O.K., Prince Andrew's out of public life. Why isn't Bill Clinton?

The press is making a big deal out of Britain's Prince Andrew now being ousted from public life, based on his pretty gamy associations with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. He had his hand draped around the bare midriff of a 17-year old, in one photo. He kibbitzed with Epstein after his Florida slap-on-the-wrist conviction and there's a photograph there, too. Flight records show he rode the Lolita Express. And incredibly, he claims he never knew anything untoward was going on.

A little rich there, old chap. Or very, very, naive...

U.K.'s Daily Mail has this comprehensive report, reasonably explored from a U.K. perspective. But the U.S. press has been all over it, too. Here's CNN, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, CNBC, Time, Fox News... 

It's good clean fun for the American press, given that the British royal family is unimportant here, and relies on a pristine public image to maintain U.K. public support which is pretty incompatible with jetting around with Epstein, but it also raises questions about why that other famous friend of Epstein's, Bill Clinton, who rode the Lolita Express again, and again, and again, isn't getting the same pariah treatment. Fact is, the press hasn't brought the disgusting thing up at all, even as Clinton's wife (and daughter) gallivant around the country on a thinly disguised campaign for Hillary as president.

Joe Biden's gotten all kinds of questions based on his son Hunter's gamy business dealings. But Hillary Clinton remains immune -- and not a word has been said in the media about hubby Bill, who's still carrying on his public life as usual. It's as if he's out of the picture, and all those denials he's thus far made are simply factual ... albeit about as factual as Prince Andrew's denials.

And there's more than a few indicators that Clinton wasn't naive at all about Epstein. Though he wasn't accused by Epstein's credible accuser Virginia Giuffre, Clinton's been accused repeatedly being a sexual predator by others earlier. Someone like Clinton turning up with Epstein, is pretty obviously a matter of public interest, particularly with his wife's presidential ambitions. Just recently, one of Clinton's accusers, Juanita Broaddrick, gave this interview to Australia's Sky News, bringing up the constant issues with the much-vaunted Democratic ex-president, and still seeking justice. She's not getting any so far:

 

 

Which brings up again why Clinton isn't getting any attention, let alone ostracization, on his well-known relationship with Epstein. Why not? The Brit press is interested in British angles, the American press should be similarly interested in American angles. But only Prince Andrew gets the full press attention. Maybe that's because he's not a Democrat to protect?

It just shows the press's credibility problem in conveniently attempting to protect another Democrat from any uncomfortable questions.

 

The press is making a big deal out of Britain's Prince Andrew now being ousted from public life, based on his pretty gamy associations with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. He had his hand draped around the bare midriff of a 17-year old, in one photo. He kibbitzed with Epstein after his Florida slap-on-the-wrist conviction and there's a photograph there, too. Flight records show he rode the Lolita Express. And incredibly, he claims he never knew anything untoward was going on.

A little rich there, old chap. Or very, very, naive...

U.K.'s Daily Mail has this comprehensive report, reasonably explored from a U.K. perspective. But the U.S. press has been all over it, too. Here's CNN, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, CNBC, Time, Fox News... 

It's good clean fun for the American press, given that the British royal family is unimportant here, and relies on a pristine public image to maintain U.K. public support which is pretty incompatible with jetting around with Epstein, but it also raises questions about why that other famous friend of Epstein's, Bill Clinton, who rode the Lolita Express again, and again, and again, isn't getting the same pariah treatment. Fact is, the press hasn't brought the disgusting thing up at all, even as Clinton's wife (and daughter) gallivant around the country on a thinly disguised campaign for Hillary as president.

Joe Biden's gotten all kinds of questions based on his son Hunter's gamy business dealings. But Hillary Clinton remains immune -- and not a word has been said in the media about hubby Bill, who's still carrying on his public life as usual. It's as if he's out of the picture, and all those denials he's thus far made are simply factual ... albeit about as factual as Prince Andrew's denials.

And there's more than a few indicators that Clinton wasn't naive at all about Epstein. Though he wasn't accused by Epstein's credible accuser Virginia Giuffre, Clinton's been accused repeatedly being a sexual predator by others earlier. Someone like Clinton turning up with Epstein, is pretty obviously a matter of public interest, particularly with his wife's presidential ambitions. Just recently, one of Clinton's accusers, Juanita Broaddrick, gave this interview to Australia's Sky News, bringing up the constant issues with the much-vaunted Democratic ex-president, and still seeking justice. She's not getting any so far:

 

 

Which brings up again why Clinton isn't getting any attention, let alone ostracization, on his well-known relationship with Epstein. Why not? The Brit press is interested in British angles, the American press should be similarly interested in American angles. But only Prince Andrew gets the full press attention. Maybe that's because he's not a Democrat to protect?

It just shows the press's credibility problem in conveniently attempting to protect another Democrat from any uncomfortable questions.