FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I mean, I assume that a lot of people with a lot of money want to make her shut the fuck up permanently, and she's either hiding from them, or they suceeded.
+2
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
And as much as I hate conspiracy theories
I have to say, if someone actually did put a hit out on someone involved in this case I would not be in the least bit surprised
I mean, I assume that a lot of people with a lot of money want to make her shut the fuck up permanently, and she's either hiding from them, or they suceeded.
It's not the ultra-rich buyers who are going to be an issue, they would be untouchable anyway. It's the rest of the supply and logistics organisation and the people those touch upon who are going to be wary of the public scrutiny, not morally against hiring hitmen and with the resources and connections to do so. Knowing anywhere you've been publicly that might have the rank and file of the organisations you worked with is dangerous, whilst also knowing that if you did decide to trust the government, there's enough very powerful people with connections that can still make it an issue if you go into witness protection etc.
So, paranoid recluse/the quiet life seems the safer bet.
It certainly is curious how none of the eager paparazzis in the tabloid press seem to have any interest in turning up the madame to the stars, the daughter of Robert Maxwell - the eccentric tycoon who also died in mysterious circumstances. Seems like something that would sell a few papers.
It certainly is curious how none of the eager paparazzis in the tabloid press seem to have any interest in turning up the madame to the stars, the daughter of Robert Maxwell - the eccentric tycoon who also died in mysterious circumstances. Seems like something that would sell a few papers.
Makes you wonder about if her involvement in all this has been one of those "Catch and Kill" things Ronan talked about.
Hell these entire circumstances seem like the kind of thing he will eventually be writing a book on.
Virginia Giuffre now has a new lawyer after Boies Schiller was disqualified:
The “stratergy” here was a gamble that without Boies on the case, Giuffre would struggle to find competent counsel to keep the claim going. It’s why this disqualification argument was such troubling precedent — if pro bono counsel can get kicked off a case so easily, it can close doors to justice for many litigants. That said, I noted at the time that Giuffre was likely to find another top-notch litigator willing to take on this specific matter and that’s turned out to be true.
Chuck Cooper of Cooper & Kirk filed pro hac papers yesterday looking to take over Virginia Giuffre’s case. This means Dershowitz now faces a seasoned Supreme Court litigator that The National Law Journal ranks as one of the 10 best civil litigators in Washington.
Virginia Giuffre now has a new lawyer after Boies Schiller was disqualified:
The “stratergy” here was a gamble that without Boies on the case, Giuffre would struggle to find competent counsel to keep the claim going. It’s why this disqualification argument was such troubling precedent — if pro bono counsel can get kicked off a case so easily, it can close doors to justice for many litigants. That said, I noted at the time that Giuffre was likely to find another top-notch litigator willing to take on this specific matter and that’s turned out to be true.
Chuck Cooper of Cooper & Kirk filed pro hac papers yesterday looking to take over Virginia Giuffre’s case. This means Dershowitz now faces a seasoned Supreme Court litigator that The National Law Journal ranks as one of the 10 best civil litigators in Washington.
I so hope this fucks Dershowitz over.
Wait, Dershowitz's lawyers fabricated a claim so they could call people from the Boises firm as witnesses, to disqualify Giuffre's lawyers from keeping her case? That is all kinds of fucked up. What's to stop people from doing that all the time?
Virginia Giuffre now has a new lawyer after Boies Schiller was disqualified:
The “stratergy” here was a gamble that without Boies on the case, Giuffre would struggle to find competent counsel to keep the claim going. It’s why this disqualification argument was such troubling precedent — if pro bono counsel can get kicked off a case so easily, it can close doors to justice for many litigants. That said, I noted at the time that Giuffre was likely to find another top-notch litigator willing to take on this specific matter and that’s turned out to be true.
Chuck Cooper of Cooper & Kirk filed pro hac papers yesterday looking to take over Virginia Giuffre’s case. This means Dershowitz now faces a seasoned Supreme Court litigator that The National Law Journal ranks as one of the 10 best civil litigators in Washington.
I so hope this fucks Dershowitz over.
Wait, Dershowitz's lawyers fabricated a claim so they could call people from the Boises firm as witnesses, to disqualify Giuffre's lawyers from keeping her case? That is all kinds of fucked up. What's to stop people from doing that all the time?
That's a major problem with the judge's ruling, as the author of the article points out - but the judge may have been considering that Giuffre would have an easier time than most getting new counsel.
Virginia Giuffre now has a new lawyer after Boies Schiller was disqualified:
The “stratergy” here was a gamble that without Boies on the case, Giuffre would struggle to find competent counsel to keep the claim going. It’s why this disqualification argument was such troubling precedent — if pro bono counsel can get kicked off a case so easily, it can close doors to justice for many litigants. That said, I noted at the time that Giuffre was likely to find another top-notch litigator willing to take on this specific matter and that’s turned out to be true.
