Epstein Commits Suicide While on Suicide Watch (Maybe?)

paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

 Are you defending ABC's quashing of Amy Robach's investigation based on the investigation, and supporting documentation, NOT meeting ABC's journalistic standards?

 are you vilifying them for adhering to their journalistic standards?

 How many reporters and resources did ABC devote to confirming Robach's reporting?

 do you know?

Also - can you report to us on how much time news outlets have taken and how many reporters/resources are used to verify and confirm facts in all future articles/links/tweets you post?  TIA

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said: 

- just my take on it).

We can choose to believe ml1’s take or yours.

More eliminating quotes by DS to eliminate context.  In this instance you have eliminated my quote except for a portion of my posting (namely, just my take on it).   The last sentence of my posting was as follows:  Inherent in forcing/compelling A. Robach to read such a statement is intimidation of A. Robach and a veiled threat (Amy either circle the wagons with us or you will be out - just my take on it).  Clearly,  just my take on it was contained in a parenthetical and only applied to the contents of the parenthetical and the words "veiled threat" upon which the parenthetical was expanding upon.

IOW,  "just my take on it" was of limited application.  Instead, you have edited in a manner to make it appear that entire posting was my opinion.  As you know, I was disproving ml1's assertion that  "You can choose to believe her or Project Veritas."  PV did not create the A. Robach open mic video.  Thus, ml1's attribution to PV for the video is factually incorrect.  

I will accept your butchery of my posting and elimination of context as an acknowledgement by you that A. Robach's video is genuine and not produced or created by PV.

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

 On the other hand, it's obviously a true statement.

 How can it not be, it’s totally meaningless.

 That's a totally meaningless response.

Simpsons did it! pic.twitter.com/pfTE9flDZX

— Klara Sjöberg (@klara_sjo) November 12, 2019

RealityForAll said:

More eliminating quotes by DS to eliminate context.  In this instance you have eliminated my quote except for a portion of my posting (namely, just my take on it).   The last sentence of my posting was as follows:  Inherent in forcing/compelling A. Robach to read such a statement is intimidation of A. Robach and a veiled threat (Amy either circle the wagons with us or you will be out - just my take on it).  Clearly,  just my take on it was contained in a parenthetical and only applied to the contents of the parenthetical and the words "veiled threat" upon which the parenthetical was expanding upon.

IOW,  "just my take on it" was of limited application.  Instead, you have edited in a manner to make it appear that entire posting was my opinion.  As you know, I was disproving ml1's assertion that  "You can choose to believe her or Project Veritas."  PV did not create the A. Robach open mic video.  Thus, ml1's attribution to PV for the video is factually incorrect.  

I will accept your butchery of my posting and elimination of context as an acknowledgement by you that A. Robach's video is genuine and not produced or created by PV.

I never suggested that Project Veritas "created" a video.  But they presented a video without context, and without going back to get any explanation from the person in the video.  They are well known for presenting videos devoid of all context to create a false narrative.  This may be the one time that the video presented means what they say it means and not what the subject of the video says it means.  But would you put your faith in an organization like Project Veritas, which is almost 100% of the time presenting stories in a deceptive way?
I don't know the truth any more than you do, but I'm going to give more weight to the more credible source.  It makes more sense that the interview was shelved because ABC couldn't get any other people to go on record with their allegations than that they had an airtight story with reliable sourcing and killed it.  Especially if it was indeed three years ago.  How much of a blockbuster would it have been to have allegations of sexual misconduct against one party's presidential candidate and the husband of the other party's candidate in the middle of the campaign?

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

More eliminating quotes by DS to eliminate context.  In this instance you have eliminated my quote except for a portion of my posting (namely, just my take on it).   The last sentence of my posting was as follows:  Inherent in forcing/compelling A. Robach to read such a statement is intimidation of A. Robach and a veiled threat (Amy either circle the wagons with us or you will be out - just my take on it).  Clearly,  just my take on it was contained in a parenthetical and only applied to the contents of the parenthetical and the words "veiled threat" upon which the parenthetical was expanding upon.

IOW,  "just my take on it" was of limited application.  Instead, you have edited in a manner to make it appear that entire posting was my opinion.  As you know, I was disproving ml1's assertion that  "You can choose to believe her or Project Veritas."  PV did not create the A. Robach open mic video.  Thus, ml1's attribution to PV for the video is factually incorrect.  

I will accept your butchery of my posting and elimination of context as an acknowledgement by you that A. Robach's video is genuine and not produced or created by PV.

I never suggested that Project Veritas "created" a video.  But they presented a video without context, and without going back to get any explanation from the person in the video.  They are well known for presenting videos devoid of all context to create a false narrative.  This may be the one time that the video presented means what they say it means and not what the subject of the video says it means.  But would you put your faith in an organization like Project Veritas, which is almost 100% of the time presenting stories in a deceptive way?
I don't know the truth any more than you do, but I'm going to give more weight to the more credible source.  It makes more sense that the interview was shelved because ABC couldn't get any other people to go on record with their allegations than that they had an airtight story with reliable sourcing and killed it.  Especially if it was indeed three years ago.  How much of a blockbuster would it have been to have allegations of sexual misconduct against one party's presidential candidate and the husband of the other party's candidate in the middle of the campaign?

 And you are well known for posting without (or eliminating) context.

RealityForAll said:

 And you are well known for posting without (or eliminating) context.

this is a lie that you keep telling. 

Do you think I would spend the effort to go back and change comments in order to make you look like a pompous lackwit?  Why would I when you're doing a great job on your own?

RealityForAll said:

 And you are well known for posting without (or eliminating) context.

 you really need to just shut up about this. 

