Over the neverending debacle about Meghan and Harry the real mess is Prince Andrew's scandalous connection to Mr. Epstein an Ms. Maxwell. I am shocked that we do not have
further information until yet. It's a shame that these elite people seem to be above the law. May justice be done to all the victims!
1
You can repeat it as much as you want, just like you incessantly mention Trump's "booming economy."
But nobody in their right mind thinks Epstein hung himself . . .
5
I do. I'm just not into conspiracy theories and I go by the preponderance of the evidence.
2
They should all step down from royal duties, except the queen who is needed to sustain tourism.
This all seems so familiar; declarations of innocence backed with flimsy and questionable evidence and bold promises of cooperation that evaporate when the rubber hits the road. Where have I heard this before?
3
Thank you for continuing to follow this story, but it seems disingenuous to simply report "Mr. Epstein hanged himself last summer at a jail in Manhattan" as fact without mention of the mysteriously sleeping guards and conveniently missing video footage.
We need to call this what it is: a massive cover-up to protect the ultra rich and powerful. I'm not hopeful that there will be a shred of justice here, but I think if we have any chance at all it will be because of persistent and forceful investigative journalism.
7
Why should he testify when the US refused to return an American woman who killed a British citizen with her car after she fled the UK
1
@Mark I don't believe that would make a difference and fat chance of that happening.
Those wealthy men who claim ignorance to the scope of Epstein's perversions, claiming to never question the fact of obviously underage companions he traveled with, are no different then the people who exploit girls being pimped at truck stops. Their status and money isolate them from taking the responsibilty for acting upon abuse of vulnerable teenagers. Their outrage would be deafening had a man bought their own daughters ice cream or took them to the zoo, they would certainly know where that would lead. They believe ignorance is bliss when it comes to their own personal whims.
4
The U.S. should offer to waive diplomatic immunity on Anne Sacoolas, in exchange for Prince Andrew’s testimony.
1
I'm British, and I have a suggestion: We'll swap you Andrew for Mrs Sacoulas. Deal?
2
Without commenting on Prince Andrew per se, all of the mature men who associated with underage ladies in the Epstein sphere of influence, should be presumed to have had biblical knowledge of said underage ladies, unless proven otherwise.
As such an appropriate treatment would be to consider them all biblical wives, with full rights to property, inheritance, and titles, as may flow from having been married to such dignitaries.
2
The Brits and Yankees should exchange alleged scoundrels. The U.S. prosecutors and investigators get time in the box with the prince. And their U.K. counterparts can play 20 questions with the American Ambassador's wife who was driving the car that hit and killed a young British motorcyclist. It's all a lot of media-inflamed nationalism when there's nothing to be gotten but hot air, attorney-fed scripts and applause from the home crowd.
1
The royal family has always been above the law. Now is the time for The good people of the UK to say enough is enough. End the monarchy and charge them all with welfare fraud.
5
The British monarchy is not dying; it’s long dead. The House of Windsor is no different today than the House of Hilton or Khardasian; just pure-play glam media. That’s why Megxit makes so much sense.
Prince Randy isn’t going to talk to the FBI or anyone else. He’ll disappear to an island somewhere and never be heard from again. They’re not going to let someone as obviously impaired as Randy talk to law enforcement on the record.
8
No one in their right mind would cooperate. You have every thing to lose and nothing to gain, unless, like Bolton, you have a book coming out, which Randy Andy doesn’t.
4
Andrew is supposed to have been the Queen’s favorite child —this has been acknowledged for many years.
It is any wonder that Megan Markle and Prince Harry have taken a giant step back from
the royal family?
9
Why would he cooperate because to do so, he may, or could indict himself as well.
To do most disgusting and heinous acts a human is possible of (shy of actual murder), that’s Mr Epstein, for you— to keep any contact after his first sentences, speaks volumes.
It says few things about the Prince:
- he’s not very bright for not to have picked up on that barrage of young females around Mr E. Well, you could say a lot of scientists and researchers were dumb as well when it came to this. I don’t believe it— men in such circles “always” know what’s happening. They just choose to be quiet about it.
- the only way you could ignore was if you were a part of it.
Even if you deny all of above, just explain that picture of his with Ms. Giuffre, taken in 2001. His arm around her bare waist, the smiles, and Ms. Maxwell watching from the side like a procurement-duenna: this scene is as old as age.
A middle aged man, a young woman and an older women looking on— prostitution business transaction in a glance— it’s just that the girl is a young teenager and the man in question, part of a (in truth) defunct royal house.
Apart from the Queen, then morals of her entire progeny are questionable.
6
I don't know why Prince Andrew is the primary focus when there are others who should be sharing this awful spotlight.
4
Looks like he is just acting "Presidential".
5
Epstein was hounded to his death by the very same people who now claim to want to depose him over events which may have occurred decades , or at best, years ago. Were I the Prince, with knowledge of how Epstein was treated, I would stay as far from any US femal and any US prosecutor as the British law , in good faith, and in regard to my own rights-recall that the British "constitution" stands as father to son, when we compare the laws and individual rights of subjects of Great Britain.
Epstein is dead-let his lawyers and the lawyers for the angry women fight over the carcass of his estate as that is , esssentially all that they have left to do. None of these women are monors. ALmost-if not all have forfeited any rights to file complaints to the police and many aided and acted as co-conspirators in the very acts they now claim-as though they were snowy white lambs- were cruel crimes against themselves.(Oi-oioi!)
I' would forever remain at at least the length of the Atlantic away from any NY court. If what now is occuring in regards Epstein's estate is an indicator-one can can "smell" a hungry cabal of lawyers, (and soon to be politicians), at the Prosecutor's office-slavering over the money and property of the British Royal family.
@meloop
The “US femal” and “angry women” you demean were underage children when Epstein and his cult of pedophiles exploited, violated, and imprisoned them. Your defense of Epstein and Andrew Windsor make you sound like a pedophile sympathizer. As with Larry Nasser the US Gymnastics doctor found guilty of multiple counts of sexual assault, hundreds of girls must be abused before they are believed.
Shame on you for defending the perpetrators of heinous crimes against children.
4
How come there has been no investigations into sex trafficking at Mar Lagos. Epstein used the resort as a base yet no one suspected anything, please! How many of members at this Trump resort turned a blind eye or were involved?
8
Stop the interest in the Royal family. What has England produced with such silly system? Even his father was above the law while repeatedly driving without a license.
1
Why on earth would the palace permit someone as obviously slow-witted and inarticulate as Andrew to go on television? It was clear the moment that interview was announced that it would be a train wreck. Much, much better to have had Andrew quietly “retire“ and be tucked away into a cottage on one of the estates.
4
Am broadly in favour of our constitutional monarchy. But within that is the guarantee that no one is above the law.
Prince Andrew should answer for his conduct as fully as any normal person.
24
I think that Prince Andrew needs to address and face his accuser...
End of story...!
1
He's lying. He saw a lot of questionable behavior. Perhaps he participated in exploiting under age girls. If he personally did nothing wrong, then why won't he cooperate. This man stayed friends with a convicted sex offender - yes, that certainly is "unbecoming" behavior. Appalling.
4
Have the fundamental Constitutional principles our nation was built on started to crumble for expediency's, partisan or political correctness' sake?
I, like the vast majority, have no idea what did or did not happen. I expect the prosecution to work within the law of this nation to find verifiable evidence of guilt beyond a shadow of doubt.
Jumping to conclusions, "believing the testimony of one but not the other" ... accepting the idea of "guilty until the accused proves their innocence" is taking us back to the Puritan days and/or Medieval times of torture for "truth" before the Enlightenment brought us the foundation of our imperfect but the best possible legal system for our nation.
5
Does the U.S. not have an 'extradition for gathering evidence' agreement with the Brits? Are certain classes of individuals exempt from such?
3
There's no such thing as extradition for purposes of gathering evidence LOL. Persons charged with crimes can be extradited, witnesses cannot.
Prince Andrew is not guilty of anything merely because he was friendly with a cunning monster, except that he was recklessly friendly with a cunning monster.
But if he falsely believes himself to be above the law, and above justice, merely because he was born a prince, he needs that false believe smartly corrected.
5
Here we have two individuals where there seems to be good evidence that they are guilty of offences in foreign countries: Prince Andrew and Anne Sacoolas.
Both should be sent to the respective countries to face charges.
43
I'm not sure why the US expects cooperation considering that the State Dept. has refused to waive immunity for the American wife of a diplomat who admitted she killed a UK citizen in an automobile accident. We're harboring a murderer.
32
@Alan B very great point! Beside the guy that did the crimes is dead. All his money will go to pay for restitution. What eles does all these womens want? Take the money and move on. Life is short to be in courts for years.
You're under the impression that the driver involved in an auto accident that results in a death is a murderer? I believe she accidentally drove on the wrong side of the road because she is an American. That makes her civilly liable but not criminally.
1
and the US offers no help in the case of the American woman who killed the British motorcyclist and then claimed diplomatic immunity.
24
Clearly Epstein was plugged into a vast network of movers and shakers that enabled and supported him to a degree that remains unsolved as yet.
