The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 1: 2010-2022

[tommy100]

Emily Matlis is very tough as an interviewer, she is use to interviewing politicians so use to people trying to talk bull****.

She wouldn't have said about the questions not being vetted etc if it wasn't true, she knows if it was found out it would ruin her career and tbh I doubt she thinks Andrew is worth that.

At this point let's just wait and see the interview. I doubt it will be an easy ride but is also unlikely to be "harsh" enough for some (who tbh it seems have decided Andrew must be guilty of a crime and should just rot in prison already)

 

[sophie25]

I suppose there are ways in which it could technically be true that no questions were vetted, but the parameters were so narrow that there need be no concern about what is coming.

No member of The Royal Family, in any context, gives an interview without knowing exactly the substance of what is coming. That tradition did not stop here, in this context.

Very deceptive of Emily Andrews to present this as if Andrew is going in cold, on a technical truth.

Exactly, there is not a snowball's chance in hell the Palace would have allowed him to do this if there was the slightest chance of him coming out of it worse than before. It's a total damage limitation excercise to try and salvage what little is left of his reputation.

 

[MARG]

. . . . . US Law Enforcement won’t stop looking for what exactly? Why would Andrew talk to the Feds when he’s not accused of anything?

I give up. There are people on this thread that have 'Tried' Andrew in absentia and found him guilty. However, exactly what he is guilty of remains unclear.

Being one of Epstein's friends means he is just as gullible as dozens of other members of Society which means I am really anticipating this interview.

 

[Katymcwaity]

A short clip of the interview

https://twitter.com/x/status/1195460235814752256

 

[Lumutqueen]

We’re getting a couple of sound bites now, here’s another;

https://twitter.com/x/status/1195460500097814528

This is really interesting.

 

[ACO]

Yeah... definitely will watch this but I’m not buying what he selling.

He doesn’t even deny it. He very crafty states he doesn’t remember. That way he can’t be accused of lying down the road.

Either way it’s WEAK.

 

[wyevale]

Its inconceivable he’s done this interview for no reason. Something’s afoot....

 

[rominet09]

I think the questions must have been sent in advance and that Andrew's legal team have prepared the carefully calculated answers…. I think it is normal in his position !

 

[sophie25]

Yeah... definitely will watch this but I’m not buying what he selling.

He doesn’t even deny it. He very crafty states he doesn’t remember. That way he can’t be accused of lying down the road.

Either way it’s WEAK.

Yes I noticed that straight away, saying you don't remember is neither a denial nor an admission. He will have been well briefed by his legal team about what to say and not say.

 

[Pranter]

He said he didn't remember ...what was the context, what's he saying he can't remember? Sorry can't see it here yet.



LaRae

 

[tommy100]

Whether or not they saw the questions in advance I suspect any half decent team could have predicted what was going to be asked and prepared Andrew accordingly.

The answers, well that "i can't remember" one seem pretty lame and I suspect whilst Andrew may have not have got him in legal trouble they will not help him in the court of public opinion.

I've seen that clip of him saying it was wrong to stay friends, I hope Matlis asked if he was disgusted at the crimes Epstein was said to have committed and if he says yes, ask why he felt okay staying in contact with him.

Either way, how horrendous that at the end of the day we have the Queen's son having to deny having sex with someone on national TV.

 

[sophie25]

He said he didn't remember ...what was the context, what's he saying he can't remember? Sorry can't see it here yet.



LaRae

He said he can't remember meeting Virginia Giuffre.

Whether or not they saw the questions in advance I suspect any half decent team could have predicted what was going to be asked and prepared Andrew accordingly.

The answers, well that "i can't remember" one seem pretty lame and I suspect whilst Andrew may have not have got him in legal trouble they will not help him in the court of public opinion.

I've seen that clip of him saying it was wrong to stay friends, I hope Matlis asked if he was disgusted at the crimes Epstein was said to have committed and if he says yes, ask why he felt okay staying in contact with him.

Either way, how horrendous that at the end of the day we have the Queen's son having to deny having sex with someone on national TV.

I think this interview will be totally cringeworthy and humilliating for him and unless he can refute Giuffre's accusations in detail I can't see how it will help him any. Just saying he can't remember things isn't going to achieve anything other than to make it look like he has something to hide.

 

[Osipi]

I have to agree that the "I can't remember" angle isn't helping Andrew at all. It could be the absolute truth that he doesn't remember meeting Giuffre but then again, it could be read that she's just one of *many* he's met through Epstein over those years.

