Epstein Files | (former) Prince Andrew arrested

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 5K
  • Views: 194K
  • Politics 
Ddseddse said:
I haven't seen it posted on here explicitly, but as I understand it the charges against Andrew are for passing sensitive information to Epstein and not (as far as I'm aware) anything to do with sexual impropriety (including anything to do with Virginia Guiffre). I suspect this was a very carefully negotiated point.

Doesn't mean that subsequent investigations won't lead there, but so far he hasn't been official charged with any sexual misconduct (as I understand it).
Click to expand...
From the wording, it sounded like a near equivalent of insider trading as they mentioned trade secrets compromised.
 
CeruleanBlueHeel said:
From the wording, it sounded like a near equivalent of insider trading as they mentioned trade secrets compromised.
Click to expand...
Literally nauseating how this highlights that corporate interests are worth protecting, but it's still OK to ignore victims of child sex crimes as long as the perpetrators are powerful men.
 
finesse said:
British Royals are hasbeens.
Click to expand...
Very true. However, I personally know several older voters who voted for Trump but they weren't thrilled with voting for him. Now, they are going to be very, very interested in this Epstein story, in ways they hadn't fully come to terms with. Perhaps, even connecting a few dots. So that has to be a good thing.
 
BlueSmoke said:
Very true. However, I personally know several older voters who voted for Trump but they weren't thrilled with voting for him. Now, they are going to be very, very interested in this Epstein story, in ways they hadn't fully come to terms with. Perhaps, even connecting a few dots. So that has to be a good thing.
Click to expand...
It shouldn’t take the Epstein saga for people to realize what a horrible option Trump was, but it is good to know there is a line that exists…at least for some.
 
It would be interesting if the British demanded the Epstein files. Probably can't do that, but maybe hint to Trump that they could publicly demand them and it would be better to avoid that. We would know if we suddenly see a groveling attitude from Trump toward the U.K.
 
Ddseddse said:
Literally nauseating how this highlights that corporate interests are worth protecting, but it's still OK to ignore victims of child sex crimes as long as the perpetrators are powerful men.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that is a good reading of the situation here. If Andrew was committing sex crimes on Epstein Island, the UK would have no jurisdiction to charge him. The charges would have to come from the U.S. and well . . .

. . . but even without Trump, there are serious obstacles to charging a royal. For one thing, we have something called the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. I have no idea exactly how it pertains to royals who are titular heads of state, but it wouldn't surprise me if the FSIA is an impediment (perhaps not insuperable) for prosecuting a British royal. And of course the diplomatic repercussions would be enormous.

So if we assume that Andrew basically can't be charged outside of the UK -- at least not while he has something like royal status -- then this is likely the best option.
 
Ddseddse said:
Literally nauseating how this highlights that corporate interests are worth protecting, but it's still OK to ignore victims of child sex crimes as long as the perpetrators are powerful men.
Click to expand...
also as to do with what can be proven in court
 
www.nytimes.com

Former Prince Andrew Arrested in UK Over Ties to Epstein: Live Updates

King Charles III said he supported a “full, fair and proper process” regarding the investigation of his brother Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, adding that he backed the authorities involved.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

"The arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor underscores a significant contrast between the United Kingdom and the United States in the official response to the Epstein files. British authorities have moved aggressively to investigate the possibility of crimes emerging from the three million pages of documents with Epstein. In the U.S., some business executives have resigned, but police have not take action like they have in Britain."

How about that? The USA - it's like a third world country!
 
Kraftyheel89 said:
Massie and Khana were able to view unredacted portions of the files, in lieu of letting all of Congress to view. By law, we are all supposed to be able to view. Amazing obvious coverup by DOJ.....

Key Facts​

Massie said what bothered him the most about his viewing was “the names of at least six men that have been redacted that are likely incriminated by their inclusion in these files.”
Khanna noted that despite the Justice Department confirming last week that members of Congress could read the unredacted Epstein files, “There's still a lot that's redacted.”
Massie did not provide the names of the individuals he and Khanna saw, but said one was a U.S. citizen and another was an authoritative figure in a foreign government, while Khanna noted one name belonged to a high-profile individual.

Click to expand...

Whoops.

 
C-Money said:
It's complete bullshit that Trump has not been investigated more, and he should have been impeached already. Any other country he would have been done by now.
Click to expand...
Yes even if you can’t prove he Is a pedophile he should still be impeached for having close relationships with proven ones. It is below the presidency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top