So he really is going for the "I didn't know" defence?
WTF? How is it that he knows so little about anything, ever? Must be about the fifth scandal in his 18 months as PM that he's claimed "not to have known"?
This one is worse: he was the country's most senior prosecutor. In what world would it be reasonable to take the word of someone who has lied previously in public life, and lost their job because of his deceit and greed, not once, but twice?
He was told that PM had stayed in Epstein's house whilst he was in prison. Surely he needed to get to the bottom of where this information had come from and he should have checked the veracity of the such information from the folks paid to do this: hint - not the man who's being vetted and who has more than a vested interest in lying or playing down the truth.
When he was DPP, is he seriously trying to suggest that when his department was checking the references of a potential employee, they would rely on the employee themselves? Starmer says that he asked PM three questions - why was he even asking him? He has the full security services at his disposal: if they raise red flags, why would you ignore them and take the person at his word?
And there were pictures in the public domain of PM with Epstein: two different ones with a huge birthday cake and one with Peter trying on a new belt with Epstein looking on. Nothing dodgy, but all three clearly showing a good friendship. But Starmer pretends that he was told, and believed, that PM said he barely knew him.
Blaming a mendacious liar for being a mendacious liar is, well, insulting to all of us. He made a conscious decision to sup with the devil and should be honest enough to admit that. Although, I've come to the conclusion that he actually believes his own lies.
