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

[Osipi]

In one word. No. That would mean extradition to the US and the UK will not extradite Andrew to the US unless he's been accused of a crime that is a crime in both the US and the UK and punishable by at least a year in prison.

However, they can goad, plead, advise and urge Andrew to cooperate. In the end though, its up to Andrew to cooperate.

 

[Pranter]

In one word. No. That would mean extradition to the US and the UK will not extradite Andrew to the US unless he's been accused of a crime that is a crime in both the US and the UK and punishable by at least a year in prison.

However, they can goad, plead, advise and urge Andrew to cooperate. In the end though, its up to Andrew to cooperate.

Ok so unless he comes to the U.S. or agrees to meet with officials in the U.K. he will never answer any questions.



LaRae

 

[Osipi]

That's my understanding but then again I'm so far away from being any kind of an expert at this stuff that a dandelion probably knows more than I do.

I think maybe a lot of stuff is hitting the media lately because of the recent airing of "Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich" on Netflix recently. I am, however, hopeful that this investigation is still going strong and hasn't been pushed into a "cold case" folder.

 

[Curryong]

I definitely believe Andrew should answer questions but the main question in my mind in all this mess is where is Ghislaine Maxwell? That woman undoubtedly has many of the answers to the prosecution's questions yet nothing has happened to her and she's certainly not been charged with anything. If she went on trial and told the truth (ha) then the Andrew involvement (as well as everything else) would become a whole lot clearer IMO.

 

[Osipi]

What's floated through my mind is that as, according to the articles, they've stated that Andrew is now part of the criminal investigation, the big question is in what regards is he part of it? My thought is that they're maybe of a mind that Andrew could have/may have/is aiding and abetting Ghislaine Maxwell evade prosecution. However, they do *not* imply that Andrew is suspected or or is alleged to have committed a crime.

The longer Andrew plays this out, the more it looks like he really does have something to hide or is protecting someone or..or.. or...

 

[sndral]

There are a few reasons I'd like to add to the discussion of just why Andrew will not be arrested for sleeping with Ms. Guiffre (three times supposedly).

#1. First of all, the charge would have to be filed by Ms. Guiffre with the court of law in the state in which the "crime" took place. With Ms. Giuffre, I believe that would be London, New York, Palm Beach, Florida or Little St. James Island in the Virgin Islands. The only real accusation that has come to light was the incident in London. As Ms. Guiffre was of the age of consent, the Met Police found no basis to pursue the allegations issued by Ms. Guiffre further.

#2. The ongoing investigation right now into sex trafficking by Epstein and his cohorts by the FBI will not prosecute sole claims filed by the victims of Epstein such as Ms. Giuffre is. Those will have to be filed in civil court as per #1.

#3. Should charges be actually filed against Andrew in the US as to his crime of sleeping with an underage girl, then Andrew would have to be extradited to stand trial. In order for Andrew to be extradited, the crime he's accused of committing must be a crime in both the US and the UK and carry a sentence of at least a year in prison. So it stands that if Ms. Guiffre was 17 and not of the age of consent in New York or wherever she files charges, those charges are not a crime in London and extradition goes out the window. I do not know what the sentence would be for this particular crime. Remember, Epstein got 18 months in Florida but that was a "sweetheart" deal since ruled to be invalid.

What the FBI want Andrew for is to talk to him and find out from him what he knew of Epstein and Maxwell's activities over the years. This does not mean that they're looking to prosecute Andrew at all. From Andrew's actions and demeanor after all hell broke loose, it does make Andrew look like he's "hiding something" but being guilty of an actual crime is certainly not one of them at this time. Who knows what incontrovertible evidence is still to be found in all this mess?

Just my thoughts.

A couple of corrections - regarding the first point, for state criminal charges, yes they would be filed in the state where they occurred, as happened in Florida w/ Epstein. Ms. Guffrie does not file criminal charges, the prosecutor for the relevant jurisdiction files charges in a criminal case, never the victim.
As you note, a victim can file a civil suit, however there are statute of limitation issues which may bar a victim doing so.
However, federal crimes are also possible and do not have to be filed in a specific state, as happened w/ Epstein where charges were filed in Florida & later in NY.
I can’t even guess what evidence the FBI is seeking or what crimes they are contemplating filing, but my brief survey of possible federal charges awhile ago revealed several conspiracy/trafficking type possibilities. The Feds can be relentless - remember they went after members of the mob for tax crimes because that was all they could prove. So the question is not as simple as did Andrew sleep w/ one 17 year old in London.
Regarding extradition, I see that what has triggered a resurgence of articles is that DOJ has officially filed a Mutual legal assistance request pursuant to the existing treaty between the USA and the U.K., so at this point extradition isn’t really the issue. It will take several months, but it is possible Andrew could be forced to answer questions pursuant to the treaty. The criteria for an MLA are different than the criteria for extradition. The questioning might occur in the U.K., & of course Andrew can assert his 5th amendment right to not incriminate himself and refuse to answer some questions on that basis. Interesting side point, if the prosecutor gives the person asserting the 5th amendment immunity, the person must then answer.