He's not helping himself here from the clips I've already seen and he looks uncomfortable and the words out of his mouth seem to be well scripted and almost rehearsed.

I'm tending to agree with wyevale and think somethings afoot here.

 

[MJudith]

well it clearly depends on what he can't remember ... I mean I would not remember exactly what happened on a flight years ago if I were innocent.
If I were guilty, I guess I would...
I have honestly no opinion on Andrew's guilt but the argument "I do not remember " does not seem so lame to me.
Regarding not remembering meeting her, I can understand that too. Maybe he really wants to say that he never met her but his lawyers advised him not to be so categorical as a picture of one Epstein's pary where they were both present could resurfaced.

 

[Gawin]

I have to agree that the "I can't remember" angle isn't helping Andrew at all. It could be the absolute truth that he doesn't remember meeting Giuffre but then again, it could be read that she's just one of *many* he's met through Epstein over those years.

He's not helping himself here from the clips I've already seen and he looks uncomfortable and the words out of his mouth seem to be well scripted and almost rehearsed.

I'm tending to agree with wyevale and think somethings afoot here.

It's possible Andrew simply decided he needed to do this and carefully prepared his words beforehand (which would explain the "well-rehearsed" answers) and it's also possible he told the truth when he said he didn't remember meeting Virginia Giuffre. His lawyers wouldn't have advised him to say that, they would have told him to keep his mouth shut and ride this out.
But instead Andrew suddenly appears on television and brings it up all over again.
Because of this I agree with wyevale. There might be something else going on that made Andrew decide he needed to get his side out. I hope for his family's sake I'm wrong.

 

[tommy100]

Until we have seen the whole interview its hard to make a complete judgement but if this is the extent of his answers "I can't remember" and "royals should meet a higher standard" then its not doing him any good so I struggle to see he would do it. Unless you can add to the statements already released by say anything. They announced originally he hadn't met her, now he says he can't remember meeting her, not exactly consistent.

 

[rmay286]

Its inconceivable he’s done this interview for no reason. Something’s afoot....

I too wonder why Andrew finally decided to give this interview? And what difference he thinks it's going to make?

 

[Muhler]

From a legal viewpoint this may be wise - not sure though.
But from a PR viewpoint, this won't help at all. Regardless.

I doubt anyone, here on TRF or elsewhere, will have changed their opinion because of this.
And as someone pointed out, this is pretty embarrassing!

Gotta go, have to pry my toes loose from the floorboards...

 

[Cocoasneeze]

Prince Andrew answering why he continued his friendship with Epstein and stayed at his place after Epstein was released from prison

https://twitter.com/x/status/1195581775814242305

"It was definitely the wrong thing to do. But at the time I felt it was the honourable and right thing to do."

Prince Andrew describes himself as too honourable, that's his explanation to his continuing friendship with Epstein AFTER his conviction and prison release.

Imho there's zero chance, that Andrew wasn't prepared, aware of and prepped to answer to the questions asked. Well, anyone of us would've guessed what the questions were going to be. And his team came up with THIS. He's too honourable.

I don't know if Andrew's dictionary has different meaning to honourable, because mine doesn't describe friendships with convicted sex trafficker as honourable.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

I give up. There are people on this thread that have 'Tried' Andrew in absentia and found him guilty. However, exactly what he is guilty of remains unclear.

Being one of Epstein's friends means he is just as gullible as dozens of other members of Society which means I am really anticipating this interview.

Andrew is 100% guilty of continuing his friendship with Epstein AFTER Epstein was convicted, jailed and released from prison. That's not being gullible. That means Andrew knowingly being friends with a convicted child sex trafficker.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Andrew is 100% guilty of continuing his friendship with Epstein AFTER Epstein was convicted, jailed and released from prison. That's not being gullible. That means Andrew knowingly being friends with a convicted child sex trafficker.

Epstein was not convicted of being a child sex trafficker in 2008. He was under charged but nonetheless, the convictions were for soliciting for prostitution. He got a light sentence with very favorable work release terms, which also made it seem not as bad as it was.
He was charged with sex trafficking in 2019.

