The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

Probably because two of the most well read ( American) tabloids are The National Inquirer and the New York Post.

Both are owned by anti Royalist republican Rupert Murdoch.

And both tabloids are very supportive of the former president in question...one of them going as far as paying hush money to a prostitute in the weeks before the November 2016 election buy her silence.

Let's not forget also that Rupert Murdoch owns the now seemingly a tabloid mainstream media called Fox News.

I have to believe that there's a reason why big wig men that were associated with Trump aren't having the focus put on them. As you said, Moonmaiden, they're "protected". You mentioned paying the hush money in the weeks before the November 2016 election. Actually, I believe it was one of Epstein's girls that filed a lawsuit against both Trump and Epstein and for some mysterious (insert Twilight Zone music) reason, it was dropped. The court documents are still available though for the public. I'm not going to post the link to the documents because they actually made me feel physically sick after reading them.

It's a background like this that makes Andrew the perfect patsy and fall guy. He's royalty. He's not exactly a household name but everyone has some inkling who Andrew is and who his mother is. It's a double whammy with Andrew being friends with Ghislaine Maxwell. The way reporting is going though, it is being made to seem that Andrew is the chief and prime predator. This puts Andrew between a rock and a hard place. He's small potatoes compared to quite a few others out there though. He doesn't have a Murdoch to fight for him but actually becomes a sticking point to harm to monarchy.

Of course, these are my thoughts and my way of seeing something.

[Denville]

well its largely Andrews's own fault. He should not have BEEN friends with Ghislaine Maxwell... or let her and Epstein find girls for him. But in another sense yes he's no worse than a lot of sleazy powerful men who have used these girls

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Denville

well its largely Andrews's own fault. He should not have BEEN friends with Ghislaine Maxwell... or let her and Epstein find girls for him. But in another sense yes he's no worse than a lot of sleazy powerful men who have used these girls

So very true. After sitting through and gawping in astonishment at the words coming out of Andrew's mouth during his interview which hit home the man's sense of entitlement and arrogance, it led me to believe that this is a man that probably saw himself above Epstein and Maxwell and with Andrew, it was more "what they could do for him" rather than Andrew actually having the instincts to know what people to trust and what people to avoid like the plague. Kind of like having an attitude that what comes to him is deserved as he's a Prince. He carried a sense of nothing will go wrong for him and if it did, there'd be his "people" to clean up the mess for him. Surprise, Andy, surprise!!

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Let's not forget also that Rupert Murdoch owns the now seemingly a tabloid mainstream media called Fox News.

I have to believe that there's a reason why big wig men that were associated with Trump aren't having the focus put on them. As you said, Moonmaiden, they're "protected". You mentioned paying the hush money in the weeks before the November 2016 election. Actually, I believe it was one of Epstein's girls that filed a lawsuit against both Trump and Epstein and for some mysterious (insert Twilight Zone music) reason, it was dropped. The court documents are still available though for the public. I'm not going to post the link to the documents because they actually made me feel physically sick after reading them.

It's a background like this that makes Andrew the perfect patsy and fall guy. He's royalty. He's not exactly a household name but everyone has some inkling who Andrew is and who his mother is. It's a double whammy with Andrew being friends with Ghislaine Maxwell. The way reporting is going though, it is being made to seem that Andrew is the chief and prime predator. This puts Andrew between a rock and a hard place. He's small potatoes compared to quite a few others out there though. He doesn't have a Murdoch to fight for him but actually becomes a sticking point to harm to monarchy.

Of course, these are my thoughts and my way of seeing something.

Oh wow...yikes.

I was thinking of the then editor of the Enquirer...David somebody...and a buddy of then candidate Trump, who wrote a check to porn star Stormy Daniels to buy her story and keep her quiet about her.. "friendship" with Trump before the 2016 election.

The Enquirer editor confessed all when he heard the not too distant rumbling of prison bars during the Mueller investigation I believe.

[victor1319]

Originally Posted by Osipi

It's a background like this that makes Andrew the perfect patsy and fall guy. He's royalty. He's not exactly a household name but everyone has some inkling who Andrew is and who his mother is. It's a double whammy with Andrew being friends with Ghislaine Maxwell. The way reporting is going though, it is being made to seem that Andrew is the chief and prime predator. This puts Andrew between a rock and a hard place. He's small potatoes compared to quite a few others out there though. He doesn't have a Murdoch to fight for him but actually becomes a sticking point to harm to monarchy.

Of course, these are my thoughts and my way of seeing something.

Yep, but it can be seen and framed totally different too: That this Andrew story is making headlines can be understood as an attempt to make this whole nasty story looking like "Some well off older gentlemen having fun with slutty and especially consenting young women"...

Prince Andrew is in the eyes of the English police innocent and this court case in America might lead to nothing - So, would this not mean, there is nothing really to see here?

That the Princes of Gotham City were involved into it - and one can be sure Epstein and his accomplices had interests far beyond giving "parties" - is then forgotten too...