No doubt any significant findings will be quashed to protect these luminaries from unflattering revelations maybe even participations.....
Epstein was silenced.
15
Everyone loves a two-tier class and justice system.
Nonrich criminals to your prison cells, please.
Wealthy criminals back to your castles, please.
Time for some wealthy criminals to stop hiding behind their cash and lawyers and meet sweet justice.
250
@Socrates-Since you mention it, could Dershowitz and Starr have been persuaded to stump for Trump because of what he knows (via William Barr) about their history with Epstein (Exhibit A: Lolita Express junkets, and Exhibit B: Kirkland & Ellis law firm alumnus with Pat Cipollone and others?)
20
@Socrates. And people are complaining about Bail reform
2
Spoiled, pampered, never done a hard day's work in his life, and now above the law.
Why do the Brits keep the monarchy?
266
@Nancy Because they drive an economic engine worth just shy of 2 Billion Pounds a year, and only cost about a quarter of a billion. It's a good business model for the nation, whether one approves or not.
66
@Nancy Good question, Nancy, and one more and more of us are asking. The big change in public opinion will come after the death if the Queen.
35
@Nancy
Spoiled, pampered, never did a hard days work in his life, and now above the law.
Why do 40% of Yanks continue to support trump?
If I were the brits I’d request again for the extradition of the American that killed a U.K. citizen in an auto accident than ran back home under dubious diplo immunity. Then and only then send Andrew here for questioning about Epstein.
78
While we worry about Harry and Meghan we miss the true outrage. That is about a “royal” having not only been a friend but an assiduous one to a man who everybody who interacted with had questions about, specifically about a retinue of scantly class underdressed women.
MIT staff noticed them. His neighbors noticed. Even Trump noticed. Are we to believe that Andrew did not? Over years of visiting? Andrew should be forced to testify under oath. Justice must be done
Why is this a problem? Isn’t he innocent?
335
@Kim Hahn
Literally in this case
4
@Yoandel: they weren’t women but girls.
24
Police, Jail, Security Guards are officer of the law. When Epstein was in their custody, the legal system gives him the protection so he can face his accusers and if found guilty proper sentence is handed down to him for his crimes.
He died in their custody.
It is obvious from the location of the bruises on his neck where the sheet presumably rested, he was killed rather than suicide.
If Epstein was a criminal, the bigger criminals are in the jail system. All this shenanigans need to stop and the might of the Justice Department needs to fall in investigating as to who killed Epstein. Otherwise, there is no difference between Epstein and the law enforcement.
The public needs to be alarmed that their law enforcement comprise of people who have no concern for the same law that they presumably enforcing.
11
I'm glad the FBI called him out on his hypocrisy.
12
Prince Andrew’s BBC interview was appalling, but when he said he didn’t regret knowing Epstein because he met so many great people, it was truly startling.
23
It may be difficult for the FBI to force Andrew to cooperate but it should not be so with Ghislaine Maxwell. No reason she can’t be located and subpoenaed.
24
@ml ....she's being hidden in the Middle East by some very rich people. The only question is 'why?'
Here's another unrepentant Royal that should be stripped of his titles, privileges, subsidies, and sent into exile. Having to work for his daily bread will be the equivalent to a life sentence without parole.
28
“Of course, I am willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required.”
Is Prince Andrews hep “required”?
As with Trump, any commitment by Prince Andrews to cooperate comes with caveats.
12
Ah, yes, the tried and true "Trumpian response" to requests for participation in an investigation. Wonder where the Prince got the idea? Usually goes along with the mens rea about the act committed. I wonder what authorities will do when commoners start doing the same thing as what they see the high and mighty getting away with...
10
Not being familiar with the American way of communication, I often wonder why it is necessary to consult with one’s attorney before telling what is called the truth and why offering through the sttotney to tell the whole truth, the line often goes dead. No response is also a response v
6
@Ostinato In general, the US and many other legal systems are dicey. Except in rare cases, the general advice is to NEVER talk without an attorney. As they say, they can use anything against you even if it is said in a way that is meant to support you.
2
the soiled remnant of a dying monarchy
28
Could it be that the source of Epstein’s wealth was hush money from his prominent “friends?” Have we seen the end of the Epstein Saga? Time will tell and then we can draw our own conclusions.
23
The guy is used to living on public dole and welfare. Give him a few more cans of ice cream. he will cooperate.
19
And yet the UK is surprisingly indignant about US diplomatic wife Anne Sacoolas not returning to be held accountable. She should return and the UK government should force sexual pedophile Prince Andrew to cooperate with the FBI. But the wealthy and privileged are rarely held accountable on either side of the pond. Did Ted Kennedy do a day of incarceration for multiple felony crimes? Has Trump or Pence or Dershowitz? Disgusting hypocrites in control all around the world.
54
I'm around his age and wouldn't want him near me let alone touch me. Those poor young girls subjected to these grotesque men.
45
Interesting how Prince Andrew's involvement with an underage girl and continued contact with Epstein was swept aside in the wake of "Megxit," with many casting Meghan Markle and Prince Harry in a negative light. It certainly took the heat off Andrew, the true face of privileged hubris and abuse.
66
His behavior throughout this investigation etc has been appalling. He is a disgrace to the Royal Family and indeed represents the absolute worst of it.
35
He has the look of a hunted animal. I know I'm not supposed to but I feel sorry for him.
5
@Newfie
A hunted animal? No, a guilty man.
29
I know it must be bad being the only human on earth to suffer from combat induced inability to sweat. I feel sorry for him too.
No reason why the English should help us when we are harboring the American woman who ran over the young British man and refusing to extradite him.
31
He had sexual relations with very young women. Unless they were actually forced it was legal given their ages. He should have fessed up to that poor judgement, apologized and disappeared a few years ago.
Now it’s only going to get much, much worse.
12
@Will. The girls were UNDERAGE. Look it up.
4
I suspect Andrew has zero respect for the law in the US given that its President and its Senate has undermined the rule of law throughout the country and acted with impunity to destroy rules, regulations and norms while denigrating their judiciary at every turn. They sneer at the attempt to bring the wife of a spy to justice for ignorantly ignoring England’s rules of the road and killing an innocent then absurdly claiming a spy has diplomatic immunity. Then some branch of the now toothless and useless legal system tries to say its the duty of a foreigner to cooperate! America has become the laughing stock of the world and no longer has any respect so it should be unsurprised that someone ignores attempts to force a foreign citizen to cooperate with its lawless laws destroyed by Trump and his acolytes. America and its legal system was surely once a beacon of morality but that light has been extinguished by an immoral president and Republican Party who have laid waste to the whole legal system. America wants to be isolated. So be it.
14
Give it a rest. Can you remember who the president was 10 - 20 years ago when these activities were taking place with full expectation that he would be immune from any consequences?
4
If I were Prince Andrew, I would definitely not come to the United States for any reason, it sounds like they'd arrest him.
Epstein is DEAD already. Let it rest!
Moreover, I'm not aware of any evidence that Prince Andrew knew that the girls were under age OR not involved with him of their own free will. In this country one can be sent to jail for unknowingly sleeping with someone under age - NOT for sleeping with someone you had EVERY reason to think wanted to sleep with you!
And if he seems to be trying very hard to get absolutely noone to believe him, what of the alleged victims - while I could not have LIKED a man I was forced to sleep with, that story about excessive sweating - really!
1
@Dora Smith
Let it rest?
How about you give some thought and sympathy to the young women and girls he abused and trafficked? Do you not understand that minors cannot legally give consent to have sex with adults in many places? Do you not understand that there is ample evidence that Epstein and his revolting companions did, in fact, abuse girls?
An adult male is responsible for determining whether or not he is about to have sex with a minor. Surely that is the very least he would do. It is HIS responsibility, not that of an underage girl, to make the responsible decision, the decent decision, the decision every parent would want a man to make if it were their daughter involved.
How about we NOT let it rest? How about we keep this story alive until our society understands that men like Epstein are monsters?
How about you give your head a shake?
59
Not defending anyone but I simply ask:
Don't we all have the right to not incriminate ourselves, even to "remain silent" whatever the accusations unless sworn testimony in a court?
What powers do our law enforcement agencies have over foreign national living outside the US?
5
@Si Seulement Voltaire
It's called extradition.
But you may also consider Qassem Soleimani (assassinated) or Abu Omar (kidnapped and tortured), as well as many over similar cases. What power? Far too much.
1
Nothing new here... usual behavior among royalties since millennia. Only castle insiders knew ‘bad’ things going on; the faithful servants didn’t dare interfering, it was useless anyway. Commoners only saw creamy and finely empowered faces. Well, we also realize other buffoonesque auto proclaimed ‘royalties’ in this side of the pound pretend the same privileges. Only, today social networks penetrate everywhere and the laughing is generalized.
9
No one should be surprised when offenders will not cooperate with the law. Refusal confesses guilt, and fear of prosecution.
21
@victor g it's that pesky Fifth Amendment if he goes to the US
When all the video comes out with him and young girls, we can wipe that smirk off his face...
