof of their interactions lasting over a decade

its not an assumption. theres photos and videos that show there was more than
'minor business relationship, very little social contact'

sorry but the videos and photos and quotes and eye witnesses prove more than your lack of evidence of the opposite

anyway back to my original point. this topic is void on content.. as the 'story' has been in the public domain for decades. the only thing this topic is about is how someone got fired to releasing a video.. but the content of the video is not a 'bombshell'

You aren't linking him to anything. All of your assertions require assumptions, interpretations, and other conclusions generally unsupported by evidence. You winge on about blind loyalty to distract people from your own evident blind hatred. The difference between you and me is I am asking for evidence, you are manufacturing it via interpretation. The relationship between Bill Clinton and Epstein is not equivalent to the relationship between Trump and Epstein, and the assertion that it is is disingenuous and based in your need to have Trump shit on your chest because it is the only way you know to make the pain go away.

i think its time you stopped taking drugs now.
firstly your defending trump like he is your pop idol.. then in the same breath trying to hide your loyalty by saying anyone that links him to bad stuff is his fan

sorry but your 'cover up' to hide your obsession makes no sense to a sober person.

the only reason why he is mentioned is because clinton is old old news and not a relevant person today. but trump is in the white house right now meaning his actions are relevant as they can affect people.

but your denial of trumps grotesque quotes about his own daughter and other women and even how he has been seen for 15 years having social parties with epstein and cheer leaders and such. just shows how ignorant you are to see the evidence and prfer to be blind to it to defend trump

you said little social intraction and

sorry but blind loyalty is not contagious people wont become trump fans and follow your lead

and people can see your loyalty even if you try to hide it
its just a shame that you dont see it because it looks like you will end up just defending him as if your life depends on it.
you said 'Trump had a minor business relationship with Epstein that fell through, had very little social contact with him,'
i debunked the minor business relationship as theres proof everywhere it was more then a decade of refriendship
i debunked the lack of social contact again via the proof of their interactions lasting over a decade

the only thing i could possibly think you meant was a game of word play
'trump had a minor business relationship'
'trump had a 'underage child' business relationship. meaning he was manager of a child sex trafficking ring alongside epstein..
is that the hint you are trying to suggest?

Trump wipes his ass with toilet paper. You know who else wiped their ass with toilet paper?

HITLER

Proof Trump was involved with Hitler.



You know who knew something about Hitler?

TRUMP

Proof Trump knew about the concentration camps in WW2 and was complicit.

You should seek treatment for Trump Derangement Syndrome, letting people shit on your chest is not hygienic.

gotta laugh at your trump supporter loyalty, but trying to say those calling him out are the trump fetishes
funnier part is how the interview video you linked actually counters your narrative
1. lawyer contacted trump due to having connections - proof trump involved
2. lawyer is happy to drop legal proceedings for a price 'settled for undisclosed amount' - lawyer happy to be bribed to keep quiet
3. trump gave evidence which helped go against epstein - proof trump knew something
4. trump wasnt deposed(financial handshakes) and distanced himself(personally) from epstein only after lawyers got involved.. not as soon as learning about epsteins proclivities a decade earlier

if you make one more post defending trump. then you might as well just war a trump loyalist shirt

also that video proves epstein stuff was going on more than just 2-3 years ago. thus making this topic about a bombshell redundant
again its all been public info for decades

There is a brown stain on your chest. You might want to take care of that.

i have no fetish for trump. im calling him out because he the current president and he is currently a world power player, not some 'one time famous' guy 20 years ago.. who doesnt matter anymore

but you seem to be defending trump and trying to make him out as a good guy that just happen to have a few bad friends, and saying trump has no clue to the social proclivities of his friends. and pretending trump has a healthy respect for female sexuality, by pretending trump never said gross stuff about his own daughter

makes me believe you are the one with the trump fetish.

also to note the video of him partying with epstein was a broadcast from an american tv news show NBC. so this topic about pretending news about epstein is 'new' 2015+ is solely and illogically untrue

epstein had known parties with young girls, he was even convicted in 2008 for crimes against kids
he also was the cause of UK royal prince andrew and Fergi's divorce due you andrews sexual acts that epstein was part of

so its all been public info since the 90's+

im just guessing her but i should just ask you straight:
are you angry at me for pointing things out about trump.
are you angry that you thought it was limited to just clinton
are you angry that what you thought was new, wasnt new
are you angry that fox news didnt report it first as they seem like certain populations favourite news outlet
are you angry that you didnt find the news broadcasts of 1992,2008 quotes from 2002. and its now hard for you to realise you been following the wrong path

Your fetish for Trump is frankly kind of repulsive. You are the kind of person who would probably get off having him shit on your chest or something.