 

[Elly C]

Emily Maitland has just given a short interview with BBC breakfast about the circumstances surrounding the interview. Paraphrasing her words she said the go ahead had been given on Tuesday evening having received clearance from the highest level which she assumed meant the Queen. She talked about this being after several months of news reports and seemed to imply that an interview had been requested during this time. The interview took place in Buckingham Palace on Thursday.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Epstein was not convicted of being a child sex trafficker in 2008. He was under charged but nonetheless, the convictions were for soliciting for prostitution. He got a light sentence with very favorable work release terms, which also made it seem not as bad as it was.

He was charged with sex trafficking in 2019.

Thank you!

Another example of trial by media when the timelines are all wrong.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

Epstein was not convicted of being a child sex trafficker in 2008. He was under charged but nonetheless, the convictions were for soliciting for prostitution. He got a light sentence with very favorable work release terms, which also made it seem not as bad as it was.
He was charged with sex trafficking in 2019.

Epstein pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring an underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute. UNDERAGE being the key word.
I'm curious to know what would make it seem worse? Procuring underage girl for prostitution sounds pretty horrible to me. And Andrew was fully aware of this.

(In my book procuring underage girls, who legally can't consent, for prostitution, is sex trafficking, but I'm no legal genius.)

 

[rob2008]

Emily Maitland has just given a short interview with BBC breakfast about the circumstances surrounding the interview. Paraphrasing her words she said the go ahead had been given on Tuesday evening having received clearance from the highest level which she assumed meant the Queen. She talked about this being after several months of news reports and seemed to imply that an interview had been requested during this time. The interview took place in Buckingham Palace on Thursday.

Andrew seems to be seeking forgiveness for lack of judgement or poor judgement. The purpose of the interview will be to stop this journalistic process from developing further. But his contribution is just another inflammatory intervention that is going to keep this issue current and topical - what next?

Andrew should have followed his maternal grandmother's rule: 'Never complain, never explain'.

His paternal grandmother probably said something similar.

The correct path would have been to hunker down into a period of obscurity engaged in unseen charity work or doing genuinely public service for 5 years. It would have been a 'sentence' worth serving to mend his reputation. Then agin, maybe a low profile doing good works would be too hard for him.

 

[ACO]

Epstein was not convicted of being a child sex trafficker in 2008. He was under charged but nonetheless, the convictions were for soliciting for prostitution. He got a light sentence with very favorable work release terms, which also made it seem not as bad as it was.
He was charged with sex trafficking in 2019.

Underaged. Minor. Andrew knew that and still thought it was convenient and honorable to still stay with this man in his home. His good friend.

 

[Debbies]

Emily Maitland has just given a short interview with BBC breakfast about the circumstances surrounding the interview. Paraphrasing her words she said the go ahead had been given on Tuesday evening having received clearance from the highest level which she assumed meant the Queen. She talked about this being after several months of news reports and seemed to imply that an interview had been requested during this time. The interview took place in Buckingham Palace on Thursday.

Would you please have a link to share to such BBC Breakfast interview?

 

[Katymcwaity]

Would you please have a link to share to such BBC Breakfast interview?

This is not from the Breakfast interview but saying the same thing at about 1 min in

https://twitter.com/x/status/1195473401261019137

 

[Nico]

He's toasted, big time.
He was unpopular before, and this story will follow him until the end of the days.
He's too arrogant to step aside by himself, so i guess someone has to gently tell him that the party is over.
Goodbye Andrew, it was fun.

 

[tommy100]

Odd to see some people criticising the BBC for airing this. Emily Matlis has made clear numerous times the questions were not vetted by the Palace, but some people thing she is lying for some reason? People assume she must be in cahoots with them because she asks tough questions but without screaming and shouting. She is a well respected journalist. This programme is part of BBC's Newsnight which does tough interviews like this (i.e about highly controversial issues that are ongoing legal cases) all the time, she knows how to get the questions answered which is surely better than going in all guns blazing and Andrew walking out saying no more. Yes he probably should be answering questions from the Police/FBI as well (I'm not aware that they have asked to and he has said no so not sure again why people have such different standards of procedure that Andrew should just knock on police station door and demand to be interviewed)

I think Andrew is reprehensible for keeping any contact with Epstein after the 2008 conviction, whether for prostitution or whatever, is showed the type of character Epstein was and should have been a warning sign to walk away. Incidentally there were warning signs all over the media that there was more to it. To me that can't be talked away with "letting the Queen down". What about letting your girls down? Does he think Epstein did anything wrong or does he just mean that getting caught was letting the Queen down because of the bad PR. I will wait to see more with interest but I don' think the interview will do him good tbh but kudos to the BBC for getting it out there.