25
Why isn't the British media flipping out over Andrew as much as they are Harry and his wife? One royal wants a quieter, more 'normal' life. The other is a sexual predator who deserves to be in jail. Which one is getting ALL the news coverage?
88
If you were the Queen, which story would you want on the front pages?
10
@Vickie
It does put Harry and Meaghan's desire to leave in a much clearer light. Who would want to be part of that circus?
30
So Andrew, that coming Federal Grand Jury Subpoena has your name on it. Come on Queen, cough him up. Do the right thing.
It seems Andrew has been flushed, squelched and erased from the Royal family. The political correct term is "stepping back from Royal Duties".
It is also known as hiding/suppressing evidence.
Those 12 year olds are really hot, aren't they Andrew?
Andrew, step in here. We just have a little questions we'd like to clear up.
He and Epstein vacationed together in Thailand?
If you have ever been to Bangkok, there are approximately 750,000 teenage prostitutes on the streets on any given day for sale working in a place called Patpong.
Do your research.
And what would the Monarchy do if a U.S. Grand Jury indicts him for Sexual Assault of a Child? Those documented overt acts and credible witnesses are hard to overcome.
Now the diplomacy comes in.
U.K. you need to get him on a plane to New York. It could get ugly with all those little girl victims.
24
Justice for Epstein's victims is represents only half of the story. Barr claims he will pursue it on their behalf.
What Barr -- as well as Cyrus Vance, will not investigate is that Epstein's death was likely an "assisted suicide." No less than Dr. Michael Baden, the former chief medical examiner for New York City, has called his death a likely homicide.
Barr however has gone out of his way to put a lid on this.
the fact remains that too many ultra-wealthy narcissists benefited from him being silenced.
So, are there any investigative reporters today with the courage to pursue this?
Or are they afraid they will suffer the same fate as those who investigate Putin?
Or the same fate as Galizia-Caruana in Malta?
Or the same fate as Kashoggi in the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul?
35
Perhaps, Andrew has learned from his last interview that he is not very good at giving credible answers.
13
How about, in exchange for Prince Andrew, the USA could extradite to the UK that woman who killed a British teenager with her car, and then fled back to the US, claiming “diplomatic immunity”? The USA is refusing to do so. That would be a fair exchange.
24
@Juliet
Except for the fact that Andrew is not accused of a crime.
Like Trump, Andrew refuses to speak. Clearly he does not want to incriminate himself. However, the Royal family ought not harbour a sexual offender. It's time "The Firm" to do the right thing and order him to comply with the investigators. Otherwise, they are all complicit.
It's also shocking that the Royal Family is protecting Andrew while virtually throwing Meaghan Markle to the tabloid press wolves. Talk about having the wrong priorities.
32
Here’s a thought: offer to honor the extradition of the diplomat’s wife in exchange for the Prince’s testimony. A “quid pro quo”, as it were.
18
“Of course, I am willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required,” he [British Prince Andrew] said in a statement.
The kicker is the phrase "if required."
He is a royal prince, above the law, so there is nothing that can be "required." He has his "get out of jail free" card.
Who does he think he is, Donald Trump?
16
I lived in Europe during the 1980's - 1990's when the sexual exploits of "Randy Andy" were in all the European countries' journals. I remember when his they published the pics of his then wife, "Fergie" (aka Sarah Ferguson,"the Duchess of York"), having her toes kissed at poolside, by some wealthy guy (Steve Wyatt?), at some big mansion on the Mediterranean.
Is that all being forgiven and forgotten now?
7
@Joe Miksis
Good heavens. How can we ever forgive someone from having her toes kissed 30 or 40 years ago?! What is society coming to?
1
Maybe he's waiting for the court ordered subpoena, in response to his "will cooperate...if REQUIRED" (emphasis added by me).
1
Randy Andy isn't the only Epstein pal who is likely to balk at providing depositions. Trump, Bill Clinton will not likely help either.
20
Nobody expects much these days from the British monarchy. But in return for generous public support and a life of opulent leisure, its members should at least avoid wallowing ostentatiously in the gutter. It's not a lot to ask.
Randy Andy seems to be the worst of the bunch, which is not an inconsequential achievement. Indeed, it's his most notable claim to fame. Since these folks have become little more than glamorous mascots, maybe the British public should be afforded an occasional chance to review their performance and vote the least appealing among them off then island. Exposing them to a bit of risk might have a tonic effect.
11
Given the USA's present state of 'Trial by Social Media' on all subjects from Epstein to Trump, Prince Andrew is quite correct in is position, because whatever he would say will be twisted and contorted to meet the needs of those seeking vain glory by stating their irrational opinions.
7
@Jim : If women were taken seriously by our legal system they wouldn’t need to go to alternative places to be heard. How many women complained about Nasser before any action was taken? How many boys were assaulted by Sandusky before that was taken seriously? If you silence people through formal channels then you should expect their stories to come out in other ways.
36
@Jim : If women were taken seriously by our legal system they wouldn’t need to go to alternative places to be heard. How many women complained about Nasser before any action was taken? How many boys were assaulted by Sandusky before that was taken seriously? If you silence people through formal channels then you should expect their stories to come out in other ways.
5
@Jim
He was asked to cooperate with the FBI. They don’t post their investigations on Facebook.
16
Andrew is compromised with Kompromat. If he cooperates in exposing the Epstein / Maxwell enterprise , he and the Royals will be brought down further. He is not the brightest.
Maxwell remain unseen and untouchable and protected for the moment . This is the angle worth exploring .
18
Prince Andrew is another rich above the law and can do whatever he likes to women. He needs some jail time for abusing the women that we see a lot of lately on the news accusing him. Ash tag me to needs to force him to testify . Rich people what are they good for they don’t go in the military usually they just get away with to much women abuse. Lock him up and soon.
7
Could the prince's involvement with sex trafficking and abuse of underage women be the downfall of the monarchy?
10
No. He is peripheral. The monarchy is undoing itself, strand by strand, to be sure. But Prince Andrew is not the main thread compared to Prince Harry and his mother Princess Diana who were higher in profile and closer in succession. If William does not take it seriously as does his grandmother Elizabeth II, it will be a diminished legacy. Charles, the Prince of Wales, may become king but it seems he will be passive and passable at best once the present queen passes.
3
This is 2020. That may not come as surprise, but the idea that a concept of the Middle Ages of a king or queen persists to today is an anathema to our progress. Forget Brexit, it is time to end monarchy in the world. We should not be ruled by a family either by a figurehead or by direct power. Please, parliament end the monarchy. we don't need the continuing quaint soap opera.
16
White male privilege- yes Barr’s father did hire him - fur coat and all. Will any of the then young girls and their parents enlighten us? Royal males are untouchable - Charles and Diana, Fergie and Andrew - no wonder Harry and Meghan opted out!
18
Perhaps old Andy took a page off our president’s playbook.
Cover up crimes with total non cooperation.
51
And I say, why should he. No American has come forward nor has the wife of the diplomat who killed a young man with her car shown up. Think about it....
29
I though Prince Andys'
alaibi
I thought Prince Andy had an alibi: He was having dinner with his daughter at a pizza restuarant.
5
@Don Yeah, really. The dinner with the kids was early in the evening. In a suburb of Windsor, less than an hour from London by car. Andy had lots of time to see a date later on. After the kids were tucked in at home with their nanny. Hardly a waterproof alibi.
4
"Prince Andrew Offers ‘Zero Cooperation’ in Epstein Case, Prosecutor Says"
The Prince is taking his clues from the Trump administration.
15
@Henry And he is also taking his cue from all the americans similarly the subject of allegations, including one who is currently on Trumps defense team.
7
@MaccaUS AND two on the Supreme Court.
3
There are two "justice" systems in this world. One for the wealthy elites, the other for all the rest of us.
Epstein via his Republican friends got a sweetheart deal a long time ago and was allowed to party, pimp, and traffic for decades after that.
How strange he ended up "killing himself" in an ultra-secure cell that was supposed to be impossible to commit suicide in.
How typical that Donny Trump, Billy Clinton, Prince Andrew and many others who hung out with Epstein on his Lolita Express airplane and on Epstein's private island have never been charged with crimes or even questioned by law enforcement.
Very few wealthy elites are ever prosecuted or punished.
It's almost like they could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not get impeached for it!
42
@Steve Davies
You actually still believe Epstein actually hanged himself?
11
@Mark Shyres It seems he does not still believe that Epstein "killed himself." I think that makes 3 of us.
6
@MidcenturyModernGal
Make that five of us. I am beside myself so I count for two. Epstein committed the most dangerous, most fatal crime of all: he knew too much.
8
"All of the men have denied any wrongdoing": male virgins, all of them... and who knew that the species still existed.
9
I laughed when the tabloids, shortly after Epstein's death, suggested that he had in fact been murdered by a team of British agents sent from London.
Now, I'm not so sure. . . .
14
After Queen Elizabeth, maybe it is time to wind down the monarchy.
Strip away the trappings of royalty, and they seem like quite ordinary people. Weak at times, e.g. Edward XVII, Charles, maybe Harry. Occasionally noble. Elizabeth. Dutiful, Anne, William, and Kate. But not cooperating in a criminal investigation? That's cowardice, or something worse.
