Patterico's Pontifications


ABC Anchor Claims Interview With Epstein Victim Spiked By Network Three Years Ago

Filed under: General — Dana @ 2:39 pm

[guest post by Dana]

It was bad enough when NBC hindered reporting on Harvey Weinstein because the disgraced mogul allegedly pressured the network by claiming that he had information about Matt Lauer and wasn’t afraid to use it if necessary. Now, in an unbelievable “hot mic” moment, we are learning that three years ago, ABC quashed an interview with one of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims because Prince Andrew had been named by the victim, and the royal family threatened to cut off access to Prince William and his wife Kate Middleton if the network aired the piece:

ABC News anchor Amy Robach was caught on camera slamming her own network for allegedly sitting on the Jeffrey Epstein story three years ago. In a video clip released by right-wing group Project Veritas on Tuesday, Robach is seemingly caught on a hot mic complaining to colleagues that her Epstein story was suppressed by network executives. Robach says she’d spoken to Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who alleges Epstein used her as a sex slave and trafficked her to his powerful friends, including Britain’s Prince Andrew. “I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts .. we would not put it on the air,” Robach says on camera. “First of all, I was told ‘Who’s Jeffrey Epstein?’… Then the palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways.” She went on to say the network was afraid that running the story would prevent interviews with Kate Middleton and and Prince William. “It was unbelievable what we had. [Bill] Clinton—we had everything. 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.”

In a statement issued after the footage was made public Tuesday, Robach said she her comments were made in “a private moment of frustration. I was upset that an important interview I had conducted with Virginia Roberts didn’t air because we could not obtain corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations” regarding Epstein, Prince Andrew, and Clinton. She added that in the years since the 2015 interview “no one ever told me or the team to stop reporting on Jeffrey Epstein, and we have continued to aggressively pursue this important story.”

Upon release of the video, and because they are all about the money and ratings, ABC defended itself, while promoting upcoming exposé on Epstein:

“At the time, not all of our reporting met our standards to air, but we have never stopped investigating the story. Ever since we’ve had a team on this investigation and substantial resources dedicated to it. That work has led to a two-hour documentary and 6-part podcast that will air in the new year.”

It’s clear from the video below, that Robach is distraught and angry about the network big wigs quashing the interview:

From her hot mic comments:

“There will come a day when we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known. I had it all, three years ago.”

What the fuck is wrong with these people: NBC suppressed reporting about Weinstein to protect their own on-air monstrous predator from being exposed by another monstrous predator, while ABC suppressed a victim’s first-hand account about a monstrous pedophile so that they could continue to have access to the royal family. The despicable avarice of the amoral degenerates running these operations is unspeakable.

And always, there is a double-standard of irony:

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


40 Responses to “ABC Anchor Claims Interview With Epstein Victim Spiked By Network Three Years Ago”

  1. It’s just one slap in the face after another for Epstein’s victims.

    Dana (cb74ca)

  2. Jeffrey Epstein had good lawyers.

    Sammy Finkelman (2f3e32)

  3. Three years ago ABC was preoccupied with real news, like Trump Russia collusion.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  4. We need suicide hot lines in every cell.

    mg (8cbc69)

  5. Both orgs (& rest of media) went wild running uncorroborated stories about Brett Kavanaugh being a gang rapist.

    False narrative.

    Neither network reported the Kavanaugh allegations as fact, they simply reported the existence of the allegations (which, being the subject of public hearings and testimony in the US Senate, would have been impossible to avoid).

    In the case of Weinstein and Epstein, the networks would have been claiming they had evidence supporting the allegations (i.e. they would have been reporting them as fact).