RealityForAll said:

I will accept your butchery of my posting and elimination of context as an acknowledgement by you that A. Robach's video is genuine and not produced or created by PV.

As I’ve said, you’re welcome to conclude, accept or take anything you’d like from my posts. Why you announce your decisions so emphatically, I don’t know, but it’s none of my business.

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

 Are you defending ABC's quashing of Amy Robach's investigation based on the investigation, and supporting documentation, NOT meeting ABC's journalistic standards?

 are you vilifying them for adhering to their journalistic standards?

 How many reporters and resources did ABC devote to confirming Robach's reporting?

 do you know?

Those touting ABC's journalistic standards should know.

jamie said:

Also - can you report to us on how much time news outlets have taken and how many reporters/resources are used to verify and confirm facts in all future articles/links/tweets you post?  TIA

The next time I defend a corporate news organization's claim that it buried a shocking story about billionaire friend to the rich and powerful because of its journalistic standards I will make such an effort.

paulsurovell said:

The next time I defend a corporate news organization's claim that it buried a shocking story about billionaire friend to the rich and powerful because of its journalistic standards I will make such an effort.

I suppose there are people who prefer to watch videos but I posted this NPR article above which addresses the relevant issues. 

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/05/776482189/abc-news-defends-its-epstein-coverage-after-leaked-video-of-anchor

ABC had done two dozen Epstein stories and is working on another series of them. They just didn't run one interview and the above article states the reason regarding libel law and the standard the report would have needed to meet. It doesn't state the number of people working on it, but they describe what appears to be considerable effort to verify the claims. 

Project Veritas is known to be fake news in the real sense of that now discredited term. If one has to decide between NPR or Project Veritas when determining the veracity of a story it's not a hard choice. Or at least it shouldn't be. 

Did Jeffrey Epstein die by homicide or suicide? | 60 Minutes Australia

Link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocud-x8Ocuo

Exposing Jeffrey Epstein's international sex trafficking ring | 60 Minutes Australia

Link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQOOxOl9l80

Fun facts!

ridski said:

Fun facts!

 I presented no facts in my two ("2") recent postings set forth above.  As a result, your posting is factually incorrect.  Instead, I provided: i.) 60 Minutes (Australia) headlines for two ("2") recent 60 Minutes (Australia) videos; and ii.) links to the approximately four ("4") minute videos (to which the headlines apply).

Just gonna keep reminding myself I live in a stigma-free town.

ridski said:

Just gonna keep reminding myself I live in a stigma-free town.

I'm going to have to adopt this strategy as well.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1195828596457250817

nan said:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1195828596457250817

 Glenn nails it, as usual.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/ex-us-attorney-calls-epstein-suicide-more-than-coincidental/

====================================================

Brief Excerpt from above link:

Ex-US attorney calls Epstein suicide ‘more than coincidental’
By Bruce GoldingNovember 20, 2019 | 2:06pm | Updated

An ex-United States attorney said Wednesday that “you have to be concerned” about Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide in a Lower Manhattan lockup — which he called “more than coincidental.”

Former Utah US Attorney Brett Tolman told “Fox & Friends” that he believed the indictment filed Tuesday against two prison guards accused of sleeping and surfing the internet instead of checking on Epstein was intended to “apply pressure to find out everything that they know.”

“If you look at this, it’s very possible that this is just a dereliction of duty and that these guards made the mistake of not following through,” Tolman said.

“But you would have to look at it in a vacuum and come to that conclusion and ignore everything else that’s gone on with this case against Epstein.”

paulsurovell said:

nan said:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1195828596457250817

 Glenn nails it, as usual.

Video about the interview Prince Andrew did to discuss his relationship with Epstein.  Naturally, he says he was just an innocent bystander.  Also, he lost his sweat glands in the Falkland War and he remembers the exact date he had pizza 15 years ago and he does not drink and his problem is that he is too "honorable."

Hey, these things happen . .

Prosecutors have revealed that surveillance footage of accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein's cell during his first suicide attempt has gone missing https://t.co/eVzoXhN2uJ
— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) December 19, 2019
 

paulsurovell said:

Hey, these things happen . .

See:  https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-epstein-tartaglione-video-footage-20191218-riodo5rhvfhuznn45knlyfrj2m-story.html

Recent 60 minutes report on JE:  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-jeffrey-epstein-kill-himself-60-minutes-investigates-2020-01-05/

PS Especially view the Dr. Baden segment beginning at 11:00 regarding unusual fractures ( I believe that three fractures were found in JE's neck - Baden's POV is that three fractures in adams-apple area is almost never suicide but instead murder by strangulation).

Ricky Gervais joke from Golden Globes:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCNdTLHZAeo

JE joke begins at 3:15.

You do know that Baden was fired as NYC Chief Medical Examiner for performance reasons, right?

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/08/01/archives/koch-removes-baden-as-the-citys-medical-examiner-koch-referring-to.html

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2019/10/why-to-be-skeptical-of-michael-baden-on-epsteins-death.html

Steve said:

You do know that Baden was fired as NYC Chief Medical Examiner for performance reasons, right?

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/08/01/archives/koch-removes-baden-as-the-citys-medical-examiner-koch-referring-to.html

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2019/10/why-to-be-skeptical-of-michael-baden-on-epsteins-death.html

 Are you disputing that JE had three broken bones in his neck/adams-apple area when autopsied?

Given that I haven't seen the x-rays nor the body itself, it would be foolhardy for me to dispute that.  That said, Baden isn't the be-all, end-all that he claims to be (and some people believe him to be).  

Do you know that there were three fractures?