The least Andrew could do is stand up and answer the questions we have about Epstein. Bare minimum stuff. As it is, he brings shame on the royal family.
9
I'm shocked he's 59. I would have guessed 69. I guess life as a royal party boy takes its toll.
19
No doubt the FBI knows all..Is there a possibility Epstein had comprising photos of Trump? Epstein's mode of operation was to "influence"people thru their sexual means. Certainly, Trump would quality.
Again, does the FBI have anything that would incriminate Trump with regard to the Epstein case?
At sometime, if there..it will leak out or be disclosed..it is just a matter of time.
25
@RH
I'm sure that if Trump had been involved with any of these young women the FBI would have known about it and leaked the information by now.
3
@John
An interview with a woman who claimed Epstein 'gifted' her to Trump at a party when she was 14 can be seen on youtube.
2
You all know tht everyone has a legal right not the answer the Police's questions don't you . Its called the 5th Amendment.
"No person .... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ....
4
@Jeff
And you know that when so much information is already in the public domain and a "witness" (suspect) refuses to cooperate with authorities, the public will weigh in. That's what's happening now. No amount of reminders about the 5th Am. will stop it. Andrew doesn't have to incriminate himself through his own testimony; the facts and testimony of others have already done that. No one can stop the court of public opinion. To our eyes, his case is very weak indeed.
23
@Jeff Fair comment, but to use it, you have to be seen to invoke it. If Randy Andy (his nickname from his Canadian schooldays) invoked it, there would be a political price. There should be.
9
Cannot be compelled against YOURSELF. If you have evidence of a crime, don't you have to testify if asked? Jack McCoy always threatens that on Law & Order!
2
Looks like Andrew is likely guilty as sin. Not that it’s a surprise.
23
@Imperato Yes. It is not as if he would be extradited. He should just tell us what he knows.
1
@Alonzo quijana
He doesn't know anything about it. He was eating pizza. With his daughter. So, if someone was being naughty with the girl in the photograph, it couldn't have been him. And that couldn't be his hand around her waist and peeping out in the photo because he doesn't do that, with his arm and hand, that is, because as a Royal Prince he has his picture taken with others a lot and he doesn't do it that way. Anyway, that's all he knows, that's his story, and he's awfully sorry for these poor girls who are or might be victims of Jeffrey Epstein, but he doesn't have anything else that could possibly help the authorities.
1
The chances of Andrew cooperating are as big as King Donald being kicked out of the White House. Count the odds.
9
How long were young girls hunted, manipulated, sexually assaulted and then tossed out like so much garbage by rich and powerful men. They expected to be above the law as their money and status protected them from legal consequences. That’s why it must be such a total shock to find themselves now the legally pursued.
41
@Garry Trump right now it the demonstration os how the rich and powerful are, in fact, above the law.
8
@Garry
Please do you think any rich white man is going to be charged?. That is why Epstein was murdered to cover up the facts.
The sickos are in plain sight pretending that they are good men and we know they are not.
17
The Epstein debacle is horrific and demands anybody who knows anything to come forward. It's obvious Andrew has personal knowledge of this twisted person. It was a vast and mysterious trafficking organization. Nobody connected to this should be spared.
19
@Mary How is it "obvious"?
4
@Mary
"vast and mysterious trafficking organization": and if "important" people are involved, the whole thing will be buried.
Prince Andrew, being a foreigner of no importance in the US, simply does not count; the others are safe.
@Gary FS Maybe because he spent time on Epstein's private island, among other places? Get real.
2
Andrew says he had “no recollection” of meeting Ms. Giuffre. She's there in the photo with him.
Apparently the right-wing press in Britain is trying to restore his reputation and impugn Harry instead. Andrew doesn't make it easy for them.
26
@Ambrose - Amazing how selective his memory is, isn't it? No recollection of the underage female he was photographed, but he clearly remembers that he was at a Pizza Express in Woking 18 years ago. Also no memory of young girls around Epstein's residences because he 'assumed they were staff' and apparently the working class is beneath his notice.
14
Of course he's not going to cooperate, his mommy is protecting him. Everyone knows he's her favorite.
14
Shouldn't Trump be interviewed in this case? He was clearly an associate of Epstein's and has had numerous sexual assault allegations against him. Trump once said of Epstein "he likes them young" so we know Trump is aware of the underlying criminality of this case. Is there anyone on the planet who thinks Trump is above this behavior?
55
@Jeff M : It seems to me there's another person who's been associated with Epstein's
Virgin Island "paradise", and is currently serving as part of trump's defense team. He taught at Harvard Law School for five decades...which he was boasting about last week. He has no "royal" defense!
22
The DA is trying to get Andrew to participate in the case after suffering one embarrassment of being a hypocrite due to his public statement.
It's becoming clear that he has little motive to participate because he might incriminate himself.
The right assumption is that he overstepped with Epstein and can't cover his tracks. He would be just another suspect who looks dirty in a child trafficking case - except he has the benefit of a royal veneer that is quickly dissolving.
I'm sure some people are asking themselves - can a royal go to jail for breaking the law? It's amazing that anyone would even ask it - but that's the public consciousness of British royalty both there and here - maybe more here. I say he should be subpoenaed and, fully questioned, and, if found guilty of a crime, sent to jail.
7
A US-issued subpoena would carry no weight outside this country no matter who the subject is.
4
@PaulF
Unless I am mistaken, a "royal" can be sentenced to prison, and then serve his sentence in one of his mother's estates -- with the usual royal staff.
3
The best part of being rich isn't the money, the awesome things you can buy, the influence, the nice parties, the freedom. It's being a distinct species who owes absolutely nothing to law, society or one's fellows. Think how nice that would be...
31
@Stevenz
I must disagree with you. I think the worst part of being wealthy is how easy it is for someone to indulge in their every weaknesses and become a person that no one can respect.
I do think that everyone involved with Epstein thinks that we all believe their lies which of course, we all don’t.
16
As soon as all of us accept the fact that the rich and privileged are better than the rest of us peons and subservient, menial low-life’s, the better off the world we’ll be. We simply haven’t learned our place in the overall scheme of things. Imagine that!
30
@Doremus Jessup Yes indeed it is so. Taxes and laws are for the "little' people
1
@Doremus Jessup
… and yet, even the richest have to go to the toilet, just like us, and they do get diarrhea, just as we do, and since they have to keep up appearances, they are more likely than the rest of us to get cuckolded and be forced to keep It quiet (think how painful that must be! -- or ask Prince … What's His Name?)
1
Maybe if the US gave up the wife of their diplomat to face charges of accidentally killing a teenager in a road incident in the UK, then the British government and BRF might be a bit more likely to acquiesce to the Americans requests for information.
Quid pro quo anyone?
101
@Kathy Molloy
That's the first thing I thought of when I read the headline. The United States expects a U.K. prince to help with an investigation, when our country won't extradite a diplomat's wife, citing "diplomatic immunity"? A teen-age boy died because she was driving on the wrong side of the road, and this is our response?
It's a sorry piece of business. The Brits would be within their rights to claim royal immunity.
21
@Kathy Molloy
I would say "accidentally killing." I think "negligently killing" may be more appropriate. There's a big difference legally.
17
@Kathy Molloy: Read our Constitution. The Fifth Amendment applies to everyone from a beggar on the street to Prince Andrew if they are being investigated by American law enforcement.
3
Americans have enough problems with their own royal family that refuses to cooperate. The difference is that the Britush royal family had no power while the personification of his has far too much.
28
@Sydney Kaye
Surprise, surprise! All these Emperors wear no clothes!
6
@Sydney Kaye: Under the US Constitution no one is required to assist the government in a criminal investigation.
@Jeff - Your legal understanding is somewhat flawed. You can't be required to incriminate yourself but you absolutely are required to comply with federal agents in an investigation. There's this thing called the subpoena and the search warrant. Failure to comply is grounds for a charge of obstruction of justice.
I realize the current president and all his minions are making a mockery of the justice system, but it does still apply to anyone not named Trump.
8
A few years ago Canada ran a campaign called 'Shame the Johns." Patrons of prostitution were publicly exposed when caught.
Unfortunately in today's climate no one is ashamed of being corrupt or caught. The only fear they share is conviction! When did truth , honor and ethics become disposable?
If this fall into the dark side is considered normal, then stop the world because I want to get off!
30
Shame is so Twentieth Century.
8
Maybe we can work out a trade. American Anne Sacoolas, the hit and runner, for Prince Andrew. That way everyone gets something.
25
Except Andrew might have dirt on Trump’s association with Epstein too. So this won’t happen.
9
Trade a "Prince" for a common piece of flotsam? Not a royal or at least super-wealthy? The Brits would call it a non-starter.
Andrews sense of entitlement knows no bounds. I assume that any man accompanying Epstein to Thailand for a "vacation" is moral and ethical "gangrene". Apparently, he is more regal and posh than her majesty. Although guaranteed the courtiers down to the most junior administrator would throw Andrew to the sharks in a New York minute followed by the most raucous party ever.