    Dave (8f119a)

  6. Dave (8f119a) — 11/5/2019 @ 3:34 pm

    Double-false narrative. The networks are part of the entertainment industry which is chock-full of pedos and pervs, and some of those self-same pervs and pedos very likely participated in the decisions to cover-up for their co-perv/pedo compadres, Epstein and Weinstein, and who knows how many others. Kavanaugh was a Republican appointee to the Supreme Court and no holds were barred.

    nk (dbc370)

  7. This 2020 campaign ad writes itself.

    And yet if you check social media the moonbats are still talking about impeaching Kavanaugh after they find something about Trump that actually sticks.

    harkin (d9e504)

  8. Robach’s attorney adds some details to the story:

    I thought she was spot on,” he says Tuesday of Robach’s recorded comments. “I think that she had the story. She and Jim Hill, the field producer, did a fabulous job. I don’t want them tarred by anything that ABC failed to do. They did a great job. … Our client, Virginia, had a lot of confidence in them, and still does. She likes them, she trusts them, and she has respect for them.”


    Pottinger says, “We had been told by industry insiders that ABC had a reputation for getting cold feet on matters like this, but we didn’t worry about it, because Amy and Jim Hill were so good. They did great B-roll, they did a great interview. … So, we were delighted with what went into the can. We just are sorry that it never came out.”


    Of the leaked video, Pottinger says, “I don’t think it does a great favor to ABC’s editorial policy, and their business policy.”

    Giuffre traveled from Colorado to New York City in the summer of 2015 for the interview. “We didn’t have an exact air date, but a few weeks after it was finished, we got word that they were having second thoughts about it,” Pottinger says. “Not Amy and not their producers, but their superiors.”

    Giuffre’s team was confused by the network’s reluctance to broadcast the tape. “I don’t remember any reason not to run this that makes sense to us, either as a manner of editorial policy or as a manner of law,” Pottinger says.

    Dana (cb74ca)

  9. This is what Joy Behar said when Beto dropped out:

    “They should not tell everything they’re going to do. If you are going to take people’s guns away, wait until you get elected and then take them away. Don’t tell them ahead of time.”

    If the Republicans are smart enough (I know, I know), examples like ABC and NBC and Behar will all be shown in political ads.

    You can’t say it couldn’t help because when people voted for Trump it was a middle finger not only to Hillary & the Democrats, but the media and Hollywood too.

    harkin (d9e504)

  10. “False narrative.”

    Yep, nobody put a camera on Michael Avenatti.

    harkin (d9e504)

  11. Anyone remember Chinatown? It was Roman Polansky’s last film in the US, starring Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway, and is considered one of the greatest movies ever made, a multi-layered psychodrama.

    Superficially, the plot centers around the South California water wars of the early 1900s. A wealthy developer wants to block irrigation to dry out the land so he can buy it cheap. The subplot, which is far more sordid. The rich old man had raped his teenage daughter, got her pregnant, sent her to Mexico, then brought her back with his granddaughter to be raised as her sister, whom he also intends to rape.

    A private detective is hired to investigate the drowning of a water inspector, which really was a murder, and gets caught up in the twisted plot. He forms a relationship with the now adult daughter, but as events develop and more evidence is revealed, he confronts her.

    “She’s my sister.” Slap! “She’s my daughter.” Slap! In an extremely emotional scene, all is revealed. At the end, the perv father is merely wounded, while the abused daughter is killed, and the rich old man escapes with his soon-to-be-molested granddaughter. And the investigating detective tells the private detective, “What did you expect? It’s Chinatown.”

    Apparently, Polansky used this sordid plot as an excuse to rape a young teenager, then fled the country. He’s still free, by the way. Weinstein and Epstein used it as a business model.

    What did anyone expect? The rich and powerful, the influential, get what they want, however how sordid. (This is Trump’s philosophy.) And they get away with it.

    Why this should surprise anyone is beyond me. It’s been going on for thousands of years.

    In Greek mythology, Zeus kill his father, rapes his mother, then marries his sister. Talk about incest writ large. But then humans do not interpret mythology, rather mythology interprets humans.

    Yes, it is sordid and disgusting. But that is the human condition. Has been since Adam and Eve let or were expelled from the Garden of Eden.

    There is natural love, you know. A man and woman forming a mating couple, lifting up their child in love with love. How long ago was that abandoned?

