Prince Andrew's Royal Reps Despicably Question Validity of Valid Photo of Andrew w/ Underage Epstein Victim

Even by the low moral standards Prince Andrew has set for himself, this is shocking.

Now under royal scrutiny: A genuine picture of Prince Andrew grinning with his arm around one of Jeffrey Epstein’s primary legal accusers, who was a child at the time Epstein flew her around the world and offered her “services” to some of the convicted billionaire pedo’s social circle, court papers assert.

Ghislaine Maxwell, as yet remarkably still un-indicted, looms in the background of the photo.

So, we see, those supposedly so compassionate toward the victims of child sex trafficking have a weird penchant for shutting down investigations, intimidating investigators, and gaslighting away public awareness from the headlines that would cause the public to make this a top law enforcement priority. Odd!

Do they really want to go here? What about the photo, or Virginia Giuffre’s disturbing claims about Jeffrey Epstein and his nearly 1,000 “elite” wealthy friends, is not genuine? Constant gaslighting is not remorse, it’s pathetic.

Why did so many in the media refuse to cover the allegations against Epstein and his friends in a timely fashion? Why did some leading names in the broadcast media actually attend a celebration dinner hosted by Epstein at his house, after his release from prison the first time around? Why so much weirdness around the details of Epstein’s alleged suicide while in one of the most monitored correctional facilities in the world?

Why do the wealthy elite in America and Europe seem singularly obsessed with hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein in awkward public encounters, and child sex predation? What possible legitimate reason could there be for flying on Epstein’s infamously named Lolita Express 20+ times, as former President Clinton has? Why does Clinton-linked Daily Beast continue to appear on the homepage of MSN and Yahoo! in the States? (when its presentation of the news—and especially its analysis of the truthful Pizzagate scandal—appears to be materially biased agitprop, set out at the behest of the Clintons, and not public interest journalism.

Why has Google-owned YouTube refused to restore service to FULCRUM News, David Seaman, Infowars and other truthful purveyors of Pedogate/Pizzagate information, and instead reversed course from its earlier surprising public stance of allowing “opposing views” back onto their “open” platform? Why all the top-down Big Tech censorship of an underage sex scandal that implicates billionaires, and Big Tech executives?

Why has a former John Podesta employee launched a lobbying firm here in DC, remarkably calling it FULCRUM DC and trying to bury us in search results so that his firm can rank for that term, when we’ve gone by FULCRUM DC publicly on our timestamped social media and have been based in the D.C. area for some time now… when we questioned him about this, he blocked our FULCRUM DC Twitter account from further contact.

What is all this nonsense? Continue reading:

Researchers have directly linked Jeffrey Epstein socially to John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Campaign Manager, and to James Alefantis — a shadowy restaurant proprietor and close friend of Barack Obama’s who visited the Obama-era White House at least five times, according to public records.

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates reportedly flew on Epstein’s infamous private jet, dubbed the Lolita Express by the media, years after Epstein was convicted of soliciting sex from minors.