 

[Curryong]

Question. Can a British subject being questioned (in England) in a US official inquiry involving possible criminal matters, evoke Fifth Amendment rights, given that such rights don't exist under English law? (Britain of course has no written Constitution, just statute and Common Law.)

 

[sndral]

Question. Can a British subject being questioned (in England) in a US official inquiry involving possible criminal matters, evoke Fifth Amendement rights, given that such rights don't exist under English law? (Britain of course has no written Constitution, just statute and Common Law.)

I’m no expert in U.K. law, but I believe the U.K. recognizes a right to not incriminate yourself based on the US supreme court’s analysis of British law in this case https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/97-873
I’m not sure whether the Supreme Court has specifically addressed a nonresident alien’s right to invoke the 5th to avoid prosecution by the US - maybe I’ll find the answer w/ further digging

 

[Curryong]

Thanks sndral.
I live in Australia and our laws, like those of many Commonwealth countries, are based on the British model. (Though we do have a written Constitution it doesn't address those issues.)

However, I have read of cases here in the last few years, at Inquests, where a witness has stated 'I prefer not to answer that question on the grounds that I may incriminate myself'. That is similar I suppose, though it doesn't necessarily save them later on!

 

[Madame Verseau]

Diplomatic leverage can come into play. The wife of a US diplomat killed the British teen (sorry I forgot names) was officially charged in the UK. The UK doesn't get her unless Andrew talks to the Feds. The current occupant in the White House will not have the State Department take that tact; but if there is a new administration in January 2021 things could change.

 

[MARG]

You equate refusing to extradite a woman charged with careless use causing the ACTUAL DEATH of a schoolboy with 'WE THINK' the FBI or maybe some other alphabet organisation wish to interview but since there are no specifics, basically go on a fishing expedition?

 

[Osipi]

Diplomatic leverage can come into play. The wife of a US diplomat killed the British teen (sorry I forgot names) was officially charged in the UK. The UK doesn't get her unless Andrew talks to the Feds. The current occupant in the White House will not have the State Department take that tact; but if there is a new administration in January 2021 things could change.

I sincerely don't think they're going to be playing "Lets Make A Deal" in this kind of scenario. One reason is that the wife of a US diplomat committed a crime. She was actually *charged* with the crime and there are warrants out for her arrest should she leave the US. Andrew has not been charged or even alleged at this time by the Feds to have committed any crime. There are no warrants out for his arrest. They want him to cooperate in the investigation.

There is no universe where this scenario of "diplomatic leverage" could even been contemplated to be a "fair and square deal". As of right now, there is no way anyone can actually *force* Andrew to comply that I know of.

 

[sndral]

...As of right now, there is no way anyone can actually *force* Andrew to comply that I know of.

Take a look at Article 8 of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between the U.K. & the USA - I believe it provides the procedure to be taken in order to question Andrew. https://fas.org/irp/world/uk/us-uk-mla.pdf

 

[Nice Nofret]

Really - I do not see why there is so much fuss about Andrew (he may or may not have had sexual contact with an 17 year old) - because I'm pretty sure there are many other men and surelly Maxwell who where much closer to Epstein and for many more contacts than Andrew. People who know more, people who saw more, people who shielded him. People he got money from.


Epstein could get on for such a long time with his criminal behavior because there where enablears in the US - a Prince Andrew is merely the cherry on his cake - but as Andrew hasn't any real power or knowledge or money ...



So if the US-System is really going after Andrew - that is in may eyes only another strategie to shield the real enabelers ob Epstein.

 

[Denville]

Really - I do not see why there is so much fuss about Andrew (he may or may not have had sexual contact with an 17 year old) - because I'm pretty sure there are many other men and surelly Maxwell who where much closer to Epstein and for many more contacts than Andrew.


Epstein could get on for such a long time with his criminal behavior because there where enablears in the US - a Prince Andrew is merely the cherry on his cake - but as Andrew hasn't any real power or knowledge or money ...



So if the US-System is really going after Andrew - that is in may eyes only another strategie to shield the real enabelers ob Epstein.

Or they know that he was a good firend of G Maxwell and hope that he can assist them with finding her... or give them information about Epstein.