I have known my postman for 15 years. I am sure he is a great guy too. That doesn't make us close friends or mean we hang out all the time. Don't speak for me. I said they had "very little social contact" not the gibberish you are regurgitating from your fantasies. You might also call that quote about young girls Trump calling him out and warning people, but that doesn't serve your pedo daughter fucking slander narrative does it? Of course not.

If they were such great pals why did he bar Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago resort after he was exposed? Why was he so willing to hand over information to investigators looking into him?

"Edwards: The only thing that I can say about President Trump is that he is the only person who, in 2009 when I served a lot of subpoenas on a lot of people, or at least gave notice to some pretty connected people, that I want to talk to them, is the only person who picked up the phone and said, let’s just talk.  I’ll give you as much time as you want.  I’ll tell you what you need to know, and was very helpful, in the information that he gave, and gave no indication whatsoever that he was involved in anything untoward whatsoever, but had good information. That checked out and that helped us and we didn’t have to take a deposition of him in 2009."

https://youtu.be/Yqb59n69Z80

Clinton on the other hand has been on "The Lolita Express" at least 26 times according to records, but same diff right?

the one you said was without epstein is was actually a 2 part picture of the same party ORGANISED BY EPSTEIN which trump was there. like i said look at the clothes and room decor..
here
https://youtu.be/tm6T4_Tm_ho

the other pic was more of a hint to trumps inappropriateness with his daughter. not the overlay of epstein
can you not remember the stuff trump said about his own daughter
just a few examples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EPEkk6qWkg

still wanna deny that trump had little social connection to epstein? even after the (first) video link i just shown shows otherwise.
ok more pics of them together


and also quotes in 2002 from trump
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/

15 year friendship and talking about how he knows epstein likes the younger girls and videos of them socialising together
.. if you want to pretend it was just strictly business and nothing social and how trump didnt know anything about epsteins prefrences. then you might be as ditsy as the cheerleaders trump and epstein danced with

Cool story bro. One of those pictures doesn't even have Epstein in it, and another one is a known (horrible) photoshop, but don't let that stop you from confirming your bias.

notice the different hair of trump. which shows how long a time period it involved


note the wall, the door frame and the clothes trumps wearing above.. then below

seems like just a business meeting?

Saying both Clinton and Trump were involved with Epstein is a false equivalence. Clinton has been documented as visiting Epstein island at least a dozen times. Trump has never been there. Trump had a minor business relationship with Epstein that fell through, had very little social contact with him, and has even been documented as providing evidence to prosecutors when Epstein was investigated in the past when no one else was cooperating. The Clinton trail of dirt is wide and deep. Dirt on Trump is virtually non-existent, because if it did exist the establishment would already be leveraging the shit out of it instead of having to make shit up like they currently are.

to answer your question
EVERYONE knew

yes BOTH clinton AND trump were involved with epstein, as was many other high profile guys
if you remember the 'pizzagate' stuff involving the clintons was about clintons involvement with paedo's. but then got turned into making people think it was just a 4chan troll

but those smart enough to avoid the narrative of fox news and instead do real research can find that things have been public for DECADES

Gotcha. Thought you might've seen some connection between Neil Bush, and I wouldn't have been surprised if there were some other random rich people involved as well.

Also -- I don't think you could say this is under the watch of Jeb Bush as Alexander Acosta was a federal attorney (picked by the president, and confiemd by the Senate) I mean he may have some ties to the Bush family or something along those lines, but I can't find that info.

Also yes: The whole reason the anchor is mad isn't that she missed the opportunity to bury a horrible person for doing horrible things. She's mad because she lost a story and this was a big one.

Sorry, I did get Neil Bush mixed up with Jeb Bush, corrected


Jeb doesn't have direct ties with Epstein either AFAIK, simply that the light-touch prosecution deal was brokered under his watch (Jeb Bush was Florida's governor at the time)

---

This whole story seems like MORE bullshit tbh, the newsroom anchors are just autocue readers that don't really care about the content they're delivering. Let it never be forgotten that newsanchor Katie Couric was one of many celebrities attending Epstein's overt "Welcome Home from your child prostitution prison sentence, Jeff!" mansion party in New York. Presumably Couric's excuse is that she was there "reporting undercover", or that she "didn't know"
 
And so it seems like the reaction we're supposed to have to this "leak" is: 'Oh this anchorwoman is a total hero! She's SO against this corruption at the ABC newsroom, I'll totally trust everything that comes out her mouth from now on!!'. She could've quit and gone public, yet she chose to keep her job and keep quiet

How stupid do ABC think it's (non) viewers are?

Another breaking news! 

No surprise really.
https://truepundit.com/video-epstein-medical-examiner-drops-autopsy-bombshell-no-dna-test-conducted-to-confirm-epsteins-identity/
What beach he be strolling around?

It definitely didn't make major headlines, but it also definitely made the news, and, to be fair, there are some pretty big things going on.  I think that if the media thought the Epstein/Robach story would attract the most eyes, it would've gotten the most attention...well, maybe not from ABC.

