Breaking: ABC news insider leaks hot mic video to project veritaas major Jeffery E. investigation...

[Pogo]

She sounds like she is upset because she won't get credit for the story.

Of course she is. Who wouldn't be? It's a good bit of work, and she was proven right wasn't she.

Steve Wilson and Jane Akre famously found the same dead end. They were not amused either.

​

Oh, and they were right too.

Well, a real professional would have been upset on the quashing of the story, not their own personal loss. But as I said, a real professional...

I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.

 

[Pogo]

This is a great example of why I never take the idiots on the left seriously when they doubt something has happened simply because 1 of the Democractic Media outlets hasn't aired it.

There is a whole world of things going on out there that only -

Consumers of actual news know about.

It's associated with James O'Keefe, who's a known fraudster. Ever hear the phrase "trust but verify"?

Or do you just swallow everything whole on the basis that it looks like it tastes good?

 

[Pogo]

Thanks to ABC's inaction, Epstein and his pedophile pals continued their heinous activity longer than it should have.

What the fake news is doing is

Election rigging

That is high treason

Once AGAIN there is ZERO --- nothing, The Void, Absence of Anything --- in the entire commentary relating in any way to any "elections" in any way whatsoever. NADA. NICHTS. RIEN.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Nostra]

This is a great example of why I never take the idiots on the left seriously when they doubt something has happened simply because 1 of the Democractic Media outlets hasn't aired it.

There is a whole world of things going on out there that only -

Consumers of actual news know about.

It's associated with James O'Keefe, who's a known fraudster. Ever hear the phrase "trust but verify"?

Or do you just swallow everything whole on the basis that it looks like it tastes good?

It's a video, idiot.

 

[CWayne]

She sounds like she is upset because she won't get credit for the story.

Of course she is. Who wouldn't be? It's a good bit of work, and she was proven right wasn't she.

Steve Wilson and Jane Akre famously found the same dead end. They were not amused either.

​

Oh, and they were right too.

Well, a real professional would have been upset on the quashing of the story, not their own personal loss. But as I said, a real professional...

I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.

Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,

 

[Billiejeens]

She sounds like she is upset because she won't get credit for the story.

Of course she is. Who wouldn't be? It's a good bit of work, and she was proven right wasn't she.

Steve Wilson and Jane Akre famously found the same dead end. They were not amused either.

​

Oh, and they were right too.

Well, a real professional would have been upset on the quashing of the story, not their own personal loss. But as I said, a real professional...

I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.

Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,

She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.

 

[Pogo]

She sounds like she is upset because she won't get credit for the story.

Of course she is. Who wouldn't be? It's a good bit of work, and she was proven right wasn't she.

Steve Wilson and Jane Akre famously found the same dead end. They were not amused either.

​

Oh, and they were right too.

Well, a real professional would have been upset on the quashing of the story, not their own personal loss. But as I said, a real professional...

I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.

Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,

That sounds reasonable. I would. And maybe she did, who knows. I'd never want to presume that just because I don't know about something it never happened.

 

[Pogo]

She sounds like she is upset because she won't get credit for the story.

Of course she is. Who wouldn't be? It's a good bit of work, and she was proven right wasn't she.

Steve Wilson and Jane Akre famously found the same dead end. They were not amused either.

​

Oh, and they were right too.

Well, a real professional would have been upset on the quashing of the story, not their own personal loss. But as I said, a real professional...

I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.

Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,

She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.

Nobody "owns" evidence.

But you're correct, ABC is not a real news outlet, it's (AGAIN) a commercial network, which means it broadcasts what SELLS. That's what commercial broadcasting does.

 

[CWayne]

She sounds like she is upset because she won't get credit for the story.

Of course she is. Who wouldn't be? It's a good bit of work, and she was proven right wasn't she.

Steve Wilson and Jane Akre famously found the same dead end. They were not amused either.

​

Oh, and they were right too.

Well, a real professional would have been upset on the quashing of the story, not their own personal loss. But as I said, a real professional...

I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.

Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,

She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.

The problem is that people seem to think that a corporation owns the information.

 

[Billiejeens]

Of course she is. Who wouldn't be? It's a good bit of work, and she was proven right wasn't she.

Steve Wilson and Jane Akre famously found the same dead end. They were not amused either.

​

Oh, and they were right too.

Well, a real professional would have been upset on the quashing of the story, not their own personal loss. But as I said, a real professional...

I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.

Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,

She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.

The problem is that people seem to think that a corporation owns the information.

Whatever work product she produced for ABC
ABC owns
Your not really that ignorant are you?

 

[CWayne]

Well, a real professional would have been upset on the quashing of the story, not their own personal loss. But as I said, a real professional...

I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.

Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,

She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.

The problem is that people seem to think that a corporation owns the information.

Whatever work product she produced for ABC
ABC owns
Your not really that ignorant are you?

So, a real journalist would put the information out there. You see, there is a difference between her work product (a finished product) and the facts that can be disseminated.

Do you really think that information can be owned?

 

[Billiejeens]

I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.

Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,

She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.

The problem is that people seem to think that a corporation owns the information.

Whatever work product she produced for ABC
ABC owns
Your not really that ignorant are you?

So, a real journalist would put the information out there. You see, there is a difference between her work product (a finished product) and the facts that can be disseminated.

Do you really think that information can be owned?

Are you under the impression that the information wasn't already in the public domain and simply ignored because it led back to Democratic politicians?

