Jeffrey Epstein arrested: Israeli-American pedo ring to be exposed?

It was (kind of) hilarious to watch Andrew digging himself deeper into a hole with his totally absurd and contradictory explanations:

Andrew says it was "honourable" to end his friendship (with a convicted pedophile) in person instead of just calling on the phone, so he wanted to see Epstein "one last time" in 2010, yet after this he still stayed as a guest for several days in his place. And Andrew had just moment ago explaing how Epstein was not really a close friend at all!

Andrew explains how he was at home with his children during the time of the abuse. Amazingly he recalls how he was "going to pizza Express around 4-5 in the afternoon" during that totally normal day almost 20 years ago. What a memory! :rotfl:

Then he says how he had a "medical condition" that prevented him from sweating, thus "proving" that he couldn't have abused Virginia Roberts who had described Andrew sweating a lot during that night. What a strange detail to take as your defence. But apparently now he's healed from this "medical condition" and can sweat again - which i'm sure he's doing after this interview.

He can't directly accuse Roberts of lying, so instead Andrew goes on throughout the interview saying how he can't remember ever meeting her, which is bizarre, since there's the famous photograph that shows Andrew standing right next to Roberts, with his hand on her waist.

Apparently Andrew can remember what he ate for dinner 20 years ago on a totally random day, but can't remember whether he's ever met someone even after showing a picture of them together! Then Andrew explains cryptically how the photograph can't be proved to be fake or not because "it is a photograph of a photograph of a photograph". :rotfl:

During the interview Andrew gives his "best explanation" for the photograph:

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.
 
With just that one car crash interview, Andrew has ruined whatever good they mustered from flooding the airwaves (in the UK anyway) with royal stories of late. They had even convinced Andrew's daughter to announce her wedding. :rolleyes:

My one reservation with the Amy Robach leak is that it's a little convenient the way she 'laid it all out' in front of a camera. Sure, she knew she wasn't 'on air', but she likely also knows that cameras can still be recording, especially when the cast and crew are all on set, between takes or ad-breaks or whatever. Why did she share this with her colleagues so... riskily and openly?

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...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

I very much agree. Why has Ghislaine Maxwell not been at the forefront of all investigations? And at this point it is clear that her father Robert Maxwell was a Mossad asset. It could well be a tactical diversion going on here.
 
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.

If you can stomach another victims testimonies video this one came up on YouTube after the Richie Allen analysis of the Prince Andrew interview. The first victim interviewed was Virginia Roberts. Numerous other victims tell their stories. However; the one other commenter (didn't catch his name) throws in a kind of damage control by saying he thinks Epstein's "suicide" is plausible.

1,878,732 views •Nov 10, 2019

Exposing Jeffrey Epstein's international sex trafficking ring | 60 Minutes Australia

 
Last edited:
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.

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.

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".
 
Randy Andy is a liar and the poster boy for why hereditary monarchies are a very bad idea.

Yeah. You gotta give the nobility/gentry types some credit for at least having some principles that some of them actually care about, as opposed to the rampant nihilism reigning elsewhere. The problem with these types is (and always has been) though that when it comes to it, they ALWAYS choose "protection of their kin/class" over morality. It's shameful.

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.

Yes, the Royals (and aristocrats in general) have become a circus show for some and punching bags for others for some time now it seems. They are certainly not our worst problem, or the worst of the bunch, or even that powerful. The Mossad angle in the whole Epstein affair would be much more useful to explore I think.
 
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 took the "palace" comment by Robach to be a euphemism for an American-based power center, not the royal family. But with Andrew's connection, it could be very on the nose. But if it was too on the nose, what's the purpose? To distract from another guilty party? Someone with an axe to grind?
 
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.

I thought she meant that the Palace killed the story simply by threatening ABC with not granting any access (for interviews and so on) to Kate and William et al. US media may not recognize the authority of the British royals, but they do care about ratings.
 
I thought she meant that the Palace killed the 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 Epstein
 
Last edited:
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.
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:
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."
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!
 
Back
Top Bottom