4
@Jen
Just Trump?
Wasn't it Bill Barr's father who hired Epstein (with no experience) to teach at the elite Dalton? Small world, eh?
Regardless, the coverup is almost as bad as the crime, yet this time all of those guilty will never do the time.
98
Yes, it was
8
I feel for this amazing Queen and all that she has done for her country. I also admire her for allowing and supporting Harry to start a life anew from the worlds that have defined him and abused him and his wife. What a grandmother. I also feel sorry for her, as she once again has to protect the Crown from another son's problems. While I don't believe in royalty, it is important to note the England would have fallen long ago without this Queen, William, Harry, and others. Not only due their continuing efforts to better the world, but due to their ability to withstand the cruelty of the British press and its citizens. They have no idea what they have destroyed about England.
8
@DJK. - I'm rather less sympathetic since she is standing squarely behind her sex offender son. He's been required to step back from royal duties but she is still making public shows of support. Since Andrew was forced to step down he has repeatedly been photographed in public with his mother, riding horses, riding in the car with her to attend church (there's only one spot in the car with the Queen and it isn't assigned by accident). None of those appearances are accidents. She's protecting her favorite son and it's a bad look on her.
13
@DJK.
"this amazing queen"? What is so amazing about her? Her longevity? Certainly not the way she brought up her children.
"While I don't believe in royalty..." You don't? But your comment oozes admiration and empathy with their royal ordeal.
6
@DJK.
"England would have fallen long ago without this Queen, William, Harry, and others"
Um - what? England would have fallen? Fallen where?
3
Aren’t we in a country where the right to remain silent is written into the Constitution? As such, the police, FBI, etc is barred from making any inferences to the guilt or innocence of the person who declines to speak with them.
The NYT shouldn’t give the Barr justice department the PR victory of seeing their words in a headline. The feds have mishandled the Epstein case for decades so guilty or innocent it’s best to keep quiet.
5
He’s not an American citizen. And he hasn’t pleaded the fifth either. He’s just stonewalling at present. Buying time I expect.
27
@Allen J. I don't think there's an inference of guilt or innocence in the article, just the fact that Prince Andrew is not upholding the offer he made in the televised interview he decided to give. So the Prince is a hypocrite, a liar and/or a man who doesn't keep his word. Funny how Meghan Markle gets all the bad press.
8
@Julie Zuckman: You must have not attended the class on the US Constitution. It applies to anyone anywhere, whether a citizen or not, when the US Government is involved.
1
Well, that is the point of being royal.
8
Andrew, like Trump, will be able to hide out in his castles and pretend he didn't know Epstein.
26
Isn't it odd how Meghan and Harry became the disgrace of the BRF while this guy was just quietly was pushed off the front pages? I'm really not much of a conspiracy theorist, but it does make you wonder.
82
Exactly right, @S Carlson! I see this situation as unequal treatment, not a conspiracy. The Queen should remove Andrew's HRH honorific, Duke of York title, public funding, grace & favor home, and any other privileges afforded him as a BRF member. The Sussexes did nothing to shame the Queen and BRF; Andrew has heaped so much shame and disgrace on them - stripping him of everything would help improve their image.
19
Not only him his father was no angel and his brother outright cheated on Princess Diana. And yet Meghan and Harry are looked down upon. Never mind double standard, triple standard. They made cheating a family trait. And perversion. Men heal thy selves.
18
It does give an appearance of the Queen favoring one of her younger sons, and the Prince of Wales his brother, over her 2nd grandson and Charles’ 2nd son.
Are you suggesting the Royal family and the British tabloids are wagging the dog of Megxit in order to distract from the tail/tale of Prince Andrew’s friendship with a known pedophile sex trafficker and what that friendship may suggest about his own behavior (and its possible relationship to the demise of his marriage to Fergy)?
8
During his latest round of proving Shanda number 1 for the Royal Family, I am surprised to see that no one has referred to him as Randy Andy, or rather as "The Prince formerly known as Randy Andy". As with a well-known politician on this side of the pond, controversial beginnings truly do predict ignominious endings.
21
Every man appearing in Epstein's digital rolodex should be investigated, everyone! Even if the statute of limitations has run on alleged crimes, we need to know the names of the men who palled around with him so that the world knows what these young women know and experienced.
32
Maybe not just the men in the rolodex — remember that his close adult female friend/sexual partner was reported to have been involved in both the “procurement” process of his (their?) pedophiliac sex trafficking and, importantly, in at least one of the sexual assaults.
7
How about we focus some outrage here in the US.
Alan Dershowitz, currently defending Trump in his impeachment trial, also defended Jeffrey Epstein. He has also been accused of being a participant in the sexual exploitation taking place in Epstein’s social circle. Dershowitz is being sued for defamation of character by Virginia Guiffre after Dershowitz claimed that she lied about his involvement with Epstein “including as one of the men to whom Epstein lent out Plaintiff for sex,”.
As of October, 2019, a judge has ruled that the law suit can go forward, “stating that "Giuffre has pled sufficient facts" to defeat Dershowitz's motion to dismiss.”
148
@Penner
You should read Alan Dershowitz's book, "Guilt by Accusation."
Dershowitz explains that the lawsuit against him was shielded from countersuits by a little-known procedure known as "litigation privilege."
My reading of this is that the lawsuits regarding Giuffre's claims might be delayed indefinitely through legal wrangling.
That may be part of the reason that Dershowitz decided to write up his defense in book form, which you can read for yourself.
In my opinion, Dershowitz makes a convincing case. Lawyers for Giuffre have every motivation to explore every possible charge. It is not their duty to check that the charges are valid.
Giuffre has written a 130-page manuscript on her life with Jeffrey Epstein which includes many charges against famous people, including Prince Andrew. It mentions Dershowitz but does not accuse him of having had sex with her. That appears in the lawsuit she brought but not her manuscript.
The manuscript admits that she sometimes does not remember who she had sex with.
Here is the issue you should focus on. Giuffre's accusations against Epstein are probably mostly true. But Dershowitz points out several inconsistencies in her manuscript, which undercut her credibility on charges against people other than Epstein.
Do those other people, like Prince Andrew, not deserve a fair hearing with a presumption of innocence?
I think the media are despicable in the manner that they jump to conclusions when an accusation is made.
3
@Blaise Descartes - The media is not a court of law and Dershowitz was once a respected legal mind but is currently a crank. The only places where presumption of innocence and the rules of evidence are at all relevant are courtrooms. The New York Times is not a court of law.
And inconsistencies in a victim's story are to be expected. It's a pretty frequent result of trauma, gaps in memory and irrational behavior. Virginia Giuffre is almost certainly a victim of sex trafficking and suffers from the attendant psychological trauma. That her story is not word perfect makes her more credible, not less.
18
@Blaise Descartes
Did Dershowitz mention in his book, the technique he successfully used against Giuffre of getting her pro bono legal team removed from her case? Should we conclude he's interested in arguing the facts or changing the subject?
I have a simple and creative solution: the UK should hand over Prince Andrew and the USA should send Anne Sacoolas in return. Because nobody should be able to evade justice, either by being part of the Monarchy or using diplomatic immunity.
39
@Tim Atherton I'll go along with that very simple suggestion - it seems fair to me
11
@Tim Atherton apples and oranges. and don't drag the victim of Ms. Sacoolas into this, please. Nothing to do with these events/people.
3
@Tim Atherton The purpose of diplomatic immunity, after all, is to avoid injustice. It could be said that diplomatic immunity is a broader form of justice, which transcends the individual case at hand, rather than a way to avoid justice.
1
The tabloid press has already labeled Andrew as a sexual predator, and he has already done enough damage to the Royal family at a time when it is already nearing tatters.
And his royal status affords him no immunity from prosecution in the USA. Can you blame him for not being forthcoming?
8
But he has an opportunity to clear his name. Shouldn’t he take it?
7
@Monterey Sea Otter
He seems to have limits to his ability to get his point across. Thus, in his case, the potential for downside loss exceeds the potential for upside gain.
2
@Monterey Sea Otter: Are you a member of "Law enforcement"? Your "clear you name" statement is right out of the law enforcement interrogation manual. You know, the one that fails to mention the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment.
2
Royals and Republicans think they're above the law.
21
Corruption is a bipartisan issue.
9
@Lilly
I think you meant to say “bicoastal” (as in both coasts of the Atlantic), rather than bipartisan.
2
@Jane B: Except the law the Prince is relying on is that insignificant troublemaker called the"Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution."
It has become the American way to convict rich or well known people by newspaper instead of the laws set down in the United States Constitution. It know as the National Enquired law. If you are rich or famous, you are guilty.
5
Innocent until proven guilty, but for too long powerful men have gotten away with murder.
14
@Jeff Yes, guilty per public opinion; however, they always seem to manage to avoid the punishment phase.
10
@Jeff
That's quite an upside-down "Alice in Wonderland" world that you live in, Jeff! In your world, the rich or well-known have a disadvantage in legal proceedings?? Oh, my!
8
A bit like Ann Saccolas has provided zero cooperation for killing Harry Dunn.