Chuck Cooper of Cooper & Kirk filed pro hac papers yesterday looking to take over Virginia Giuffre’s case. This means Dershowitz now faces a seasoned Supreme Court litigator that The National Law Journal ranks as one of the 10 best civil litigators in Washington.
I so hope this fucks Dershowitz over.
Wait, Dershowitz's lawyers fabricated a claim so they could call people from the Boises firm as witnesses, to disqualify Giuffre's lawyers from keeping her case? That is all kinds of fucked up. What's to stop people from doing that all the time?
That's a major problem with the judge's ruling, as the author of the article points out - but the judge may have been considering that Giuffre would have an easier time than most getting new counsel.
Why would she? She’s an ordinary woman and many powerful men have an interest in her not getting her day in court.
Virginia Giuffre now has a new lawyer after Boies Schiller was disqualified:
The “stratergy” here was a gamble that without Boies on the case, Giuffre would struggle to find competent counsel to keep the claim going. It’s why this disqualification argument was such troubling precedent — if pro bono counsel can get kicked off a case so easily, it can close doors to justice for many litigants. That said, I noted at the time that Giuffre was likely to find another top-notch litigator willing to take on this specific matter and that’s turned out to be true.
Chuck Cooper of Cooper & Kirk filed pro hac papers yesterday looking to take over Virginia Giuffre’s case. This means Dershowitz now faces a seasoned Supreme Court litigator that The National Law Journal ranks as one of the 10 best civil litigators in Washington.
I so hope this fucks Dershowitz over.
Wait, Dershowitz's lawyers fabricated a claim so they could call people from the Boises firm as witnesses, to disqualify Giuffre's lawyers from keeping her case? That is all kinds of fucked up. What's to stop people from doing that all the time?
That's a major problem with the judge's ruling, as the author of the article points out - but the judge may have been considering that Giuffre would have an easier time than most getting new counsel.
Why would she? She’s an ordinary woman and many powerful men have an interest in her not getting her day in court.
He isn't the key to the whole cabal, just a famous asshole whose basically yelled "So SUE me" to the woman for years expecting that she wouldn't. Until she did.
Irony demands she gets the best legal aid possible without paying a dime for it.
Virginia Giuffre now has a new lawyer after Boies Schiller was disqualified:
The “stratergy” here was a gamble that without Boies on the case, Giuffre would struggle to find competent counsel to keep the claim going. It’s why this disqualification argument was such troubling precedent — if pro bono counsel can get kicked off a case so easily, it can close doors to justice for many litigants. That said, I noted at the time that Giuffre was likely to find another top-notch litigator willing to take on this specific matter and that’s turned out to be true.
Chuck Cooper of Cooper & Kirk filed pro hac papers yesterday looking to take over Virginia Giuffre’s case. This means Dershowitz now faces a seasoned Supreme Court litigator that The National Law Journal ranks as one of the 10 best civil litigators in Washington.
I so hope this fucks Dershowitz over.
Wait, Dershowitz's lawyers fabricated a claim so they could call people from the Boises firm as witnesses, to disqualify Giuffre's lawyers from keeping her case? That is all kinds of fucked up. What's to stop people from doing that all the time?
That's a major problem with the judge's ruling, as the author of the article points out - but the judge may have been considering that Giuffre would have an easier time than most getting new counsel.
Why would she? She’s an ordinary woman and many powerful men have an interest in her not getting her day in court.
He isn't the key to the whole cabal, just a famous asshole whose basically yelled "So SUE me" to the woman for years expecting that she wouldn't. Until she did.
Irony demands she gets the best legal aid possible without paying a dime for it.
Furthermore, Dershowitz has spent decades putting a bullseye on his back. There are a number of notable litigators who would take her case just to get a crack at him.
Super disappointing that Vox is sourcing James O'Keefe. What the fucking hell?
They direly want to "not shoot the messenger" but when the messenger is a fucking sleeze ball propaganda wank who actively edits videos yeah you can dismiss him right out.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yeah in this case who cares that it came from O'Keefe. I think some people are using the source to excuse the fact that ABC probably shot this down for terrible reasons.
Yeah in this case who cares that it came from O'Keefe. I think some people are using the source to excuse the fact that ABC probably shot this down for terrible reasons.
Because O'Keefe is a lying ratfucker. If he told me that the sky was blue, I would go outside for independent verification.
Super disappointing that Vox is sourcing James O'Keefe. What the fucking hell?
Jane Coaston is a woman of incredible patience that covers on the right for Vox so if Project Veritas somehow broke this story then she's going to credit them out of fairness.
