Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, a real professional would have been upset on the quashing of the story, not their own personal loss. But as I said, a real professional...
She sounds like she is upset because she won't get credit for the story.
Of course she is. Who wouldn't be? It's a good bit of work, and she was proven right wasn't she.
Steve Wilson and Jane Akre famously found the same dead end. They were not amused either.
Oh, and they were right too.
This is a great example of why I never take the idiots on the left seriously when they doubt something has happened simply because 1 of the Democractic Media outlets hasn't aired it.
There is a whole world of things going on out there that only -
Consumers of actual news know about.
Thanks to ABC's inaction, Epstein and his pedophile pals continued their heinous activity longer than it should have.
What the fake news is doing is
Election rigging
That is high treason
It's a video, idiot.This is a great example of why I never take the idiots on the left seriously when they doubt something has happened simply because 1 of the Democractic Media outlets hasn't aired it.
There is a whole world of things going on out there that only -
Consumers of actual news know about.
It's associated with James O'Keefe, who's a known fraudster. Ever hear the phrase "trust but verify"?
Or do you just swallow everything whole on the basis that it looks like it tastes good?
Well, a real professional would have been upset on the quashing of the story, not their own personal loss. But as I said, a real professional...
She sounds like she is upset because she won't get credit for the story.
Of course she is. Who wouldn't be? It's a good bit of work, and she was proven right wasn't she.
Steve Wilson and Jane Akre famously found the same dead end. They were not amused either.
Oh, and they were right too.
I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.
Well, a real professional would have been upset on the quashing of the story, not their own personal loss. But as I said, a real professional...
She sounds like she is upset because she won't get credit for the story.
Of course she is. Who wouldn't be? It's a good bit of work, and she was proven right wasn't she.
Steve Wilson and Jane Akre famously found the same dead end. They were not amused either.
Oh, and they were right too.
I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.
Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,
Well, a real professional would have been upset on the quashing of the story, not their own personal loss. But as I said, a real professional...
She sounds like she is upset because she won't get credit for the story.
Of course she is. Who wouldn't be? It's a good bit of work, and she was proven right wasn't she.
Steve Wilson and Jane Akre famously found the same dead end. They were not amused either.
Oh, and they were right too.
I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.
Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,
Well, a real professional would have been upset on the quashing of the story, not their own personal loss. But as I said, a real professional...She sounds like she is upset because she won't get credit for the story.
Of course she is. Who wouldn't be? It's a good bit of work, and she was proven right wasn't she.
Steve Wilson and Jane Akre famously found the same dead end. They were not amused either.
Oh, and they were right too.
I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.
Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,
She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.
Well, a real professional would have been upset on the quashing of the story, not their own personal loss. But as I said, a real professional...She sounds like she is upset because she won't get credit for the story.
Of course she is. Who wouldn't be? It's a good bit of work, and she was proven right wasn't she.
Steve Wilson and Jane Akre famously found the same dead end. They were not amused either.
Oh, and they were right too.
I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.
Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,
She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.
Well, a real professional would have been upset on the quashing of the story, not their own personal loss. But as I said, a real professional...Of course she is. Who wouldn't be? It's a good bit of work, and she was proven right wasn't she.
Steve Wilson and Jane Akre famously found the same dead end. They were not amused either.
Oh, and they were right too.
I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.
Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,
She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.
The problem is that people seem to think that a corporation owns the information.
So, a real journalist would put the information out there. You see, there is a difference between her work product (a finished product) and the facts that can be disseminated.The problem is that people seem to think that a corporation owns the information.Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,Well, a real professional would have been upset on the quashing of the story, not their own personal loss. But as I said, a real professional...
I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.
She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.
Whatever work product she produced for ABC
ABC owns
Your not really that ignorant are you?
So, a real journalist would put the information out there. You see, there is a difference between her work product (a finished product) and the facts that can be disseminated.The problem is that people seem to think that a corporation owns the information.Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.
She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.
Whatever work product she produced for ABC
ABC owns
Your not really that ignorant are you?