I'm assuming you mean Jeb Bush? I think Neil Bush is the businessman of the family, with no real ties to Epstein (that I can find from first glance at least)

Don't forget Neil Jeb Bush. Bush was a 2016 presidential candidate, and Florida governor at the time of the 2008 court case, which involved depositions about Epstein prowling for victims at Mar-a-Lago (and this is a big reason why the story took off at all, The Miami Herald was the only sizable media outlet to report on Epstein).



And the FBI. And whoever Epstein was working for to obtain all the blackmail material.

That sounds a lot like he is trying to warn people.

There's this though

https://twitter.com/TimOBrien/status/1147688866289262592?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1147688866289262592&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fthe-media%2F2019%2F07%2F08%2Fcorporate-media-push-trump-jeffrey-epstein-conspiracy-theories-without-evidence%2F

The same source does claim he visited it only once.

He rode on his plane ONCE, but not to the island, just because they happened to be going the same direction. He also shortly attended ONE of his parties. Enough to see he didn't want to be involved. They has a business relationship of some kind in real-estate that was short lived and ended with conflict. That is about the sum of it.

Well yeah, obviously.

I mean at any point this leak is going to be shut down and silenced. This sort of leak is a major liability for the political elite. It's also a MAJOR liability for the two Pres candidates at the time of thee 2016 election - Clinton and Trump.

I think it's pretty much confirmed that Clinton had been abroad his private jets and islands.

I've read some conflicting info on Trump though -- as there is info that he's helped prosecutors involved in the Epstein prosecution, but there's also some info stating that he was aboard the planes and had parties with Epstein....

Who knows I guess. The only person with the info is dead now.

Just dawned on me.
The leak says 3 years ago.
2016 election.
That's the reason why it wasn't reported.

What's your point on diminishing this?
Yes, the video itself didn't uncover much but we know the media doesn't want to report on Epstein, and we are positive he didn't kill himself

Update
Seems like they fired the wrong person 
https://www.infowars.com/oops-cbs-terminates-wrong-employee-over-epstein-video-leak/

epstein link to peadophile acts is a known thing from DECADES ago
epstein link to clinton is a known thing from DECADES ago
epstein link to trump is a known thing from DECADES ago
epstein link to a british royal is a known thing from DECADES ago

it aint something of 3 years ago
so th story is basically a video got leaked and someone got fired for leaking a video.
again not about the content of the video

heck i can make a video that says '3 years ago i had evidence of a real pokemon'
the hype this year wont be about pokemon but about that someone who leaked my video of what i said got fired

anyway. now 'the leaker' is gonna be rich.
alot of free time to research and find the OLD REAL info from DECADES ago and then go and publish a book saying what they found was just 3 years ago. then go on book tours and star on 'the ellen show'

What's important is that she said she had a story about a pedophile but ABC told her they don't intend on reporting it.

The whistleblower who accessed the Amy Robach footage has been fired.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2019/11/07/update-epstein-video-source-targeted-abc-fired-new-job

he wasnt blackmailing them. its not like he kidnapped important elitist people and made them have sex..
those 'special people' just got invited to parties and told to have a good time for free. and in exchange the 'special people' invite him to their parties

What I don't understand about the Epstein case is if he was blackmailing powerful people by luring them into sex with underage girls, then (A) my sympathy is with those who were blackmailed (B) someone should have done him in long ago. (C) the victims are both the girls AND those lured into the scheme

Instead he's only done in when he's in a jail on charges.

There's something more to it.

seems many people are discussing the video file itself as a 'leak' of importance.

(a) wow(sarc) someone posted the video.
(b) lets make big news that someone posted a video of someone saying words

(a) but what were the words
(b) it doesnt matter the leak is about how studio off air footage eventually ended up on youtube

(a) but whats so important about this particular video vs other videos
(b) it dont matter. its about a presenter saying something. but dont blame her. she didnt leak it.

(a) but whats so important about this particular video vs other videos
(b) the women knew something a couple years ago that news didnt report

(a) but what did she know
(b) its not important whats most important was that the video leaked some how. less important was what she knew

(a) but what did she know that the news didnt want revealed and the public had no clue of
(b) well she knew epstien invites important people to parties so they can bang young women

(a) oh.. so this whole thing is about stuff that people do already know..... i see.. (bored).. i guess thats why the content is not the story as its boring public information for decades and you just wanna make it seem like something groundbreaking by getting people to concentrate on it being studio footage from a studio camera that ended up on youtube

(b) yess, its like the most dramatic thing of 2019.. studio off air footage on youtube. yay woo hoo exciting
(a) no. its not. bored now bye

IK. She wouldn't dare since she already know how powerful these people are. And yet it got out.

