Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Epstein is reportedly dead
(11-05-2019, 03:16 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote:

Project Veritas information on Epstein. Watch this before YT removes it!

It's all there and they won't show you!
Bastard MSM.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
(11-05-2019, 05:20 PM)BIAD Wrote:
(11-05-2019, 03:16 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote:

Project Veritas information on Epstein. Watch this before YT removes it!

It's all there and they won't show you!
Bastard MSM.

From a Twitter user:

Quote:[/url][Image: VJN-UDOh_bigger.png]


In addition to these statements not actually being responsive to what the initial hot mic claims were, mostly what this shows is that ABC News has indefensibly different standards for, e.g., Kavanaugh allegations or Covington boys then it does Clinton-connected pedophiles.

I agree!  And think of all the children who have been abused in the last three years because ABC covered this up!
They should be sued by the victims!
Do we have the unredacted version of Epstein's little black book?  If not, here it is:
I think this list has been sanitized.
I didn't find any mention of the Clintons.  tinywhat
But, the Trumps, Yes. tinysure

Trump, Robert & Blaine

Trump, Ivana

Trump, lvanka
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
(11-06-2019, 02:43 AM)guohua Wrote: I think this list has been sanitized.
I didn't find any mention of the Clintons.  tinywhat
But, the Trumps, Yes. tinysure

Trump, Robert & Blaine

Trump, Ivana

Trump, lvanka

Very interesting about Ivanka Trump being in his black book.  That could just be people he had some kind of business dealings with.  I think the more important list is the flight logs.  Donald Trump is on that one, but only because he hitched a ride from FL back to NY.  He never went to his pedo island.
An absolute classic!! (hear the ending)

[Image: attachment.php?aid=6606]
[Image: attachment.php?aid=6607]

Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
We knew this was coming, right? 
The staffer who released the tape of Amy Robach discussing her information regarding Epstein has been fired. Turns out it was a former employee at ABC who was, at the time of the release, working at CBS.

Quote:The former ABC News employee who leaked the video of Amy Robach talking about the network refusing to run her story on one of Jeffrey Epstein's accusers was fired from their current job at CBS News.

Project Veritas released a video Tuesday of Robach discussing the information she received years earlier from Virginia Roberts Giuffre on a hot mic. She can be heard expressing her frustration surrounding ABC News's refusal to air the interview and claimed that the network made the decision after receiving threats from Buckingham Palace after they had found out Prince Andrew was implicated in the story. She also alleged that Epstein may have been murdered.

"It was unbelievable what we had. Clinton, we had everything," she stated. "I tried for three years to get it on to no avail. And now it's all coming out, and it's like these new revelations, and I freaking had all of it."
The former ABC News employee who accessed the video has been fired from the person's current position at CBS News, according to journalist Yashar Ali.

But... but... I thought I just read how important it is to protect whistle-blowers from any backlash when they expose corruption. Isn't this what the Democrats are screaming about concerning their whistle-blower in the impeachment scam?
Hmmm... sigh, I guess the protection only applies when the information goes in favor of DemoRats and their Pedo gods!  

Read more: Source
(11-07-2019, 06:37 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: Hmmm... sigh, I guess the protection only applies when the information goes in favor of DemoRats and their Pedo gods! 

And Royalty.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Editors Note: Project Veritas is publishing the writing below at the request of the ABC news insider who gave us the Amy Robach tape.

This was submitted to us in light of the actions taken against those wrongfully identified as involved in the leaking of the tape and the reactions of ABC news to their spiking of the story on Jeffrey Epstein.

Quote: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 can not 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.


ABC Insider: Why I, alone, released the Amy Robach Epstein tape.
Now here's a tip to anyone in the Establishment who needs assistance on shutting down a scandal.

Subtlety is usually a prerequisite when dealing with a taboo-activity and the news-hungry press, but if the
story you're trying to get out from under of has public passion and other information waiting to be exposed,
sometimes it's best to cry out the words that 'those-with-ears-to-listen' will rally to your side immediately.

Remember, Prince Andrew's interview was made at the BBC and broadcast on a Saturday evening at and on BBC 2, a lesser-used channel at that particular time. And of course, who funds the BBC?!

And so the man who's ex-wife took £15,000 from Epstein for debt problems, made the call and see if you
can spot the words. It's no accident that the BBC piece left what Prince Andrew said was his alibi until further
down to article. They had to because -like most news outlets, they believe readers only scan the headline
and possibly the first paragraph.

But they knew what he was saying and they knew that it was too direct.
Here we go.

Quote:Prince Andrew 'categorically' denies sex claims.

'The Duke of York has "categorically" denied having any sexual contact with an American woman, who says
she was forced to have sex with him aged 17. Answering questions about his links to convicted sex offender
Jeffrey Epstein in a BBC interview, Prince Andrew said the alleged incidents "never happened".

[Image: attachment.php?aid=6668]

Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein's accusers, claimed she was forced to have sex with the prince three times.
The prince said he was at home with his children on one of the occasions.