    Millennia ago, it appears.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  12. Another point to consider: Why would Robach say in the video, for everyone to hear, that: “She had everything. She had pictures. We had everything. What we had was unreal,” if it wasn’t true, because lying about that would have been professional suicide as it could have so easily been corroborated. ABC said it didn’t meet their standards – how do photos, and “everything” not meet their standards? My guess is that everything was as she claimed and because ABC wanted access to the royal family, they just spun it as an insufficient interview. IOW, they were sleazy cowards.

    Dana (cb74ca)

  13. Why this should surprise anyone is beyond me. It’s been going on for thousands of years.

    You’re quite right that it’s been going on since time began, but, I never want to be so jaded, so cynical, or filled with such a soul-crushing weariness that I don’t react with an disgusted WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE. I am glad I am not able to just knowingly nod my head, Ah, yes, fallen man… I am glad it hurts my soul that young girls and women are horribly abused, and I am glad that I get angry when the powerful and connected get away with it. It means I still have skin in this game of life, and I’m still willing to fight against evil, while holding tightly to my faith.

    Dana (cb74ca)

  14. Sleazy cowards or greedy sleazes?

    norcal (eec1aa)

  15. By the way, can somebody help me understand the American fascination with the British royal family? I couldn’t give a flying f**k about them.

    norcal (eec1aa)

  16. The password is George Stephanopoulos . As long as he works at ABC, the Clintons have no worries from ABC. This is accepted and never questioned.

    Bugg (ebf485)

  17. norcal,

    Full disclosure: I’m fascinated with the British royal family and all it’s lovely, sordid, violent history. It’s a historical example of one of the most dysfunctional families ever, and yet they keep right on chugging along. While so many were horrible individuals, there were indeed some stellar characters too. Oh, and stunning hats and delicious couture of course!

    Dana (cb74ca)

  18. This is interesting. Too bad the story isn’t being broken by someone credible.

    Time123 (52fb0e)

  19. ”Too bad the story isn’t being broken by someone credible.”
    Time123 (52fb0e) — 11/5/2019 @ 6:12 pm

    Yeah, the story lacks a Brian Ross ABC provenance.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  20. @17. Yep. Without ’em, what would have motivated Tommy Jay or Willie the Scribbler to quill?!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  21. Hey, they may have quashed it three years ago.. but they KEPT ON investigating. And after everyone else found things, they kept investigating…And after Epstein died…they kept investigating. And NOW, they’re ready to air something. But don’t call them corrupt, just call them careful.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  22. The idea that Prince Andrew kept ABC News from exposing Epstein is hilarious. They didn’t go after Epstein because he was a democrat and had a lot of D’s on Epstein’s Island.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  23. This is not the same royal family as the House of Normandy, or the Plantagenets, or the Yorks, or the Tudors, or the Stuarts, or the House of Orange, or even the Hanovers. It’s the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas, changed to Windsor in WWI so people wouldn’t think they were Germans or something. And they’re basically a tourist attraction.

    nk (dbc370)

  24. ABC was #3 for years; draped itself in a tabloid cloak to help drag it out of the cellar: Roone Arledge and all that. They know their audience royally well. Hollywood had the back story on Weinstein for two decades, too. Same w/Spacey. Common knowledge in the biz.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  25. Mike Cernovich
    Mediabros: “Someone at a party 40 years heard something about Kavanaugh.”

    RUN IT!

