PA: Listen, I don't remember, I don't remember that photograph ever being taken. I don't remember going upstairs in the house because that photograph was taken upstairs and I am not entirely convinced that… I mean that is… that is what I would describe as me in that… in that picture but I can't… we can't be certain as to whether or not that's my hand on her whatever it is, left… left side.
EM: You think that…
PA: Because I have no recollection of that photograph ever being taken.
EM: So why would somebody have put in another hand? You think it is next to her in the photo.
PA: Oh it's definitely me, I mean that's a picture of me, it's not a picture of… I don't believe it's a picture of me in London because when I would go out to… when I go out in London, I wear a suit and a tie. That's what I would describe as… those are my travelling clothes if I'm going to go… if I'm going overseas. There's a… I've got plenty of photographs of me dressed in those sorts of… that sort of kit but not there.
EM: Just to clarify sorry, you think that photo has been faked?
PA: Nobody can prove whether or not that photograph has been doctored but I don't recollect that photograph ever being taken.
EM: And you don't recollect having your hand…
PA: No.
EM: … round her waist in Ghislaine Maxwell's house on any occasion, even if it was a different date?
PA: I'm terribly sorry but if I, as a member of the Royal Family, and I have a photograph taken and I take very, very few photographs, I am not one to, as it were, hug and public displays of affection are not something that I do. So that's the best explanation I can give you and I'm afraid to say that I don't believe that photograph was taken in the way that has been suggested.
Throughout the decade or so since Epstein was convicted, much of the focus has been on just one of his 'clients': Andrew. I wonder if some deflection games are afoot to steer fallout from this scandal from 'the tribe' to this hapless (though undoubtedly pathological) British royal.
This is a pretty good analysis by Richie Allen of last night's interview. He's very critical of the interviewer Maitlis. As for the Prince, well he's as dodgy as a £9 note in my evaluation. Why travel across the world to break up a friendship if you weren't particularly close? Being honourable with a paedophile? Nothing Andrew says rings true to me. Apparently he doesn't drink, nor even sweat. Watching the interview is a good little exercise in how to spot bullshit if nothing else.
Robach specifically claimed "the palace" killed the story. Can Buckingham Palace reach into ABC in the US to kill a story? I doubt it, though British security services could do so on their behalf. And ABC's CEO is British...
Throughout the decade or so since Epstein was convicted, much of the focus has been on just one of his 'clients': Andrew. I wonder if some deflection games are afoot to steer fallout from this scandal from 'the tribe' to this hapless (though undoubtedly pathological) British royal.
Randy Andy is a liar and the poster boy for why hereditary monarchies are a very bad idea.
Robach specifically claimed "the palace" killed the story. Can Buckingham Palace reach into ABC in the US to kill a story? I doubt it, though British security services could do so on their behalf. And ABC's CEO is British...
Throughout the decade or so since Epstein was convicted, much of the focus has been on just one of his 'clients': Andrew. I wonder if some deflection games are afoot to steer fallout from this scandal from 'the tribe' to this hapless (though undoubtedly pathological) British royal.
For example, Alan Dershowitz alone holds way more power in the US than the entire Buckingham Palace. And he is one of the more visible ones of "the tribe".
Robach specifically claimed "the palace" killed the story. Can Buckingham Palace reach into ABC News in the US to kill a story? I doubt it, though British security services might perhaps be able to do so on their behalf. And ABC's CEO is British...
I wondered about that when I heard her say it in the "leaked" video. Not only in regards to how much power the Palace has on media revelations in the US, but also, I don't think that any American holds the British royal family in such high-esteem as to choose to protect their reputation over sharing a news story.
This could be the reason for Robach's ¨accidental¨ video, to shift the blame for blocking the item on Epstein to the Palace. The ¨and threatened us a million different ways¨ fits in with the famous ¨they have a million ways from sunday to get back at you¨, the CIA/Mossad. They also hindered the prosecutor in the original court case against EpsteinI thought she meant that the Palace killed the story
I'm still listening to the Richie Allen youtube reaction to the Prince Andrew interview the night before. Here's what appeared in my local paper in a section of around the world news highlights:This is a pretty good analysis by Richie Allen of last night's interview. He's very critical of the interviewer Maitlis. As for the Prince, well he's as dodgy as a £9 note in my evaluation. Why travel across the world to break up a friendship if you weren't particularly close? Being honourable with a paedophile? Nothing Andrew says rings true to me. Apparently he doesn't drink, nor even sweat. Watching the interview is a good little exercise in how to spot bullshit if nothing else.
So the Prince was supposedly advised NOT to give the interview and it was a complete disaster as predicted. One has to wonder then, why did he do it? Has he been designated as the official patsy to direct attention away from the tribe > Ghislaine, Dershowitz, Les Wexner? Did the Queen think a rebuttal was essential for damage control in regards to the monarchy's image and that's why the interview took place? A picture's worth a 1000 words, and for Andrew to suggest that the one of him with his arm around Giuffre may have been faked is more than ludicrous! As pointed out in the previously posted Joe Rogan clip, the extreme blatancy of this entire episode is just so over-the-top! I guess at this point, the PTB feel certain that they can get away with anything and even rub our noses in it!LONDON
Prince Andrew's rebuttal seen as a PR disaster
British media on Sunday slammed Prince Andrew's effort to rebut claims that he had sex with a teenager who says she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein, branding his televised interview a complete public relations disaster.
[...]
"I expected a train wrek," said Charlie Proctor, editor of the Royal Central website, which covers the British monarchy. "That was a plane crashing into an oil tanker, causing a tsunami, triggering a nuclear explosion-level bad."
I thought this was interesting.
Lady Colin Campbell defends Prince Andrew and claims ‘soliciting sex from minors is not paedophilia’
The socialite and TV personality caused anger with her controversial comments.www.yahoo.com