Prince Andrew, who is the Queen's third child, has been facing questions for several months over his ties to
Epstein, a 66-year-old American financier who took his own life while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges...'

Up to now, all fairly normal. We don't know who wrote this as the usual Journalist's name is missing under the title,
but you can bet it was heavily edited and checked. Of course, the interview itself was a milktoast formula and real
probing was never even contemplated.

Quote:'...Virginia Giuffre - then called Virginia Roberts - has said she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew between
2001 - when she was 17 - and 2002, in London, New York and Epstein's private island in the US Virgin Islands.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight's Emily Maitlis, the prince said: "It didn't happen. I can absolutely categorically tell you
it never happened."
"I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever."

He said Ms Giuffre's account of him "profusely sweating" and "pouring with perspiration" when they danced at the club
on the night in 2001 when she says they first had sex was impossible, because he had a medical condition preventing
him from perspiring.

In an extraordinary interview, which you can watch in full on BBC iPlayer in the UK or YouTube elsewhere in the world,
the duke said:

*He had investigations carried out to establish whether a photograph of him with Ms Giuffre was faked, but they were
*He would testify under oath if "push came to shove" and his lawyers advised him to
*He was unaware of an arrest warrant against Epstein when he invited him to Princess Beatrice's 18th birthday party
at Windsor Castle
*He does not regret his friendship with Epstein because of "the opportunities I was given to learn" from him about trade
and business
*Speaking out about his relationship with the financier had become almost "a mental health issue" for him...'

"Unaware of an arrest warrant"..? Do you have any idea the vetting-procedures that goes on just to hold an actual
interview away from a secured area for the Windsors?! And as far as a 'mental health issue' is concerned, the same
broadcasters have had no problems with boasting the military careers of the Royals and their supposed-front-line
activity in conflicts.
But Prince Andrew is playing the victim card and BBC Newsnight host Emily Maitlis is letting him use it.

Quote:'.Addressing Ms Giuffre's claims that she had dined with the prince, danced with him at a nightclub, and went on to have
sex with him at the house of Ghislaine Maxwell, a friend of the prince, in Belgravia, central London, he said "there are a
number of things that are wrong with that story".

He said the date when Ms Giuffre says he had sex with her was 10 March 2001, when he had taken his daughter Beatrice
to Pizza Express in Woking for a party before spending the night at home.
"Going to Pizza Express in Woking is an unusual thing for me to do," he said. "I remember it weirdly distinctly."...'

There it is, there's the call. 'Woking' [pronounced woke-king] and Pizza Express. Anyone from Prince Andrew's many
advisers and those of the BBC with even the slightest interest in what has been slopped across social media recently would've
cautioned him to not use those words.
Yet he did and said them on -allegedly, one of the world's most respected broadcasting companies.

He cannot recall meeting this woman, but he can remember taking his daughter to a food-outlet on that particular day.
Prince Andrew said it was for a party, but what kind of party? Princess Beatrice's birthday is 8th August 1988, which would
have made her 13 years-old in 2001. Ms Giuffre stated that the date of her 'experience' was 10th March, so the visit wasn't
to celebrate her birthday and that the first encounter was at a nightclub, not a place one would go during the day.

Again, what type of security would you think there'd be for the second son of the Queen of England to just 'visit' a eating
-house on the corner of Oaks Road and Goldsworth Road in a town just south of London?
Never mind a light-pulsing busy Disco where Prince Andrew could be kidnapped! These types of activities require checking,
names of employees scrutinised and security agencies involved.

Quote:No memory
Ms Giuffre described him providing her with alcohol at a nightclub, but Prince Andrew said: "I don't drink, I don't think I've ever
bought a drink in Tramps whenever I was there." On claims he was sweating, he said: "I have a peculiar medical condition which
is that I don't sweat or I didn't sweat at the time," he said, blaming it on "an overdose of adrenaline in the Falklands War".
He said he had only started to be able to sweat again "in the recent past".

Asked about a photograph of him and Ms Giuffre being taken at Ghislaine Maxwell's house, he said he had "absolutely no memory"
of it. "Investigations that we've done" have been unable to prove whether the photograph was faked, he said, "because it is a
photograph of a photograph of a photograph".

[Image: attachment.php?aid=6669]

Prince Andrew said he did not recall going upstairs in that house, said he was not dressed as he usually would be if he was in London
and added "we can't be certain as to whether or not that's my hand". "I'm at a loss to explain this particular photograph," he said...'

Once again, important questions are not asked. Can a member of Royalty just turn up at a nightclub without the property
being first checked for undesirables and then monitored during the visit? Or was it a private function of a particular class-level,
where those attending were of suitable merit and on a special list?
If so, how did Giuffre get in...? Who gave the security agencies the nod that she was okay?!

