ABC covered up Epstein story for 3 years

Originally posted by SquallX
Yet Epstein had a relationship with the Clintons and the crown prince, and the media stays silence.

Maybe you missed where I covered that the Clinton's didn't want the Epstein connection either, so here it is again:

Originally posted by Robtard
As always, your denial of reality won't actually change it, Surt.

Neither Clinton nor Trump wanted the Epstein connection to come back and bite them, especially during election time.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Remember, kids, one of the 15 women who is suing Trump for sexual assault says Trump violently raped her when she was 13-years-old at an orgy hosted by . . . Jeffrey Epstein.

Bingo

I remember when Avenatti thought he was going to depose Trump.

I remember when Steve Bannon said Avenatti would make a great presidential candidate...

He might of been

Nah

Originally posted by Robtard
Bingo

And yet the reporter only ended up finding something on Clinton, not Trump.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nah

If he wasn’t such a loser

Speaking of Avenatti, he ties into one of the reasons ABC's excuse for not running this story just doesn't fly. If this story didn't meet their "standards" then the Brett Kavanaugh/Julie Swetnick story sure as hell didn't meet them either. Yet they aired it lol.

The woman fired for being the brave whistleblower has come forward and is denying she even is the one who blew the whistle. She's an emmy award winning tv producer.

So in their hypocritical search for the whistleblower they ate one of their own.

She recorded it though.

Odd she wouldn't take credit for the leak, since she was already fired over it. Guess she doesn't want to celebrity trouble (Because recording it is less interesting then leaking it?)

She might be hoping the backlash will get her a second chance.

IMO even if she is the whistleblower she didn't deserve to be fired. Whoever quashed the story in order to protect Epstein and the Clintons should be fired.

Originally posted by Surtur
So it's not really the same.

No, it is exactly the same. The character and history of a family member is irrelevant, because that person is not being considered for the position. At best, it is an attempt to unfairly prejudice people against the candidate for the actions of someone else. I wonder how cisgender heterosexual white men, conservatives, or Trump supporters would feel about being generalized like that?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, it is exactly the same. The character and history of a family member is irrelevant, because that person is not being considered for the position. At best, it is an attempt to unfairly prejudice people against the candidate for the actions of someone else. I wonder how cisgender heterosexual white men, conservatives, or Trump supporters would feel about being generalized like that?

Talking about the killing of the stories. It is not the same.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
😂