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
edited November 2019
A story not going to publication is not evidence of a coverup. The fact that ABC let Amy Robach work her story for years is evidence of that.
What O'Keefe's video shows is that Robach was frustrated about that decision and speculated about other motivations behind that decision. That's not a terribly abnormal situation to have happened behind the scenes for a news outlet, and in classic Project Veritas style, it's the story being presented here that's recklessly misleading.
It can be the case that business and political considerations played a part, but that also the story she had didn't meet the high standards needed to get put out there, especially given the type of allegations it would have involved. This isn't to say the person she had wasn't credible, or that the allegations were false, just that what she had didn't meet the standards to go public with.
I fucking loathe how conspiracy-minded people are about this, and the discourse that follows when that's the starting point, because it just devolves into apologist vs. conspiracy theorist.
A story not going to publication is not evidence of a coverup. The fact that ABC let Amy Robach work her story for years is evidence of that.
What O'Keefe's video shows is that Robach was frustrated about that decision and speculated about other motivations behind that decision. That's not a terribly abnormal situation to have happened behind the scenes for a news outlet, and in classic Project Veritas style, it's the story being presented here that's recklessly misleading.
It can be the case that business and political considerations played a part, but that also the story she had didn't meet the high standards needed to get put out there, especially given the type of allegations it would have involved. This isn't to say the person she had wasn't credible, or that the allegations were false, just that what she had didn't meet the standards to go public with.
I fucking loathe how conspiracy-minded people are about this, and the discourse that follows when that's the starting point, because it just devolves into apologist vs. conspiracy theorist.
I mean, we know the networks cover up for powerful who were sexual predators. Fox, CBS, and NBC News were run by them and everybody covered for Harvey Weinstein. So it wouldn't exactly be a surprise.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
A story not going to publication is not evidence of a coverup. The fact that ABC let Amy Robach work her story for years is evidence of that.
What O'Keefe's video shows is that Robach was frustrated about that decision and speculated about other motivations behind that decision. That's not a terribly abnormal situation to have happened behind the scenes for a news outlet, and in classic Project Veritas style, it's the story being presented here that's recklessly misleading.
It can be the case that business and political considerations played a part, but that also the story she had didn't meet the high standards needed to get put out there, especially given the type of allegations it would have involved. This isn't to say the person she had wasn't credible, or that the allegations were false, just that what she had didn't meet the standards to go public with.
I fucking loathe how conspiracy-minded people are about this, and the discourse that follows when that's the starting point, because it just devolves into apologist vs. conspiracy theorist.
I mean, we know the networks cover up for powerful who were sexual predators. Fox, CBS, and NBC News were run by them and everybody covered for Harvey Weinstein. So it wouldn't exactly be a surprise.
Ronan Farrow's book recounts how NBC killed his reporting on Harvey Weinstein after Weinstein threatened to expose Matt Lauer.
Yeah in this case who cares that it came from O'Keefe. I think some people are using the source to excuse the fact that ABC probably shot this down for terrible reasons.
Because O'Keefe is a lying ratfucker. If he told me that the sky was blue, I would go outside for independent verification.
And it seems like it's been verified by ABC themselves. So at this point take out the fact that it was broken by a ratfucker and discuss upon it's merits. Which in this case seems to be covering for continuing access to the Royal family.
Yeah in this case who cares that it came from O'Keefe. I think some people are using the source to excuse the fact that ABC probably shot this down for terrible reasons.
Because O'Keefe is a lying ratfucker. If he told me that the sky was blue, I would go outside for independent verification.
And it seems like it's been verified by ABC themselves. So at this point take out the fact that it was broken by a ratfucker and discuss upon it's merits. Which in this case seems to be covering for continuing access to the Royal family.
Nope, because you can never give the ratfuckers an inch. People don't go to O'Keefe to break stories - they do it because they want to push the conversation in a certain direction.
Yeah in this case who cares that it came from O'Keefe. I think some people are using the source to excuse the fact that ABC probably shot this down for terrible reasons.
Because O'Keefe is a lying ratfucker. If he told me that the sky was blue, I would go outside for independent verification.
And it seems like it's been verified by ABC themselves. So at this point take out the fact that it was broken by a ratfucker and discuss upon it's merits. Which in this case seems to be covering for continuing access to the Royal family.
Nope, because you can never give the ratfuckers an inch. People don't go to O'Keefe to break stories - they do it because they want to push the conversation in a certain direction.
That is an incredibly goosey position on what seems to be a credible recording.
You can give anybody an inch, but for certain people you have to precisely measure and document that inch
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
ABC confirmed that the tape was real, so that ends the O'Keefe tangent. With some major goalpost moving of "well, that only happened one time" of course, which by now everybody should know that is not true.