If you wish to read the rest of the hand-washing, it's in the link below the article, but even for a 59 year-old 'normie' like me,
I can see his obvious cry for assistance. For those in the shadowy world of sexual exploitation for the elites, those words meant
'Shut It Down And Do It Now'.

Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
I dunno, man. I've "overdosed" on adrenaline a number of times, and it's never made me stop sweating...

... but I would say he is correct in announcing that he has recently begun to sweat... probably pretty profusely!

" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
(11-17-2019, 11:37 PM)Ninurta Wrote: I dunno, man. I've "overdosed" on adrenaline a number of times, and it's never made me stop sweating...

... but I would say he is correct in announcing that he has recently begun to sweat... probably pretty profusely!

The lack of perspiration could be something to do with the lizard blood he inherited from his mother or
the confident feeling he believed he had as royalty that he couldn't be held accountable.

But now it seems, Prince Andrew is utilising his mammal-side of his body and realising the ones with the
footage of what he did at Epstein's Manhattan mansion, are tugging his chain.

Maybe it's time his Ma made another phone call.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Here is a video from The Phoenix Enigma tearing apart the BBC interview with Prince Andrew.
(@BIAD went over the interview above too. Thank you BIAD. )

I bet Amy Robach from ABC News started throwing things when this interview with one of Jeff's victims came out in Australia. tinylaughing 

Wonder if these two will spill any beans?  They were offered a plea deal, but refused. 

Discovery time?   minusculebiggrin 

Quote:Two corrections officers tasked with guarding Jeffrey Epstein at the time of his suicide are expected to be taken into custody Tuesday, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

The two officers are expected to face charges related to accusations of falsifying prison records at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in lower Manhattan, where Epstein died on Aug. 10 while awaiting trial for sex trafficking.

Both guards were working overtime at the time of the financier’s death and allegedly failed to check on Epstein every half-hour as they were required to do. The charges stem from the duo falsifying forms to claim they’d carried out the required check-ins.
They will appear in Manhattan federal court later Tuesday.

Federal prosecutors offered the corrections officers plea deals, the Associated Press previously reported, but the officers turned them down.

The warden of the MCC, Lamine N’Diaye, was also reassigned in the wake of Epstein’s death, pending an investigation.

Psssssttttt!  Come closer.  Whispers: Epstein didn't kill himself.   minusculerolleyes

Read more:
Quote:This is just the beginning of the investigation into his death
The FBI and the US inspector general are continuing to investigate the systemic failures that led to Epstein's death and have subpoenaed dozens more witnesses.
It's unclear how quickly that investigation will proceed. The Department of Justice did not return the ABC's request for comment.
Epstein's victims and US politicians are growing impatient.
Twitter embed
Twitter: Tweet from Gloria Allred: "All those who knowingly assisted and enabled him can and must also be held accountable in both criminal and civil courts of law. We will not stop until the full truth is known and there is justice for the courageous victims of Jeffrey Epstein."
View on Twitter

During a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Republican senator Lindsay Graham repeatedly asked the US Bureau of Prisons chief how Epstein managed to kill himself and whether there was any evidence to suggest it was not a suicide.
"With a case this high-profile, there's got to be either a major malfunction in the system or a criminal enterprise at foot to allow this to happen," he said.
He was perhaps referring to the whirl of conspiracy theories stipulating that Epstein was murdered.
Medical authorities say there is no doubt Epstein committed suicide, and surveillance footage shows no one accessed the area where his cell was located on the night he died.

What about the sex crimes investigation?
Epstein's death ended the case against him, which could have involved prominent figures including Prince Andrew, who has been accused of having sex with one of Epstein's victims, Virginia Giuffre, when she was 17.
In a BBC interview widely seen as a train wreck, Prince Andrew again denied any knowledge of the incident but that has not stopped calls for him to speak with US investigators about what he does know.

Video: Prince Andrew describes Epstein's behaviour as 'unbecoming'. (ABC News)

Shortly after Epstein's death, US Attorney-General William Barr declared: "The victims deserve justice and they will get it".
"Let me assure you that this case will continue on against anyone who was complicit," he told a law enforcement conference in New Orleans."
It appears the FBI is still interviewing Epstein's victims as part of an ongoing investigation into possible accomplices.
While he denies any wrongdoing, legal experts say it is possible Prince Andrew could be subpoenaed.
Prince Andrew's BBC interview
[Image: prince-andrew-interviewed-bbc-data.jpg]
The Duke of York's interview about his relationship to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein may be a decision the House of Windsor ultimately regrets, writes Bridget Brennan.

Anna Rothwell, a lawyer at the British Law Firm Corker Binning, told the Times of London Prince Andrew is "not entitled to any form of immunity by virtue of his position as a member of the Royal family," and he would be "vulnerable to extradition".
In a fresh blow to the Duke of York, the Telegraph reports his name also appears in a cache of secret documents detailing new allegations against Epstein.
A judge in the US will reportedly decide before the end of the year whether to unseal the more than 3,000 pages of evidence which formed part of a defamation lawsuit in 2015.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)