I'm not up on British legal terminology. What does it mean when a court finds an allegation "impertinent"? I know what the word "impertinent" means in ordinary English, but if it was just that it seems an odd thing for a court to declare when dismissing something. I'd expect them to just say it was immaterial and leave it at that. So I'm guessing "impertinent" has some specific legal meaning in their system?
"immaterial and impertinent" isn't referenced on that list, but shows up in a list of reasons to dismiss. https://www.upcounsel.com/legal-def-averment suggests that they were once different, but are now the same.
So yeah, judge is just saying the same thing twice for emphasis.
WaPo Opinion piece: (It estimates that this is on the same order of magnitude as the mishandling of the Weinstein scandal by NBC.)
Hollywoodreport (which quotes more from the ABC statement and Robach's statements on the Veritas video):
The primary source:
Alos, based on the article, it seems the reason abc didn’t publish anything is more due to pressure from the british royal family rather than israel, or did i miss something ?
This remark, along with the soft plea deal he got have created a lot of speculation (mostly outside of mainstream news outlets, for obvious reasons), that Epstein was operating a blackmail honeypot for some intelligence agency, either the CIA or Mossad I guess, since he had some ties to the Israeli defense industry and some former high-level Israeli
It's honestly not that implausible that an intelligence agency would let him keep his pedo ring as long as they knew who was in it, it would have been a blackmail goldmine based on the kind of people that were in his social circle.
Here is the source of the quote and some more information on his ties to Israeli intelligence if this interests you:
I'm guessing it's because Ghislaine Maxwell (who has now gone underground, whereabouts unknown) was intimately tied to Epstein, and her father Robert Maxwell has plausible ties to Mossad. (Check the Wikipedia on Robert Maxwell.)
That being said I don't agree with OP.
Yes, it smells like antisemitism.
If someone made an off topic comment about China or Obama or whatever, I'd suspect their motivations on those too.
It doesn't mean that every criticism of Obama or China is necessarily racist, but boy is it hard to read goodwill in comments where that sort of thing is irrelevant.
This is the same person who attempted to trick a CNN reporter onto a boat full of sex toys in an attempt to seduce her on camera: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/acorn-foe-james-okeefe-sought-t...
In 2017, they were caught trying to convince The Washington Post to publish fabricated rape allegations: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approa...
He's been convicted of sneaking into Congressional offices.
You should read up on this person before believing anything they release: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe.
Project Veritas is a pure propaganda outfit, and republishing anything they do is a disservice to information.
The conjectured story is concerning, but the fact that Project Veritas is the primary source yields a quite shaky providence. I'd much rather BBC had found better corroboration before running such a story.
No? What supports this claim?