Both should face due process but the well connected never do.
19
I greatly appreciate and respect the civility, and the calm, reserved decency Great Britain has uniquely given the world. Often reserve in response to an emotional situation serves the greater good. But not all the time! And the problem with royalty, which is part of GB... which we, by the way, are (more or less) affected by in Trump who seems personally to presume to be our monarch ... is that they can “get away with it” because of elevated position. Prince Andrew would, I hope for the sake of justice, take deeply to heart what kind of a prince he really is. (We all face “desert” challenges.) Royalty, after all, may serve what is just and right and noble; or it, due to advantage through privilege, may serve the opposite. There is hope for Andrew, I truly trust, as he has a soul that really is not entirely his own.
@wak
"I greatly appreciate and respect the civility, and the calm, reserved decency Great Britain has uniquely given the world. "
There are a lot of people who would disagree with the using the words civility and decency in the same sentence as Great Britain. The indigenous people of the Americas and Australia, the people of India and Pakistan, the Chinese and other colonized Asian countries, and of course the people who lived on the African continent who suffered colonialism and chattel slavery. More recently the soccer hooligans, skinheads, UKIP and Boris Johnson confirm Great Britain's boorishness and thuggery.
23
@Les, you are painting with too broad a brush here. We can't call an entire nation boorish and thug-like. I am not excusing the violent things both of our nations have done, but we didn't invent it all, and there is much good to us, too, in the things we have given the world.
4
@Les
Sure. But to take the good in something that is not perfect, as only God is, doesn't and cannot deny that which is good about it. So it becomes a matter of maturity.
1
Here you have American citizens defying Congressional subpoenas with impunity and without penalty in an issue as important as impeachment. Why would a foreign national not subject to our laws respond to FBI request for interviews? We made our bed, we must lie on it.
145
@Merlin
If you ignored a subpoena where I live, you would be arrested. But the problem doesn’t end there. The US retrospectively and inappropriately gave diplomatic status, and, therefore, immunity from prosecution, to an American woman who killed a British teenager with her car and who fled the UK and the US has rejected the UK request for extradition. Your President breaks the law and looks like getting away with it. Your senators take an oath to act impartially, knowing they have no intention to do so. It does seem like there are two sets of rules - one for the US and one for everywhere else.
50
@Merlin
Not to mention the State Department's refusal to extradite Anne Sacoolas. Special relationship? What special relationship?
20
@Concerned It's not clear that the determination was retroactive. If the US and UK have an agreement about personnel at the base and their families, it may well grant them immunity. It sounds like the US claimed immunity and deported her as soon as the right channels found out. Most of the claims in the British press seem to be from lawyers to the family, who claim to interpret the Vienna Convention but likely do not have access to all the diplomatic correspondence.
1
The Duke of York, aka: Randy Andy, "has no recollection" of meeting the 17 year old V. Giuffre. The Duke must a have attended the same school of 'high crimes' and 'the anatomy of a lie' that Donald Trump did.
Ms Giuffre stated Mr. Epstein 'trafficked her' to Randy Andy when she was 17. There is photographic evidence demonstrating a direct tie between Ms. Giuffre , J. Epstein and the Duke.
The Duke said that J. Epstein "...conducted himself in a manner unbecoming" Randy Andy he is a dead, convicted sexual predator of ill repute! I don't suppose any of the lawyers you consulted with told you to just be honest. Why would you need to consult with anybody before you testified under oath, if you are telling the truth and are innocent?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, then...
77
@here, there: It all depends on whether you're looking for a duck. As they say, "To a duck hunter everything looks like a duck."
2
@Jeff I'll remember that every time I hear the "Sounds like a duck..." analogy. But unfortunately, it is often true. Not always, but often! Inductive reasoning isn't always black and white. And your comment is a red herring.
2
@here, there I think Randy Andy may just be a tad concerned about being incarcerated for any amount of time, no matter how short a time. He doesn't want to wind up hanging in a cell with the guards off duty (or napping) and the security camera being out for repair and a note pinned to his prison fatigues saying he committed suicide too.
12
“No recollection?” Ah yes, the classic denial pending the surfacing of new evidence or photos. It is a technique long perfected by low-rent politicians and Donald. Such honesty and candor.
62
@Mark Young That reminds me of Ronald Reagan's lame excuse during Iran-Contra "I don't recall..."
Perhaps they could do an exchange, and have Prince Andrew testify to the Manhattan prosecutors once the US makes Anne Sacoolas go to the UK and face responsibility for killing Harry Dunn by wrong way driving. So far the US has refused to make her do so.
110
@William Clark This is a terrific idea. Anne for Andrew.
7
@William Clark It won't happen because Trump and his corrupt gang - and the McConnell Republicans - have used the "Bengazi" trope over and over to the base of not protecting a foreign-based, US diplomate - or family. It's radioactive as a subject. Even, though in the real world there are no pure black and white issues - just lots of shades of grey that we all can analyze and judge effectively. The Trump response is political - not ethically correct.
1
I believe that certainly the prince continues to show who he really is: a self serving narcissist who has rarely taken responsibility for his life choices.
88
@ann dempsey: Ah the American way. If you are rich, or a minority you are always guilty so who needs the law or a trial.
3
It’s becoming very clear that powerful men consider teenage girls prey. The ignoble lawyer and a Epstein pal and Trump apologist Alan Dershowitz has even brought his signature bullying and arrogant arguing to bear on this point: he argues there no reason a grown man shouldn’t have sex with a 16 year old.
I can think of four good reasons: Dershowitz, Epstein, “prince” Andrew, and Trump.
85
@ML
Frighteningly, it's not just rich and powerful men. I've come to realize over the past few years that it's a commonly held belief. I work with two fellow attorneys who are incredibly polite, well-mannered middle-aged men. They think there is absolutely nothing wrong with their dating 18 year olds and argue that down to fourteen is fine. "It's always been that way, and is still that way in a lot of countries," they argue. Yes, I responded. Predators have always existed. That's not news to me. Deeply upsetting to know these men are everywhere.
(And it's not limited to girls, though they are the main targets.)
16
Please provide a citation for your claim that Alan Dershowitz asserted and/or believes it is or should be lawful and ethical for an adult man (presumably of any age?) to have sex with a 16 y.o. girl.
2
@HGE You are correct. I remember in the news coverage of Roy Moore, commonly held beliefs in the southern states include that 13-year-olds can be "wiley and seductive" and that they are to blame for old grotesques like Moore being attracted to them. Sadely, we pay lip service to being more evolved than Saudi Arabia, but it seems that most men in the U.S. believe that if a 13 year old isn't wearing a burka, she's asking for it.
I ask any of these men to picture themselves at 13, 14, or 15 and think about whether it would have been ok for a middle aged man to press sex on them. I don't bother asking them to picture their daughters -- that doesn't seem to work. So they should picture themselves pursued by predatory men as a thought experiment.
Note: "Sadely" above was a typo but I left it since we are not so fare from the Marquis de Sade as we think.
14
A combination of Megharry and Andrew may bring the entire British Royal Family down.
19
@BSmith I wouldn't compare aiding and abetting - and most likely participating in the sex trafficking of minors - in a comparable way to a couple wanting to live a different life in a different country.
18
@CA
...unless the massive shade thrown on the Sussexes is intended or used to obscure wrongdoing by His Formerly Royal Highness Prince Andrew.
I feel sorry for the Queen and for the more ethical royals. Not to mention the British people. And of course the victims.
2
Nah. Shrink it perhaps. But not destroy it.
1
May we swap Anne Sacoolas' extradition back to Britain for Randy Andy's _completely_forthcoming_testimony of what he knew and when about Jeffrey Epstein?
Let Ghislaine Maxwell be Allison Mack's cellmate, too.
22
Especially if it implicates or proves D J Trump (or other alleged leaders or government workers) having been involved.
2
Are they getting cooperation from Bill Clinton? Isn’t that a better question for a mainly US readership?
15
Are they getting cooperation from Donald Trump? That’s another good question.
18
Classy.
9
I'm no fan of Prince Andrew, squandered his title. However, Epstein had been under suicide watch, he wasn't checked every 30 minutes as was setup up, the two guards BOTH fell asleep and did not check on him for 3 hours, the 2 camera were malfunctioning--Trifecta of mishap? Not Probable and Prince Andrew know this. He may be inept but he is not an idiot
19
Nobody ought to be above the law, not even a Royal who appears to believe he is. Subpoena Prince Andrew and let’s hear what he really did under Epstein’s roof.
19
@Monterey Sea Otter: US law is different that UK law. In the US we have a Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to it give everyone, not just Americans the legal right to refuse to answer police questions during a criminal investigation or trial being pursued under American law.
1
What a shame - in every sense of the word.
1
@Jeff To me, the point is that Andrew OFFERED to be of help when it made him look good, and then didn't help. Or hasn't yet helped. Being able to take the fifth has nothing to do with it, and he could still do that at any time.
5
This article does not meet the standards that should be demanded at the NY Times.
I am reminded of Jim Lehrer, who died last week. He had several rules for journalists, including these three:
4. ... present every story with the care I would want if it were about me.
