Amy Robach bombshell

[evs]

Who killed the story? Between Clinton’s and British royals, who is more image obsessed?

[Lochdubh]

The Palace
Kate & Will

A Brit might say Buck House

[evs]

Obviously to say that this about image only is wrong - prince Andrews and bill Clintons and the rest were mostly afraid of jail tome. Afraid enough to kill Epstein though? Certainly looks like it.

[mimi]

I gotta wonder about someone who would sit on a story about what that man was doing, for THREE YEARS...without doing anything about it. There isn't a job out there that pays enough, that I could turn a blind eye to it.

Having said that....it's quite feasible, that the network COULDN'T put the story out there, if (as stated) there wasn't enough valid proof. That's something we ALL don't like about mainstream media. So what is it ?

[evs]

They could have said only the stuff they had proof for. Which sounds like it was enough to have their story banned.

[mimi]

Quite possible.

I just find it odd that she is speaking of her frustration in being 'silenced'. Butifshe did in fact have PROOF....you take it to wherever it will be heard.

Otherwise, she is kind of complicit. No?

She is coming across like she KNEW...and had the proof....yet did nothing.

[evs]

I’ve been reading about a “network of ppl” that were involved. It’s hard enough to go against a powerful institution or a person but make that into a network and you and your decisions and determination become merely an afterthought. Not defending here any of her actions, just trying to understand what might have been the course of events.

ABC and other mainstream media outlets refused to cover accusations against sex predator Jeffrey Epstein because “a network of people” that includes their executives were implicated, James O’Keefe of Project Veritas told RT.

The Disney-owned network has doubled down on its insistence that anchor Amy Robach’s story on Epstein three years ago lacked “enough corroboration” and thus wasn’t aired. This was after Project Veritas released a “hot mic” video of Robach slamming the decision to quash the story.

The conservative filmmaker told RT on Tuesday that he believes ABC’s refusal to budge from that explanation backs up Robach’s claim that “a network of people” – including the executives running her channel – are “covering up for this” because they are somehow “implicated.”

[evs]

Btw is it surprising that Disney spinoff media company is allegedly full of pedophiles. I think not:(

[mimi]

Too much 'finger pointing' to sort any truths out.

All I know, is that if I had PROOF...that a sexual predator was among us....AND, I had the proof to back it up....I wouldn't quit until I found someone who would listen....even if it meant losing a massively paying job. There's just something wrong with her story.
Or maybe not....but it didn't mean enough to her to give up the big bucks.

[evs]

What if it meant losing your life? Epstein was killed after all as he would have been the one to talk.

I wouldn’t have been able to sit quietly for sure but I have no idea what I would have done:( this stuff is not just for the news, it’s for a lawsuit. Against the ex-prez of the us and a British royal? The “swamp” doesn’t get deeper than that.

[mimi]

I dunno.

I just don't know. I have never been in that kind of position.
And I DO understand these are circumstances that I have never been in...so it's a wee bit arrogant to say what I would do, or what she should do. But once you've made the decision to remain silent...you have to carry that silence. NOT go on about what she 'knew'.

[evs]

I need to see the video again. Because I thought she was forcibly silenced, she didn’t make a decision to remain silent.

[mimi]

I need to see the video again. Because I thought she was forcibly silenced, she didn’t make a decision remain silent.

She was....but only in terms of retaining her employment THERE. That's what I've been saying.

So either she had a notion of what was going on....or she had PROOF of what was going on.
She is implying she had proof. And I'm saying....if she had proof...an ethical person would have taken it elsewhere....anywhere, until she was heard.
It's all well and good to say she knew...but if she was willing to sit on it....it becomes a matter of retaining a paycheque...not a matter of ethics.

[evs]

Just watched again. I couldn’t agree more that she could have found a way. She says she is pissed? Those women and girls were molested in most horrific ways - what are they to feel?? She talked about this as if this is some grave injustice to her personally?? What about the victims!!

[evs]

But I think that no matter the decision once made to remain silent, she is right to decide to speak at any time. Better late than never:(

[mimi]

Just watched again. I couldn’t agree more that she could have found a way. She says she is pissed? Those women and girls were molested in most horrific ways - what are they to feel?? She talked about this as if this is some grave injustice to her personally?? What about the victims!!

Ya...that's kind of where I'm at.
She is trying to portray herself as a potential saviour....(and if she had PROOF.....then she WOULD HAVE BEEN)....but that she couldn't do anything because her job stood in her way. It smacks of being all about her career.

I look at it, like this....if someone knew there was a pedophile about to strike in my neighbourhood....and someone could have stopped it, but for their status...they chose not to....they are no better than the perpetrator. =( She is in the position to stop it...or not to stop it.

So...either she didn't have the proof she claims to have....or she did. If she did.....her decision to sit on it for 3 years doesn't look good on her.