 

[Pogo]

Well, a real professional would have been upset on the quashing of the story, not their own personal loss. But as I said, a real professional...

I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.

Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,

She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.

The problem is that people seem to think that a corporation owns the information.

Whatever work product she produced for ABC
ABC owns
Your not really that ignorant are you?

The network would own the production. Not the information that built it.

 

[Pogo]

Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,

She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.

The problem is that people seem to think that a corporation owns the information.

Whatever work product she produced for ABC
ABC owns
Your not really that ignorant are you?

So, a real journalist would put the information out there. You see, there is a difference between her work product (a finished product) and the facts that can be disseminated.

Do you really think that information can be owned?

Are you under the impression that the information wasn't already in the public domain and simply ignored because it led back to Democratic politicians?

Again --- neither Jeffrey Epstein nor the British royal family were/are "politicians". This was not a "politics" story, desperate though you may be to beat it into one so you can have your little message board wankfest.

 

[CWayne]

Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,

She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.

The problem is that people seem to think that a corporation owns the information.

Whatever work product she produced for ABC
ABC owns
Your not really that ignorant are you?

So, a real journalist would put the information out there. You see, there is a difference between her work product (a finished product) and the facts that can be disseminated.

Do you really think that information can be owned?

Are you under the impression that the information wasn't already in the public domain and simply ignored because it led back to Democratic politicians?

Three years ago, it wasn't in the public eye. When a reporter (not journalist, they don't have those at the broadcast networks) wanted to go with the story to bring it to the attention of the world, her employer quashed it because they wanted continued access to the royal family and that the Clintons might be exposed.

Clearly the information was NOT common knowledge though it may have been in the public domain.

A REAL journalist would have taken the gathered facts and either published them anonymously or passed the information to a colleague who was not under the restrictions of a partisan editor.

Why you are defending this is beyond reason, but regardless, I've made my position clear on this story and the person who failed to do what was necessary to publish it.

You disagree, then you do. That will not change my mind on this.

 

[WEATHER53]

This is why media must be shut down as a national security act
They do not report occurrent fact events
They do speculate about what might have happened or they think should have happened and present that as fact when it is not
In this case they actually suppressed and thwarted the release of fact information that did not fit their liberal palate.
They are a danger to America and no longer a resource of America

 

[TheGreenHornet]

This is why media must be shut down as a national security act
They do not report occurrent tact events
They do speculate about what might have happened or they think should have happened and present that as fact when it is not
In this case they actually suppressed and thwarted the release of fact information that did not fit their liberal palate.I
They are a danger to America and no longer a resource of America

Without a doubt. Too many are easily misled....and the media is always right there misleading them.

When Republicans regain control of the house then an immediate congressional inquiry should begin regarding fake news, media bias and what can be done to make sure the media is held accountable.

 

[Billiejeens]

She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.

The problem is that people seem to think that a corporation owns the information.

Whatever work product she produced for ABC
ABC owns
Your not really that ignorant are you?

So, a real journalist would put the information out there. You see, there is a difference between her work product (a finished product) and the facts that can be disseminated.

Do you really think that information can be owned?

Are you under the impression that the information wasn't already in the public domain and simply ignored because it led back to Democratic politicians?

Again --- neither Jeffrey Epstein nor the British royal family were/are "politicians". This was not a "politics" story, desperate though you may be to beat it into one so you can have your little message board wankfest.

The Royal Family is certainly an Issue of Political Consequence -
But still
Do you know who Bill Clinton is?

 

[Billiejeens]

She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.

The problem is that people seem to think that a corporation owns the information.

Whatever work product she produced for ABC
ABC owns
Your not really that ignorant are you?

So, a real journalist would put the information out there. You see, there is a difference between her work product (a finished product) and the facts that can be disseminated.

Do you really think that information can be owned?

Are you under the impression that the information wasn't already in the public domain and simply ignored because it led back to Democratic politicians?

Three years ago, it wasn't in the public eye. When a reporter (not journalist, they don't have those at the broadcast networks) wanted to go with the story to bring it to the attention of the world, her employer quashed it because they wanted continued access to the royal family and that the Clintons might be exposed.

Clearly the information was NOT common knowledge though it may have been in the public domain.

A REAL journalist would have taken the gathered facts and either published them anonymously or passed the information to a colleague who was not under the restrictions of a partisan editor.

Why you are defending this is beyond reason, but regardless, I've made my position clear on this story and the person who failed to do what was necessary to publish it.

You disagree, then you do. That will not change my mind on this.

Sexual Abuse allegations against Epstein began in 2005 when a 14 year old girl accused Epstein.
Investigators spoke with 5 alleged victims and 17 witnesses.
In 2006 Police sought to have Epstein arrested but it was taken to a grand jury.
Grand jury came back with a charge.
In 2008 Epstein took a plea deal.
In 2009 His non Prosecution agreement became public - dozens file lawsuits.
In 2015 Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz are accused.

I'm wondering who it is that you think didn't know-
Is it the same people who "didn't know" about Harvey Weinstein?

 

[Ame®icano]

This is a great example of why I never take the idiots on the left seriously when they doubt something has happened simply because 1 of the Democractic Media outlets hasn't aired it.

There is a whole world of things going on out there that only -

Consumers of actual news know about.

It's associated with James O'Keefe, who's a known fraudster. Ever hear the phrase "trust but verify"?

Or do you just swallow everything whole on the basis that it looks like it tastes good?

Right...

Everyone who exposes left is a fraudster.