5. Assume there is at least one other side ... to every story.
7. Assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
Sadly those principles have been abandoned by most journalists today. This NYT article provides an example of what was once called yellow journalism.
Is Prince Andrew guilty and of what?
The age of consent in Britain is 16. And there is photo which is presumably of Prince Andrew together with Virginia Giuffre.
It is also true that Prince Andrew was a friend to Jeffrey Epstein. Finally, there is the accusation of Virginia Giuffre which also appears in a 130-page book manuscript that she wrote which is available on-line. The authors of this article should have been able to find that with a google search.
Where is the presumption of innocence that Jim Lehrer talked about?
Let's face it. The story of a sexual liaison with an heir to the British throne sells newspapers, and the media have sold their soul.
There is another side to the story which the NYT fails to report. It appears in the book, "Guilt by Accusation," written by Alan Dershowitz.
Giuffre accused Dershowitz of having sex with her seven times as opposed to only three times with Andrew.
Read the other side for balance.
12
@Blaise Descartes what aboutism at its best
12
Pedophiles are rarely enthusiastic about cooperating with investigators.
129
@JSD: The American way "Guilt by new paper article."
3
@Jeff Guilt by self-incriminating, disastrous BBC interview is what you mean, I believe.
12
@JSD
Thanks for the laugh and well said!
Well, whatever you might say about Prince Charles, at least he is a serious person, unlike his kid brother Andrew.
25
@XXX, Prince Charles is not perfect, but IS a thoughtful, dutiful, and highly intelligent man who cares about the world and about the perils we are facing.
7
@Julianne Heck
So do many other people too. What does it have to do with Andrew?
He is guilty. The guy puts out a statement after his toxic BBC interview pledging to "fully cooperate" and then stone walls.
Its time to tear down the House of Windsors, at best pedophiles. At worst, they are Nazis.
The British public should be ashamed.
57
I assure you: we are. Don’t think for a second that anything His Royal Highness (sic) Prince Andrew says or does has any support here in the UK.
40
@MoneyRules, "..at best pedophiles, at worst Nazis." This is a very broad brush stroke that is ill-thought-out. I'm sure the British public is horrified at the situation with Prince Andrew, and rightly, but for you to make a blanket statement as you have is irresponsible and incorrect.
2
Really, I don't find his life interesting nor that of his worthless family of blood sucking "royalty". Fuggedaboutit!
7
Andrew: King Charles the First was tried and beheaded in the mid-1600s - does that count?
9
He only said he would cooperate if required. The article complains the he is not cooperating when not required. Those are different questions. It may be that the should testify, and perhaps face more serious consequences. But first he will.need to be required to participate.
7
"Attorney General William P. Barr has also vowed to bring charges against anyone who helped Mr. Epstein." Except Trump, of course, or any other Republican politicians or donors, which were the reason Kenneth Starr was part of Epstein's defense. Or maybe Barr had his fingers crossed behind his back when he made this "vow".
206
Many years ago I was drinking beer with Andrew's shipmates after a rugby match against them. They All had tales of "Randy Andy" and his appetite for young teens. Epstein was his inevitable BFF.
68
@Jackson Yep, question BC and DJT, under oath, is fine by me! My heart bleeds easily but why would I care to defend someone who has committed crimes, regardless of their political affiliation.
The video of DJT with Epstein is a lot more incriminating to me than than the pictures I've seen with BC. The women in the videos seem to be aware of the game though, though it is always hard to say when lines are drawn and crossed. This is the biggest issues. Everyone craves companionship and everyone has boundaries - how do we make sure these are not crossed?
I'm a talker - I tend to state everything I do so consent is overdone in my case. It has even annoyed my partners at times. I've also been assaulted by a few people, a man when I was a kid at 14, and a few girls who took advantage of me (I didn't mind but definitely said "no").
6
@Jackson Not at all!!!
1
There’s a whole subculture of this kind if thing going on in Britain on multiple levels. Any policeman getting too close to the racket gets transferred, according to mini documentaries on the subject, wherein former police tell their stories. One really can’t blame the Prince not wanting to collaborate with U.S, authorities, because many are highly trained to spot lies.
17
@William Perrigo
The ability "to spot lies" is a scam based on absolutely not proven or with empirical evidence demonstrated to be efficient techniques pseudoscience to which many law enforcement agencies subscribe either as training services or "mentality" in absurd notion that are 'capable" to exercise such discovery methods. Good interrogations techniques are entirely different methods but "spot lies" reliably "skills" are their staff self deception.
The tentacles of Epstein's hideous enterprise reaches far and wide. It is not just a U.S. aberration, nor is it limited to one side or the other of our political divide. Time is up, sirs. The women of the world have and continue to suffer from your self-centered, sybaritic exploits. You have proven yourselves unworthy of trust and respect much less material reward or public adulation.
20
Coward.
60
@Dorogaya
Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles (Andrew's brother), the Crown Prince, both need to order Andrew to cooprate with Scotland Yard/FBI.
14
@BSmith
I wouldn't hold my breath. If we've learned anything from the Catholic church, the Boy Scouts, Penn State, women's gymnastics, college sexual assaults etc, it's that the institution is paramount. They will save the reputation of the institution that they serve at the expense of victims, even children. I don't expect much from the Queen or Charles, but I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong.
9
Re: "...Prosecutors in Manhattan want to talk to the British prince as part of their investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged sex-trafficking network.
1 of the MANY reasons I've been absent from the Catholic faith x's 50+ years...a faith I was born, into, BTW, is...their continuing / grotesque effort to protect, (clerical, 'N, lay), pedophiles!!
Why is this Dark_Prince refusing to cooperate with a sex trafficking investigation??
What LAME excuses will Prince Andrew give, in his failing / failed effort to convince the rest of us, that he's NOT a 'john', (a prostitution_customer), and/or...a serial_pedophile??
15
@R.G. Frano: You must be infuriated by the Constitution of the United States. The Fifth Amendment give Prince Andrew the right to not talk to the American cops.
1
@Jeff
And an innocent man would talk regardless.
3
No surprise. It's commonly known in the U.K., though less so in the U.S. where the masses fawn over the "Monarchy," that "Randy Andy" is a sexual degenerate.
50
Swap for Anne Sacoolas. You get rid of one leech, we get rid of another.
68
Royals are expected to expected to be above the norms of the masses. But if a president spreads his charms, it's a High Crime. In one party, anyway.
Down on the flatlands, we don't care what pols or royals do, but young girls are where we draw the line.
4
I’d say trampling on the Constitution and destroying or attempting to destroy an entire nation’s participatory democratic republic while also placing an important ally in grave danger in favor of an adversary that only recently stopped being listed as, but still really is, an enemy of our nation and people is right up there with non-deadly sexual abuse.
All the more so when it is accompanied by known sexual harassment and probable history of sexual assault; pronounced religious and ethnic prejudice; probable tax evasion; pardoning criminals who’ve done little or nothing to redeem themselves other than not offending the person who is POTUS, including a sheriff who, rather than enforcing the law, flouts it, and a reported probable war criminal; and a reported long, long history of stiffing blue-collar, working and middle-class contractors and workers including teenaged girls who performed for a certain POTUS and his largely Republican supporters.
6
Prince Andrew is taking a leaf out of Donald Trump's playbook.
The US House of Representatives accuses Trump of misdeeds. Trump (the accused, mind you) responds by blocking the appearance of witnesses who may be able to shed light on his guilt.
Now Prince Andrew won't even submit to an interview by the FBI about his possible involvement in one of the most distasteful crimes of this century.
They used to say there was one law for the rich and one for the poor. Now there's not even that.
20
@Mike Edwards: Everyone in the world has the protection of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution if American law enforcement wants to talk to them. It doesn't matter if it is Prince Andrew or Mike Edwards. It always bothers me when an American attacks someone who invokes the Fifth Amendment.
I don't understand why Prince Andrew is not receiving a formal subpoena, at a minimum under the Petition of Right analog in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Literally every major concept in a thousand years of Anglo-US constitutional law is implicated in this case; a constitutional law professor couldn't concoct a better illustration of all these concepts being violated.
Moreover, the President of the British Supreme Court, Brenda Hale, led the drafting of the Children Act 1990, which is highly relevant here. This needs to be teed up for her to make a ruling; it should have been teed up years ago.
You have both President Justice Hale and Princess Anne solidly in support of Prince Andrew being compelled to testify, both with decades of substantive work on these issues, including the international dimension.
I don't get the tiptoeing and flailing around, including by lawyers like David Boies, who purports to represent the trafficked and assaulted minors, unless his representation of the minors is just a cover for his involvement in witness intimidation in the Weinstein case.
42
@Colorado Reader
It's money, privilege and who you know!
