Jeffrey Epstein: ABC stopped report 'amid Palace threats' | Hacker News Reader

Jeffrey Epstein: ABC stopped report 'amid Palace threats'

bbc.com

124 pointstomohawk26 comments

ABC's excuse of the allegations not meeting their journalistic standards at the time doesn't hold up. The evidence against Epstein in 2016 was very solid compared to other accusation stories that ABC granted national coverage.

Sitting on this story and similarly, the Weinstein stories, is inexcusable for media that wants to wrap themselves in the flag of journalistic integrity. It's no wonder trust is at an all-time low.

Bill Clinton is mentioned. "Three years ago" means that ABC suppressed the story during the 2016 presidential election.

> In 2015, a judge ruled that the allegations made by Ms Giuffre regarding Prince Andrew were "immaterial and impertinent" and ordered them to be removed from a claim against Epstein.

I'm not up on British legal terminology. What does it mean when a court finds an allegation "impertinent"? I know what the word "impertinent" means in ordinary English, but if it was just that it seems an odd thing for a court to declare when dismissing something. I'd expect them to just say it was immaterial and leave it at that. So I'm guessing "impertinent" has some specific legal meaning in their system?

impertinent, definition 2 (formal): not pertinent to a particular matter; irrelevant

So yeah, judge is just saying the same thing twice for emphasis.

There's a bunch of "words" in the english legal system that are like that: a pair of words (with one frequently sourced from french). There's a list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_doublet

"immaterial and impertinent" isn't referenced on that list, but shows up in a list of reasons to dismiss. https://www.upcounsel.com/legal-def-averment suggests that they were once different, but are now the same.

Was just looking around for some corrobation, and it seems that project Veritas has found something for once.

WaPo Opinion piece: (It estimates that this is on the same order of magnitude as the mishandling of the Weinstein scandal by NBC.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/05/ive-had-t...

Hollywoodreport (which quotes more from the ABC statement and Robach's statements on the Veritas video):

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/abcs-amy-robach-made-...

The primary source: https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/11/05/video-leaked-insid...

News outlets should self-report any threats to their integrity, thereby protecting themselves from any blowback by oligarchs.

This clip was released by Project Veritas. This is James O'Keefe's propaganda outfit.

This is the same person who attempted to trick a CNN reporter onto a boat full of sex toys in an attempt to seduce her on camera: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/acorn-foe-james-okeefe-sought-t...

In 2017, they were caught trying to convince The Washington Post to publish fabricated rape allegations: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approa...

He's been convicted of sneaking into Congressional offices.

You should read up on this person before believing anything they release: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe.

Project Veritas is a pure propaganda outfit, and republishing anything they do is a disservice to information.

If there was any doubt as to the veracity of the leaked video, ABC would have simply issued a denial.

Hasn't Project Veritas burned any ability to claim to be a factual outlet at this point?

The conjectured story is concerning, but the fact that Project Veritas is the primary source yields a quite shaky providence. I'd much rather BBC had found better corroboration before running such a story.

> Hasn't Project Veritas burned any ability to claim to be a factual outlet at this point?

No? What supports this claim?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com