Interesting which names appear on the Epstein list which are considered newsworthy and which aren't
fromthe Uk Blair's Former fixer Peter Mandelson and Right wing Journalist turned BBC interviewer Andrew Neil have got very little attention, yet Prince Andrew has been destroyed.
Interesting which names appear on the Epstein list which are considered newsworthy and which aren't
fromthe Uk Blair's Former fixer Peter Mandelson and Right wing Journalist turned BBC interviewer Andrew Neil have got very little attention, yet Prince Andrew has been destroyed.
Interesting which names appear on the Epstein list which are considered newsworthy and which aren't
fromthe Uk Blair's Former fixer Peter Mandelson and Right wing Journalist turned BBC interviewer Andrew Neil have got very little attention, yet Prince Andrew has been destroyed.
That photo of Andrew is probably the main reason. The others can just claim a business connection, never met socially etc. If a photo of Mandeldon or Neil turns up with their arms round an underage girl they might have questions to answer too.
Boies has not looked good for some time, as indicated by the now near totemic incantation of his representation of Al Gore in 2000 as establishing his progressive bona fides. There's also his work for Harvey Weinstein, of course, and if the reports of a few ex-colleagues are any guide, his firm is rather less than a great place to practice law.
Interesting which names appear on the Epstein list which are considered newsworthy and which aren't
fromthe Uk Blair's Former fixer Peter Mandelson and Right wing Journalist turned BBC interviewer Andrew Neil have got very little attention, yet Prince Andrew has been destroyed.
I do get your point of how connections help to cover up, but surely Prince Andrew is by nature of his position more newsworthy -- and more publicly accountable -- than a couple of political and media hacks.
More newsworthy, certainly. More publicly accountable? Hes a member of the royal family, almost by definition they are absolutely not publicly accountable
Depends on how you apply that. Obviously they are not accountable in as far as there are enforcible sanctions. But there are other ways of holding royals to account -- such as the public anger that forced the queen to submit to quivering her upper lip a bit after the death of Diana. Andrew has been held to account already by organisations hat are cutting ties with him.
But my point doesn't so much reside with the mechanics than the principle of accountability. As somebody in a publicly supported institution, Andrew is answerable to the public in ways a political freelancer or a journalist aren't (though if Marr works for the BBC, an argument could be made that he also has a case to answr, if one exists).
Of course, the idea of any accountability by tax-funded individuals is giving way to brazen impunity where no scandal has consequences because... oh, cat meme!
Comment