3
@Colorado Reader
There have been allegations made (unsubstantiated) that Epstein's sweetheart deal in 2008-2009 was in response to a request by the British government in order to protect Prince Andrew. It makes sense because in 2008, the president was the Republican George Bush, Epstein's attorneys were Republican heavy hitters, and Epstein was a well-known supporter of Democrats. Another (equally valid) explanation is a that Epstein was an equal opportunity blackmailer and he nailed a well-connected but unnamed Republican. Unfortunately, the United States never ratified that UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
1% receive unjust justice
99% serve the time for the crime, even when innocent
14
Is Prince Andrew any different than Ivanka Trump or Hunter Biden. No Kings! No Princes! whether they be hereditary or economic.
31
The roots of executive privilege, and the true nature of royalty; divine right!
Meanwhile a sexual predator’s victims see no justice.
13
The prince of darkness.
14
Guilty people won't if they have diplomatic immunity
21
I can't see Prince Andrew cooperating with authorities out of the goodness of his own heart. His public image has already been tarnished by his relationship with Epstein, pre and post his conviction as a sex offender. Andrew likely figures that there is absolutely no upside in agreeing to questioning by the FBI at this point. So then, will the FBI subpoena him for questioning based on statements from Ms. Roberts to date? It certainly seems plausible that he had sexual relations with her, given statements from others as well as photos which point to physical contact of a sexual nature.
69
@Father of One FBI can’t do anything with him, he’s a British national. He would have to agree to questioning
3
No one in their right mind would voluntarily participate in an FBI interview them. No good can come of it.
If the FBI had anything substantial on Andrew the request for his extradition would have already been made.
In the end it does not matter as Epstein is dead. His money is in a trust that can’t be taken away. The victims won’t see a penny and are spinning their wheels. The only person who will get reeled in is the assistant who did the recruiting and even that is a big if.
He was an awful person who committed numerous crimes and like similar types many knew or thought his behavior was odd but did not say anything.
13
@JimH "If the FBI had anything substantial on Andrew the request for his extradition would have already been made." I disagree. How do you have any idea at all what they have or don't have on Andrew? And others for that matter? I heard last week that authorities hadn't even gained access to Epstein's ranch in New Mexico yet, which is where he wanted to systematically inseminate young women to create a master race. For all we know, Epstein ferreted away a massive collection of explicit video and photo evidence in that house. This thing is just getting started...
31
Extradition of a member of the royal family to the US on a criminal complaint? Do you honestly think the US would be dumb enough to make such a request or that the government if Great Britain would go along with it, no matter what he did? It’s more likely that all the Republicans will vote to convict Trump. Or that pigs will fly.
25
@JimH Prince Andrew is a member of the royal family. There are questions of international law that may affect what the FBI and DOJ can do. Subpoenas generally do not reach beyond US borders, so there would be no contempt of court. Without criminal charges, a country is unlikely to extradite any of its citizens, much less the son of the monarch and brother of the heir apparent.
All of which is extremely unfortunate for victims. However, it is entirely understandable that the Prince’s lawyers are advising not to cooperate with the investigation. He may have to stay outside the US, lest he become vulnerable to service of a subpoena.
10
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Harry / Meghan issue isn’t as much to do about Andrew is it is about the press.
25
I have wondered that, too. The timing seems like more than a coincidence. Maybe Andrew was the last straw.
16
Needless to say, the past 60 days have been an unmitigated DISASTER for the House of Windsor. The revelations from “His Royal Highness” Prince Andrew are shocking in their complicity to befriending and continuing a relationship with a notorious pedophile, and now we learn that he will not cooperate with law enforcement in their efforts to uncover the entire truth. No doubt the full story would be simply too much to bear. Then we have the FORMER “His Royal Highness” Prince Harry and his family hounded out of Britain by a tabloid press that is out of control, while his family strips him of his royal title and forces the marginalization of The Sussexes, which a supportive family and establishment could have prevented. One thought the Diana debacle would have taught them better but, like the Crown itself, the more things seem to change the more, in reality, they stay the same. Best of luck to Prince Harry as he protects his family from mistreatment. Best of luck to law enforcement, hoping they find further evidence of wrongdoing by Andrew, causing his total banishment from public life if not threats of jail time itself, next to zero chance of that happening notwithstanding.
115
Before we get too indignant about Prince Andrew not cooperating with US authorities....
....shall we discuss the unauthorized flight of the wife of a US official from England? She, after all, KILLED a British citizen and refuses to return to London to face the music.
557
And the loser tried to surprise the victim's family with her at the White House!!! That was a vile abuse added to injury, both for the family and the White House.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/15/harry-dunn-parents-trump-white-house-anne-sacoolas
Yet another Article among countless that President Pelosi could add to the two...if she's "genius" and "powerful" enough.
43
Maybe a deal can be struck: you can have Andrew and we’ll take the US intelligence guy’s wife who killed the UK bike rider when she was driving on the wrong side of the road. A fair exchange.
80
@Pat McFarland we can certainly discuss the unauthorized flight of the wife of a US official from England. Go for it. However whether we do or don't has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Prince Andrew is a pedofile and is or is not cooperating with authorities. I fail to see the link.
30
People are surprised? The Prince likely engaged in illegal sex trafficking. They should issue a subpoena and if he fails to cooperate issue a arrest warrant
131
@Prudence Spencer Our subpoena power does not extend beyond our borders. And England would never extradite a member of the Royal Family especially since he isn't charged with a crime. You can't force someone to talk to the police.
6
Thank you for printing this, and please, NY Times, continue to investigate and put the johns and the men and women who allowed this to continue unabated for so many years.
And please never refer to Epstein as a financier ever again. There is no evidence that he was a financiers. He was a sex trafficker of young women and children.
453
@Christina YES!!! THIS!!!
37
@Christina yes, STOP referring to Epstein as anything but a convicted felon. A sex trafficker and abuser. Full stop.
2
How about an exchange?
We get Prince Andrew, Duke of York; the U.K. can take Anne Sacoolas (the American driver who, after hitting and killing a teenage motorcyclist in the U.K., claimed diplomatic immunity and fled the country).
383
@at - now that is what I call a Win! Win!
16
@at
I am suspicious about this narrative that inks the Sacoolas issue to the Andrew case. I agree that both should face justice, but the tone of these emails makes it seem like the writers are trying to defend Andrew from accountability about pedophilia!!
3
Just what husband and I said when we saw this on the six o’clock news last night. A fair exchange!
Harry Dunn’s parents have been suffering more because of Sacoolas’s actions.
Justice for Harry and his family!
2
He thinks England won the Revolutionary War and he doesn't need to answer questions from his "subjects".
The arrogance is insufferable
39
His refusal and silence to authorities just screams out. Have royals gone to prison?
18
Yes, but only when other royals sent them there because they got in the way.
12
That would be the Tower of London.
4
Didn’t the last
Russian czar and family, and the French king and queen, go to prison? Prior to their assassinations?
3
Its no wonder Harry and Meghan wanted out. I wouldn't want to be in a family with this man either.
271
@BP
I've been rather vocal in my criticism regarding Megxit, but you raise a stellar point.
Would anyone really want their children to be anywhere near Uncle Andy?
22
@Astrid - Agreed. I’m sure of course there was a whole host of reasons for their decision but this may have been the breaking point. Especially since they’ve been involved in sexual assault awareness groups/charities.
10
Prince Andrew's decision to refrain from cooperating is another reminder, as if any of us needed one, that those who stand very far above the rest of us are not subject to the same laws as are we.
To conduct a life, especially a life as public as that of a member of the House of Windsor, within the limits of decency and propriety is a goal his mother has most admirably fulfilled for more than six decades. Sadly, neither Andrew or Charles will ever be that good lady's equal.
227
@Quiet Waiting
I want to take this theme and expand on it stemming from watching ABC's "Truth and Lies, Jeffrey Epstein" recently. In my opinion "those who stand very far above the rest of us" have an enormous vested interest in protecting each other. They are in that club. They love being in that club. Staying in that club, not being ostracized from the club is the most important value that members hold. Any person that is harmed due to the behavior of club members is simply unfortunate "collateral damage" and perhaps to be pitied. My point is that voting for any billionaire and handing over enormous political power to go with enormous financial and social resources is akin to an unstable thermonuclear concoction. Now our country has a narcissistic psychopath billionaire with that power. Terrifying! Too bad there isn't DJT mother to restrict him from performing any public duties!
20
@Quiet Waiting
In fairness to Charles, he was coerced into marrying Diana when, in fact, it was Camilla whom he loved.
In many ways, I think Charles has been judged unfairly.
20
@Quiet Waiting, neither may be her equal, but Prince Charles will be a thoughtful, dutiful, engaged monarch. He is caring and highly intelligent, having been an environmentalist since WAY before it was cool. He made some poor decisions as most of us do, but I believe he's a good father and will do all he can for his country and for the good of the world.
18
His BBC interview told us all we need to know on the matter. Not a big surprise that he doesn't want to cooperate and get himself in even deeper water.
135
A tremendous shame on Prince Andrew, made much, much worse by his intransigence; the latter of which spreads the shame and scandal to the rest of his royal family for failing to press him to keep his word and help the FBI investigation in any lawful way possible.
Callousness, especially to the grotesque and soul-murdering crimes of sex trafficking and child sexual abuse, is something the House of Windsor can little afford, particularly given its attrition of princesses from the real world.
151