Did ABC Spike Epstein Story To Protect Hillary's Campaign? The Time Frames Match
It’s a pretty good sign that Project Veritas has a scoop when even Vox is reporting on it.
Yes, Vox — Ezra Klein’s clearinghouse of all the liberal wonkery that’s fit to print — decided that hot mic video of ABC News reporter and “Good Morning America” co-host Amy Robach discussing her killed interview with Virginia Giuffre, an alleged victim of dead financier and purported serial pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, was worth covering.
In the video, Robach talked about why the interview got quashed, implying that pressure from the British royal family was to blame. She also reportedly cited pressure from famed lawyer and pundit Alan Dershowitz.
But what about the Clintons? That’s the question that practically suggests itself during the clip.
Robach didn’t mention they were involved, although she said Giuffre, then known as Virginia Roberts, had made allegations against former President Bill Clinton.
No, she didn’t say anything about it — but the timeframes certainly match.
So, if you didn’t catch it, Robach said network higher-ups didn’t want to touch the allegations that Giuffre had made. She blamed this on the fact that Prince Andrew was mentioned and the royals “threatened us a million different ways.”
“I’ve had the story for three years. I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts. We would not put it on the air,” Robach said in the clip, which was from August, according to Business Insider.
That dates the video roughly around the time that NPR revealed the existence of the interview.
“At the time, in 2015, Epstein was walking around a free man, comparing his criminal behavior to stealing a bagel,” Giuffre told NPR. “I really wanted a spotlight shone on him and the others who acted with him and enabled his vile and shameless conduct against young girls and young women.”
“I viewed the ABC interview as a potential game-changer,” she added. “Appearing on ABC with its wide viewership would have been the first time for me to speak out against the government for basically looking the other way and to describe the anger and betrayal victims felt.”
According to Giuffre, she was never told why the story wasn’t aired.
In the clip from Project Veritas, Robach said that, originally, the newsworthiness of the story was questioned. Then came the pressure from Buckingham Palace; Giuffre says she was procured for sex with Prince Andrew, among other people.
“We were so afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate [Middleton] and Will [Prince William] that we — that also quashed the story,” Robach said in the clip.
However, the interview was notable in that it mentioned arguably the biggest name in American politics in 2015.
“It was unbelievable what we had. Clinton. We had everything,” Robach said.
“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. And I freaking had all of it. I’m so pissed right now,” she added. “What we had was unreal.”
Clinton was one of the people who rode on Epstein’s plane — which is better known by the moniker “Lolita Express,” and not because Epstein was an acolyte of Nabokov’s.
In addition to the flights, a report from The Daily Beast shortly before Epstein’s death in a Manhattan jail said the financier visited the White House during Clinton’s time there, a fact that would have contradicted the former president’s claim that he had only met Epstein a handful of times, all after he left the presidency.
In the standard-issue denial that followed the Project Veritas video upon its release — in which both ABC News and Robach said the story didn’t meet the network’s editorial standards — the anchor claimed this was merely in reference to Giuffre’s allegation that she had spotted Clinton on Epstein’s infamous private island.
“My comments about Prince Andrew and her allegation that she had seen Bill Clinton on Epstein’s private island were in reference to what Virginia Roberts said in that interview in 2015,” she said.
All right. If that was the case, what about the kinds of allegations that the media was willing to countenance against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh? What about the fact that Jussie Smollett’s allegations of a hate crime against his person were taken at face value until it became clear his story didn’t just have holes in it so much as it was mostly made of holes? Were those the editorial standards that this interview didn’t meet?
The timing is also unusual in that 2015 was the year of Hillary Clinton as the 2016 presidential race took shape. Bernie Sanders’ challenge to the Democratic nomination was an incipient threat at best and the Republicans were bickering over the nomination with no real favorite in sight. Any accusation against Bill Clinton, particularly in terms of a connection to a wealthy financier accused of abusing and trafficking young women, could have brought down the thunder of a thousand email servers.
Whether or not this played any role in the decision-making remains to be seen. These kinds of inquiries generally get shut down as conspiracy theorizing almost as soon as the thought is expressed. This time, given the fact that it involves Epstein, the media seem to be moderately interested in digging further. We’ll see how long this lasts.
However, the timing seems strange here. Was ABC really that afraid of losing coverage on William and Kate, particularly when they were sitting on top of a massive scoop? Perhaps Epstein wasn’t as infamous in 2015 as he is now, but I’m pretty certain interest could have been created, given the names involved.
Whatever the case, the story was spiked.
Will the media actually do their job and find out why — even if it involves asking uncomfortable questions about the Clintons and the British royal family? Even if it means losing access to the Clintons or the royal family?
Holding your breath on this, alas, would likely be fatal. A man can always dream, however.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