[TLLK]

Virginia Roberts Giuffre's attorney David Boise has released a statement that he might consider calling the Duchess of Sussex to testify against the Dukeof York. He cites three reasons as to why he's considering this action. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1980527.html


I find this to be absolutely bizarre and simply attention seeking/pot stirring. As far as I know Meghan had not met her future husband yet when the alleged encounters between Virginia and Andrew took place. If Boise is looking for one of Andrew's family members who resides in the U.S., why isn't he calling Harry? And why would Andrew have ever spoken to Harry about anything related to this case?

He also cited three reasons for Ms Markle to be a potential deposition subject.
“One; she is in the US so we have jurisdiction over her. Two; she is somebody who obviously, at least for a period of time, was a close associate of Prince Andrew and hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did, and perhaps if not to have seen what he did to have heard people talk about it. Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge, and will certainly have some knowledge.”
“Three; she is somebody who we can count on, to tell the truth. She checks all three boxes,” the lawyer added.

[TLLK]

deleted post

[Lori138]

Since when does Meghan tell the 'truth'. I don't believe she will be called, this is just to keep the case in the headlines.

[Osipi]

Maybe it's the happy meds but I have to admit that the first thought that ran through my brain was "I wonder how long it took Sunshine Sachs to cook this one up". That's how bizarre this is. If I'm not mistaken, any interaction between Andrew and Virginia happened *long* before Meghan's *first* marriage even (2011).

Anyone besides me see this being laughed right out of court?

[Tatiana Maria]

Indeed bizarre for many reasons as said above, likewise with Mr. Boies's statement (cited in the article) that he will not seek to depose the Queen "out of respect and deference, and her age". I would have thought that her status as a foreign head of state would be more pertinent. (I wonder how Mr. Boies would respond if a British lawyer discussed seeking to depose the US President for a British civil court case.)

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

And both tabloids are very supportive of one of the former president in question...[...]

Magnolia471 asked about two US presidents; I assume they were referencing Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, who were confirmed to have flown on Jeffrey Epstein's plane multiple times. Neither former president has been accused of criminal acts related to Jeffrey Epstein, however.

Originally Posted by Denville

what teenage girls?

victor1319 was referring to another sex trafficking case in the UK (no relation to Jeffrey Epstein) which occurred some years ago.

[rominet09]

Originally Posted by Lori138

Since when does Meghan tell the 'truth'. I don't believe she will be called, this is just to keep the case in the headlines.

I absolutely agree.

[Osipi]

[QUOTE=Tatiana Maria;2444036)Magnolia471 asked about two US presidents; I assume they were referencing Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, who were confirmed to have flown on Jeffrey Epstein's plane multiple times. Neither former president has been accused of criminal acts related to Jeffrey Epstein, however.[/QUOTE]

I know for a fact that one US president was named in a criminal lawsuit along with Jeffrey Epstein in a case filed in SDNY. I will not post a link to the actual documents in a public forum but I'll send you the link in PM, Tatiana Maria. This case was mysteriously dropped not long before the 2016 election.

Believe it or not the *only* place I've seen mentioned about this was in this thread a very long time ago.

[US Royal Watcher]

Ghislaine Maxwell was found guilty of 5 out of 6 charges. Apparently, she is facing as long as 40 years in prison.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/max...sk-2021-12-29/

[Frelinghighness]

Good news. She enabled the whole thing as a woman along side these teen aged girls. Made them feel as if it was normal

[King of the Jungle]

At least 40 years, wow. Do you think Ghislaine had some kind of Stockholm Syndrome or mental health issues?
Or did she think the early sexual activity very normal for all girls due to her own experiences? ... or was she just very knowingly, dangerous and predatory? The full story and the history will come out I hope.

Ghislaine's guilt doesn't make Andrew guilty, of course; though it makes him even more gullible and stupid for associating with Ghislaine.

[Leopoldine]

Stupid doesn't keep one out of goal.

[Claire]

yep - or else that would be the number one reason for every crime and appeal on the plant.

[Claire]

Question - was the jury allowed to discuss the clientele like they did? I saw in the paper that they mentioned the ex presidents and other high profile people. Was conspiracy of a crime one of the charges, sorry didn't follow the trial.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by King of the Jungle

At least 40 years, wow. Do you think Ghislaine had some kind of Stockholm Syndrome or mental health issues?
Or did she think the early sexual activity very normal for all girls due to her own experiences? ... or was she just very knowingly, dangerous and predatory? The full story and the history will come out I hope.

Ghislaine's guilt doesn't make Andrew guilty, of course; though it makes him even more gullible and stupid for associating with Ghislaine.

what experiences had she had that might make early sexual activity seem normal to her?

[King of the Jungle]

Originally Posted by Leopoldine

Stupid doesn't keep one out of goal.

Yes, conversely, stupidity is almost a prerequisite.