ABC confirmed that the tape was real, so that ends the O'Keefe tangent. With some major goalpost moving of "well, that only happened one time" of course, which by now everybody should know that is not true.
James O'keefe has been synonomous with fake news for nearly 12 years now so you'll forgive us for not believing him when he did in fact see a wolf.
+45
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Hey, the Drudge Report broke the Lewinsky scandal. Shitheads can be right. It doesn't make them less shitty!
Posts
I have to say, if someone actually did put a hit out on someone involved in this case I would not be in the least bit surprised
It's not the ultra-rich buyers who are going to be an issue, they would be untouchable anyway. It's the rest of the supply and logistics organisation and the people those touch upon who are going to be wary of the public scrutiny, not morally against hiring hitmen and with the resources and connections to do so. Knowing anywhere you've been publicly that might have the rank and file of the organisations you worked with is dangerous, whilst also knowing that if you did decide to trust the government, there's enough very powerful people with connections that can still make it an issue if you go into witness protection etc.
So, paranoid recluse/the quiet life seems the safer bet.
Makes you wonder about if her involvement in all this has been one of those "Catch and Kill" things Ronan talked about.
Hell these entire circumstances seem like the kind of thing he will eventually be writing a book on.
I so hope this fucks Dershowitz over.
Wait, Dershowitz's lawyers fabricated a claim so they could call people from the Boises firm as witnesses, to disqualify Giuffre's lawyers from keeping her case? That is all kinds of fucked up. What's to stop people from doing that all the time?
That's a major problem with the judge's ruling, as the author of the article points out - but the judge may have been considering that Giuffre would have an easier time than most getting new counsel.
Why would she? She’s an ordinary woman and many powerful men have an interest in her not getting her day in court.
He isn't the key to the whole cabal, just a famous asshole whose basically yelled "So SUE me" to the woman for years expecting that she wouldn't. Until she did.
Irony demands she gets the best legal aid possible without paying a dime for it.
Furthermore, Dershowitz has spent decades putting a bullseye on his back. There are a number of notable litigators who would take her case just to get a crack at him.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/11/5/20949839/jeffrey-epstein-abc-news-leaked-tape-project-veritas&ved=2ahUKEwiXu4XPy9jlAhWrtlkKHeS1DHUQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw23KZIKQ8v4d3bMsLdT35WK&cf=1
That would be because of two words in your link - Project Veritas. You know, James O'Keefe's ratfucking firm.
Also I think that's why this thread got revived again recently, we were talking about it.
They direly want to "not shoot the messenger" but when the messenger is a fucking sleeze ball propaganda wank who actively edits videos yeah you can dismiss him right out.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah in this case who cares that it came from O'Keefe. I think some people are using the source to excuse the fact that ABC probably shot this down for terrible reasons.
Because O'Keefe is a lying ratfucker. If he told me that the sky was blue, I would go outside for independent verification.
Jane Coaston is a woman of incredible patience that covers on the right for Vox so if Project Veritas somehow broke this story then she's going to credit them out of fairness.
What O'Keefe's video shows is that Robach was frustrated about that decision and speculated about other motivations behind that decision. That's not a terribly abnormal situation to have happened behind the scenes for a news outlet, and in classic Project Veritas style, it's the story being presented here that's recklessly misleading.
It can be the case that business and political considerations played a part, but that also the story she had didn't meet the high standards needed to get put out there, especially given the type of allegations it would have involved. This isn't to say the person she had wasn't credible, or that the allegations were false, just that what she had didn't meet the standards to go public with.
I fucking loathe how conspiracy-minded people are about this, and the discourse that follows when that's the starting point, because it just devolves into apologist vs. conspiracy theorist.
I mean, we know the networks cover up for powerful who were sexual predators. Fox, CBS, and NBC News were run by them and everybody covered for Harvey Weinstein. So it wouldn't exactly be a surprise.
That's a coverup.
Ronan Farrow's book recounts how NBC killed his reporting on Harvey Weinstein after Weinstein threatened to expose Matt Lauer.
And it seems like it's been verified by ABC themselves. So at this point take out the fact that it was broken by a ratfucker and discuss upon it's merits. Which in this case seems to be covering for continuing access to the Royal family.
Nope, because you can never give the ratfuckers an inch. People don't go to O'Keefe to break stories - they do it because they want to push the conversation in a certain direction.
That is an incredibly goosey position on what seems to be a credible recording.
If they've actually got this one right, well, broken clock.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
James O'keefe has been synonomous with fake news for nearly 12 years now so you'll forgive us for not believing him when he did in fact see a wolf.