She should just have leaked it, jumped ship and appear a hero in the public eye. Now she just look like all those propagandists. I hear people say "She's pissed she lost a juicy scoop, she don't care that the abuse continued at all".

She didn't leak it. Someone else leaked the video from the studio. Probably found the video somewhere on a computer, might be data leakage.

Funny that the video haven't went on trending on Youtube. A lot of channels has already covered it though so a lot of people has already seen it.

This is going to further ruin the Clintons' reputation (or whatever is left). Shame that it got released too soon. Should have waited for Hillary to endorse a Democrat candidate.


She's obviously looking out for her career. You can see she's pissed she didn't get to air it herself. If she leaked it they'd immediately think it's her and then she'll be out of a job or worse.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/oops-adam-schiff-accidentally-leaks-name-of-anti-trump-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-in-bill-taylors-transcript/

Apparently the person who leaked the video worked for CBS as of yesterday but was fired after ABC figured out who leaked the video and let CBS know.

On related news, both networks are saying that the “whistleblower” who reported the Trump Ukraine phone call should not be named even though he is clearly a political actor. 

It's pretty obvious she's discussing it in the studio and not on the Project Veritas show, though I see many people only ran through the video and came to the same conclusion...

She didn’t leak the video. She was discussing the topic while on set recently. Most likely someone other than her leaked the video.

You mean kind of like Jimmy Savile? Oh, no one look at the skeletons in that closet mates!

3 years ago?

things had been leaked since the millenium. it just wasnt important then as epstien was 'just another man with popular friends'
but now he is dead its like its the top story and everyone is trying to glory hound themselves like they always knew it and they were part of the leak or they had information someone else didnt have..

sorry but brits knew about epstien and his underage stuff decades ago..
people knew epstien invites big named people for 'special parties' ages ago

you cant leak a leak if its already leaked.

Without a doubt some cabal rich people shit right here.

This is what happens when people disregard political affiliation and all that to band together to protect themselves against people in trouble for being LITERAL monsters.

My question is why did she not leak this story herself 3 years ago? How much more abuse had occurred in that time frame?

The media was too busy trying to make something out of nothing to harpoon Brett Kavanaugh instead of reporting on something real like this.

This is some cabal / shadow government shit right here.

Cool story bro:

"Prosecutor in 2009 Epstein Case Said Donald Trump Was the ONLY ONE Who Helped Him"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/07/prosecutor-in-2009-epstein-case-said-donald-trump-was-the-only-one-who-helped-him/

The authenticity of the video was de-facto confirmed by ABC and the journalist based on their response to the video's publication.

ABC appears to have pulled a "NBC" type response in saying the story did not meet their standards, not unlike how NBC tried to kill the Wienstein story that Ronan Farrow was pursuing.

so people talking on twitter about a news anchor saying she had x/y/z

how about watch a UK documentary series called dispatches : the prince and the paedophile
(prince andrew and epstein)

its not new(fresh) its old news

for years the brits have known about epstein

for years epstein has had powerful friends.


the only reason americans are talking about it now is that now he is dead they no longer feel they wrath of legal pursuits of having to sit in a court room if they announce it
but it was never private or a secret in the first place

loads of people remember prince andrew and fergy's divorce decades ago.. and the possible reasons
the country literally rallied around and supported fergy and just let andrew fade away as if fergy was more royal than andrew
because we knew andrew was so bad with  his relations to epstein

If Bill Clinton wasn't visiting the island 27 times it would be all over the news because Trump visited it (once?).
It's the state of the media.

Where did you see Project Veritas is known for editing their content?
I loved their Deboosting video and the Google insiders. Shed some light on things I already suspected.

Here's the longer version for those who haven't viewed it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lfwkTsJGYA

I have been trying to tell you with much difficulty for some time that you are making a mistake hoping to get accurate and timely information from the very same cartels responsible for these issues, that end up being reported elsewhere. If the Genovese or the Bonanno family owned a news network, exactly how much would you expect them to report on the organized crime problems in the local area? You disregard anything independent for not being completely vetted and checked, when the ones that are completely vetted and checked are the ones guaranteed to never touch on certain issues. Instead of trusting your own senses and intelligence you insist some one define what reality is for you, freeing you of the responsibility.

I've seen this all over twitter, and now on the Daily Wire. BUT NO OTHER NEWS SOURCE HAS WENT AFTER THIS.

No one, not a fucking news source in the world. Not the Conservatives at the WSJ, or the Liberals at CNN/NY Times/etc. While I know that Project Veritas is KNOWN to be a group that edits a large amount of their content, even if this is edited this isn't something you just say.

Epstein didn't kill himself, and people in the upper echelon of society were involved in his death.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-abc-news-killed-epstein-clinton-story-says-anchor-in-hot-mic-video

I'm going to leave this one moderated just cause I hate the CryptoTalk spam here.