Do you really think that information can be owned?
The problem is that people seem to think that a corporation owns the information.Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,Well, a real professional would have been upset on the quashing of the story, not their own personal loss. But as I said, a real professional...
I don't know who this is (which is why I asked if she's a real ABC person or if it's staged) but it looks to me like she's both personally and professionally pissed. As she should be. After all when you put your personal energy into pursuing a story, you're invested in it. It's impossible not to be.
She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.
Whatever work product she produced for ABC
ABC owns
Your not really that ignorant are you?
So, a real journalist would put the information out there. You see, there is a difference between her work product (a finished product) and the facts that can be disseminated.The problem is that people seem to think that a corporation owns the information.Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,
She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.
Whatever work product she produced for ABC
ABC owns
Your not really that ignorant are you?
Do you really think that information can be owned?
Are you under the impression that the information wasn't already in the public domain and simply ignored because it led back to Democratic politicians?
Three years ago, it wasn't in the public eye. When a reporter (not journalist, they don't have those at the broadcast networks) wanted to go with the story to bring it to the attention of the world, her employer quashed it because they wanted continued access to the royal family and that the Clintons might be exposed.So, a real journalist would put the information out there. You see, there is a difference between her work product (a finished product) and the facts that can be disseminated.The problem is that people seem to think that a corporation owns the information.Simple solution. If you think the story is important enough, you go outside your employer to be sure that the story is told. That is what REAL journalists do,
She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.
Whatever work product she produced for ABC
ABC owns
Your not really that ignorant are you?
Do you really think that information can be owned?
Are you under the impression that the information wasn't already in the public domain and simply ignored because it led back to Democratic politicians?
This is why media must be shut down as a national security act
They do not report occurrent tact events
They do speculate about what might have happened or they think should have happened and present that as fact when it is not
In this case they actually suppressed and thwarted the release of fact information that did not fit their liberal palate.I
They are a danger to America and no longer a resource of America
So, a real journalist would put the information out there. You see, there is a difference between her work product (a finished product) and the facts that can be disseminated.The problem is that people seem to think that a corporation owns the information.She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.
Whatever work product she produced for ABC
ABC owns
Your not really that ignorant are you?
Do you really think that information can be owned?
Are you under the impression that the information wasn't already in the public domain and simply ignored because it led back to Democratic politicians?
Again --- neither Jeffrey Epstein nor the British royal family were/are "politicians". This was not a "politics" story, desperate though you may be to beat it into one so you can have your little message board wankfest.
Three years ago, it wasn't in the public eye. When a reporter (not journalist, they don't have those at the broadcast networks) wanted to go with the story to bring it to the attention of the world, her employer quashed it because they wanted continued access to the royal family and that the Clintons might be exposed.So, a real journalist would put the information out there. You see, there is a difference between her work product (a finished product) and the facts that can be disseminated.The problem is that people seem to think that a corporation owns the information.She is a real journalist
She is on several ABC news shows.
The problem would be that ABC owned the evidence and ABC is not a real news outlet.
Whatever work product she produced for ABC
ABC owns
Your not really that ignorant are you?
Do you really think that information can be owned?
Are you under the impression that the information wasn't already in the public domain and simply ignored because it led back to Democratic politicians?
Clearly the information was NOT common knowledge though it may have been in the public domain.
A REAL journalist would have taken the gathered facts and either published them anonymously or passed the information to a colleague who was not under the restrictions of a partisan editor.
Why you are defending this is beyond reason, but regardless, I've made my position clear on this story and the person who failed to do what was necessary to publish it.
You disagree, then you do. That will not change my mind on this.
This is a great example of why I never take the idiots on the left seriously when they doubt something has happened simply because 1 of the Democractic Media outlets hasn't aired it.
There is a whole world of things going on out there that only -
Consumers of actual news know about.
It's associated with James O'Keefe, who's a known fraudster. Ever hear the phrase "trust but verify"?
Or do you just swallow everything whole on the basis that it looks like it tastes good?