 

[Alisa]

Then if Andrew knows so little and has nothing to lose why doesn't he cooperate and have it all be done and over with?

The kicking and screaming make it appear that he is guilty of everything Virginia accused him of and then some!

Really - I do not see why there is so much fuss about Andrew (he may or may not have had sexual contact with an 17 year old) - because I'm pretty sure there are many other men and surelly Maxwell who where much closer to Epstein and for many more contacts than Andrew. People who know more, people who saw more, people who shielded him. People he got money from.


Epstein could get on for such a long time with his criminal behavior because there where enablears in the US - a Prince Andrew is merely the cherry on his cake - but as Andrew hasn't any real power or knowledge or money ...



So if the US-System is really going after Andrew - that is in may eyes only another strategie to shield the real enabelers ob Epstein.

 

[Denville]

Then if Andrew knows so little and has nothing to lose why doesn't he cooperate and have it all be done and over with?

The kicking and screaming make it appear that he is guilty of everything Virginia accused him of and then some!

I don't think hes guilty of sex with under aged girls... and it is not clear what the situation would be In regard to trafficking. I don't think he'd be held responsible if he did not know that she had been trafficked.. but he's not going to hurry to answer questions.. I suspect that he knows how dumb he is, n ow and how badly he came across and is wary of being questioned.. in case he says something stupid again

 

[Madame Verseau]

That's why you have a lawyer present during questioning and Andrew (well actually the queen) can afford a top notch criminal defense attorney. Stalling makes him look guilty.

 

[Denville]

That's why you have a lawyer present during questioning and Andrew (well actually the queen) can afford a top notch criminal defense attorney. Stalling makes him look guilty.

true but in the present climate, Andrew Cant go to the US and I suspect that even with a lawyer present he's capable of saying the wrong thing or something stupid which cn make him look worse than he is. Im sure the RF and their lawyers are aware of this and are reluctat to have him questioned.

 

[Muhler]

I cannot imagine Andrew going to USA to answer questions.

Even if he is as innocent as Snowwhite even the most incompetent lawyer would advise against it.

But Andrew can hardly stall co-operating much longer. He has to do something.

 

[Mirabel]

Really - I do not see why there is so much fuss about Andrew (he may or may not have had sexual contact with an 17 year old) - because I'm pretty sure there are many other men and surelly Maxwell who where much closer to Epstein and for many more contacts than Andrew. People who know more, people who saw more, people who shielded him. People he got money from.

That's what I think too.
It can only be that Andrew is high-profile. As a member of the RF, he deflects attention from others who are probably more knowledgeable.

 

[Alisa]

People who are high profile/ celebrity often get the brunt of the blame and media attention even if they are as innocent as a dove.
To me it's simple. He can get a top notch high profile lawyer to coach him on what to say and what not to day. Heck, he can probably even get his questions in advance so he can be coached.
The more he dilly-dallies the guiltier he looks and the more unfavorable he will come out on all this. If he is truly innocent as he says, he needs to act fast to save his reputation and that if his daughters as they too are indirectly affected by all this.

 

[Denville]

People who are high profile/ celebrity often get the brunt of the blame and media attention even if they are as innocent as a dove.
To me it's simple. He can get a top notch high profile lawyer to coach him on what to say and what not to day. Heck, he can probably even get his questions in advance so he can be coached.
The more he dilly-dallies the guiltier he looks and the more unfavorable he will come out on all this. If he is truly innocent as he says, he needs to act fast to save his reputation and that if his daughters as they too are indirectly affected by all this.

have you seen Andrew#s interview?

 

[Nice Nofret]

Just watching the Epstein-Docu on Netflix - in the first part NON of the young girls was saying anything about OTHER men .. just Epstein...


But there is a lot of evidence that he had powerfull friends who shielded him.


It's those people one should go after. THEY are, apart from Epstein, the real culpits.

 

[Lumutqueen]

The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy (2010-2020)

Prince Andrews legal team has spoken;

https://twitter.com/x/status/1270002635249246209

“Lawyers for #PrinceAndrew say he has "on at least three occasions this year offered his assistance as a witness to the Department of Justice [in the US]. Prince Andrew's team hits out at the US Dept of Justice claiming they "are perhaps seeking publicity rather than accepting the assistance proffered. The statement from #PrinceAndrew's legal team goes on: Unfortunately, the DOJ has reacted to the first two offers [of cooperation] by breaching their own confidentiality rules and claiming that the Duke has offered zero cooperation.”

I would like to strongly highlight this has no connection to Buckingham Palace or The Queen.

A copy of the statement in full;

https://twitter.com/x/status/1270008041451249667

 

[Eskimo]

So...can the UK government compel Andrew to cooperate?