    Also mediabros: “Here’s pics of Epstein with Clinton and a witness and victim willing to go public.


    harkin (d9e504)

  26. lol Mike Cernovich

    Leviticus (67a668)

  27. Dana at 17,

    Thanks for helping me understand. I still think it’s ludicrous the British state maintains the charade. Royalty is just archaic. People should be esteemed because they accomplish something beyond being born.

    norcal (eec1aa)

  28. Dana at 17,

    Thanks for helping me understand. I still think it’s ludicrous the British state maintains the charade. Royalty is just archaic. People should be esteemed because they accomplish something beyond mere birth.

    norcal (eec1aa)

  29. Apologies for the double-post. I wish it were easier to edit a comment.

    norcal (eec1aa)

  30. Interesting, Kishnevi. That the Babylon Bee has decided to mock the idea that Epstein was murdered. Qui bono? like they say down at City Hall.

    nk (dbc370)

  31. Well, yes, Dana, it outrages me as well. Particularly because it’s not just young girls, but young boys as well. Underage, tender age children being molested is an offense to God and Nature.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  32. @27. The monarchy has been trimmed with cut backs over the years and republicanism waxes and wanes over the decades. The Queen ‘rules’ over a helluva lot of land– and art treasures– too. Traditions die hard there: ‘1066 and all that.’ Retiring the royal yacht Britannia is an example– and, like the royals and the changing of the guard a Buckingham Palace, it’s a tourist attraction. They’ve run the numbers on it and know the value of the monarchy to the nation.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  33. Robach says she’d spoken to Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who alleges Epstein used her as a sex slave and trafficked her to his powerful friends, including Britain’s Prince Andrew.

    Bt a lot of what she said was a lie. The underlying story – Jeffrey Epstein;s promiscuity , pedophilia, and tricking and sometimes rape, was true.

    ABC quashed an interview with one of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims because Prince Andrew had been named by the victim, and the royal family threatened to cut off access to Prince William and his wife Kate Middleton if the network aired the piece:

    I believe that was the cover story told to Amy Robach to shut her up. Even if they, in truth, objected.

    Sammy Finkelman (2f3e32)

  34. 28. It’s not just the royal family though, in terms of succession to the throne. Since the last Hanover occupied the throne, peerage has been more important than ever in determining the make-up of a large segment of parliament (House of Lords). While I absolutely detest the idea of peerage on its face, nobility (and ergo the Royal Family) is not as inconsequential to British politics as many seem to think.

    Gryph (08c844)

  35. The House of Lords has not been hereditary since 1999, Gryph. Its members, although they do have titles, are mainly life peers and are appointed by the House of Commons in a complicated procedure which is not worth bothering to understand. They are, basically, a rubber stamp for the government in power from time to time, like the Queen.

    nk (dbc370)

  36. The House of Lords is useless and should be abolished. OR transformed into something useful. Once you have characters like “Baron Alli” and “Baron Barwell” – its time to pack it in. Imagine if we had that in the USA! You’d have “Baron Bezos” and “Lord Dick Cheney”!

    rcocean (1a839e)

  37. The msm is no longer even trying to appear impartial…..

    Los Angeles Times
    U.S. victims in Mexico massacre were tied to family with a long history of violence
    __ _

    David French
    This story is just terrible. A family is burying small children and now the media is dredging up completely unrelated events, committed by distant relatives, that happened more than a generation ago. Nice.
    __ _

    Nuclear Dave
    It’s a twofer for the media—bashing religion AND defending animals from south of the border.
    __ _

    Travis Wester

    Replying to
    A bunch of little kids are shot and set on fire, so here – let’s see if we can find some dirt on their great-grandparents. That’s what I call journalism! #Pulitzer

    harkin (d9e504)

  38. Update: CBS News has fired the individual that ABC News thinks leaked the video to O’Keefe. #Wagonscircled

    Kevin M (19357e)

  39. #38:

    Soulesby said she is focused on helping six children who survived the attack, including five who are hospitalized in Tucson.

    “What happened to our family is as bad as it gets, but also this has been happening to just thousands and thousands of Mexicans in Mexico. A lot of them didn’t have a voice like we do right now,” Soulesby said.

    The family is speaking out about the massacre in northern Mexico in a lawless region disputed by rival drug cartels in the border states of Sonora and Chihuahua.

    “If a nation can’t protect its women and children, it’s no longer a nation,” said Robert LeBaron, reached by phone in his hometown, Colonia LeBaron, Chihuahua, 190 miles south of the border.

    Kevin M (19357e)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2413 secs.