LaRae

They can demand all they want. The UK government will not comply. I believe only the US Department of Justice can formally request an extradition and that will never happen-- it is not worth ruining the extremely close friendship between the UK and the US.

This all changes if there is significant proof that Andrew actually committed a crime. In this situation they would have to publicly release the information and use public opinion to force the two governments to go the extradition route.

 

[sndral]

Prince Andrews legal team has spoken;

https://twitter.com/x/status/1270002635249246209

“Lawyers for #PrinceAndrew say he has "on at least three occasions this year offered his assistance as a witness to the Department of Justice [in the US]. Prince Andrew's team hits out at the US Dept of Justice claiming they "are perhaps seeking publicity rather than accepting the assistance proffered. The statement from #PrinceAndrew's legal team goes on: Unfortunately, the DOJ has reacted to the first two offers [of cooperation] by breaching their own confidentiality rules and claiming that the Duke has offered zero cooperation.”

I would like to strongly highlight this has no connection to Buckingham Palace or The Queen.

A copy of the statement in full;

https://twitter.com/x/status/1270008041451249667

It was late January that the Assistant US attorney said Andrew refused to co-operate. Andrew’s insiders at the time said he was confused about the claims as he’d not been asked. Afterwards he hired the high profile lawyer who specialized in international criminal cases.
My guess would be that after Jan. Andrew’s legal team did have discussions w/ the Feds but that the ‘assistance offered’ by Andrew’s legal team came with conditions attached that the Feds weren’t willing to acquiesce to, hence the commencement of legal proceedings via the MLA treaty to force questioning/evidence gathering. I also find interesting Andrew’s team’s use of the terms ‘assisting as a witness,’ perhaps the Feds see him as more than a witness. Perhaps Andrew’s team wanted immunity or other assurances for his ‘willing’ co-operation which the Feds weren’t willing to give.
I am puzzled by the continued focus on Andrew by the Feds, if his involvement was as de minimus as reported, it’s hardly worth the effort.
So now Andrew is the focus of two legal battles - the MLA from the US and the civil suit over the chalet.
Edit to add link w/ info. about the MLA process https://www.tatler.com/article/prince-andrew-offered-to-help-epstein-enquiries-say-lawyers
Second edit - it appears that the US atty. also publically stated in March that Andrew was not co-operating. https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...lationship-with-jeffrey-epstein-39268825.html One thing that stood out to me in the linked timeline article was reference to the pilot’s statement that on April 11, 2001, Andrew took a flight w/ Epstein & a then 17 year old Ms. Guffrie to the US Virgin Islands - since transporting a minor across state lines or internationally for any sexual activity can be charged as a Federal crime.

 

[tommy100]

I find the whole thing confusing, part of me wonders why the Feds / DoJ are putting such focus on Andrew. Its been said Epstein was friends/associated with Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, Leslie Wexner and Alan Dershowitz and of course there is Ghislaine Mazwell who know one seems that bothered about anymore interestingly despite the fact almost all the women who have spoken out have said she witnessed sexual abuse and knew the girls were underage at the time.

I honestly have a very low opinion of Andrew and would gladly never hear of him again and hope that if he has committed a crime he is punished. That said I don't see why they are placing such a focus on Andrew unless its a distraction to shift focus.

The statement today from Andrew was very clear in saying that he has offered to be witness three times and that he is not being considered a "target" of their investigations.

That said Andrew does seem to be playing this oddly, he isn't being as open and honest as he could be, seemingly attaching conditions to any talks with the US. It would be interesting to know what limitations he asked for etc.

 

[ACO]

Well it would seem the Justice Department has responded to Andrew's statement.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1270074605923958785

"Today, Prince Andrew yet again sought to falsely portray himself to the public as eager and willing to cooperate with an ongoing investigation into sex trafficking," U.S. attorney Geoffrey Berman says in a statement.

If he has offered to cooperate then he should just do it. All this back and forth is odd.

 

[Osipi]

I find the whole thing confusing, part of me wonders why the Feds / DoJ are putting such focus on Andrew. Its been said Epstein was friends/associated with Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, Leslie Wexner and Alan Dershowitz and of course there is Ghislaine Mazwell who know one seems that bothered about anymore interestingly despite the fact almost all the women who have spoken out have said she witnessed sexual abuse and knew the girls were underage at the time.

Oh, Ghislaine Maxwell has not exactly been quiet at all. Perhaps, thinking about this now, it could be a reason to refocus on Andrew again. I posted this article a few pages back but it may have been unnoticed until this thread was bumped up again with the DOJ/Andrew developments.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/ghislaine...hreats-extensive-legal-fees/story?id=69628102