The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023

[Zonk]

Originally Posted by royal rob

Because they are apart of this case too as far as I can see.
It's a fact that Epstein only got the tiniest slap on the hand and everything was easily covered up. It's disgusting and Andrew , Clinton and anyone else involved should be made to pay.
But not the girls.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

But pay for what exactly? other than having extremely bad judgement on picking Epstein for a friend.....what are they exactly guilty of? has Andrew and Clinton been charged with anything specific? and are you the jury and executioner in determining their guilt?

Not to speak for everyone, but this is exactly what I mean. We are letting emotions rule instead of rational thoughts and facts. You speak that they should be made to pay but pay for what exactly? Certainly if in a court of law, they are found guilty by a jury of their peers after specific evidence that determine their guilt is presented, than yes they should pay but not before it. Its like trial by internet. All you need is internet access and a keyboard, and people are pulling up facts faster than you can say Zonk. It doesn't matter if people haven't check these call facts. It's on the internet than it must be true.

And for the record, the last time I checked Epstein was the accused of these horrific crimes. Not Andrew. So although Andrew has shown extremely bad judgement, and there are MANY MANY questions that need to be answered, last time I checked...the 12 year old had nothing to do with Andrew.

[royal rob]

Using their power to get such a reduced sentence for Epstein and sorry I thought we could say what we thought and felt but it appears not !!


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Queen Camilla]

Andrew is being made the scapegoat by the media.

The media failed to give this story the proper coverage when the 1st charges were brought against Epstein. The media failed to question why Epstein received a very light sentence.

The media is complacent in the cover up.

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla

Andrew is being made the scapegoat by the media.

The media failed to give this story the proper coverage when the 1st charges were brought against Epstein. The media failed to question why Epstein received a very light sentence.

The media is complacent in the cover up.

Andrew is not being made a scapegoat by the media. He has been accused so of course they are writing about him. Yes they should have questioned the sentence and they didn't let's hope they do this time but I very much doubt it.
For too long rich powerful men have got away with treating children and women as "things" to be used and abused. And for too long others have stood by and let it happen and blamed the victim for "asking for it " as in " she was smiling in the picture "
You don't have to worry about Andrew nothing will come of this too many of those rich powerful men and not enough people willing to stand up and stop it happening


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Zonk]

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla

Andrew is being made the scapegoat by the media.

The media failed to give this story the proper coverage when the 1st charges were brought against Epstein. The media failed to question why Epstein received a very light sentence.

The media is complacent in the cover up.

So far, it appears that only the British media is putting the heat on Andrew. It's been mentioned in the US press, but not in the same intensity. Of course, if it turns out Clinton is involved, than I expect it to ramp up as we get closer to 2016.

First and foremost, the court system failed these girls. I am also surprised that the media didn't run with this story when it first came out. A rich man, young underage girls and a sex scandal...not to make light of the situation it just doesn't make sense but this is what tabloid journalism is all about. Especially since Epstein's phone book is a like a who's who.

Is there a website or newspaper who is truly investigating this like true journalist, or is just the tabloids.

[Curryong]

No, the media weren't as incisive as they could have been in covering why Epstein was treated with kid gloves by the judicial system.

It isn't journalists however, who became close to Epstein, and who allegedly had sex with a 17 year old, introduced by him.

It isnt the media whose exes took money from their friend to cover their debts, who stayed at his house, brought him to their mothers' birthday party, or remained his friend after he was put on the sexual offenders register, having served a sentence for sexual offences with young girls.

Andrew's not being scapegoated. Lets not shoot the messenger here!

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by Curryong

No, the media weren't as incisive as they could have been in covering why Epstein was treated with kid gloves by the judicial system.

It isn't journalists however, who became close to Epstein, and who allegedly had sex with a 17 year old, introduced by him.

It isnt the media whose exes took money from their friend to cover their debts, who stayed at his house, brought him to their mothers' birthday party, or remained his friend after he was put on the sexual offenders register, having served a sentence for sexual offences with young girls.

Andrew's not being scapegoated. Lets not shoot the messenger here!

Excellent agree completely


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Queen Camilla]

This reminds me of Stuart Levine.

His crimes were known to the Feds for decades but were ignored. When he went to prison he was only sentenced to 5 1/2 years because he decided to testify against the Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich.

Levine was the kind of man who would fly friends, like Rod Blagojevich, on a private jet to New York for fundraisers.

Now, knowing Stuart Levine, and knowing that he hosted drug and sex parties for years, ask yourself this: How many public officials do you suppose the Department of Justice can tell what to do, and what to think, because they know of their attendance at those parties?

You see, the old slogan in Chicago was: "It's not what you know; it's who you know." The new slogan is, "It's not who you know; it's what you know about who you know."

(1.) Who attended these parties with Levine?
(2.) Are any of them still holding public office where they make decisions about our future?
(3.) Is anyone being blackmailed for having been at those parties?
And lastly, (4.) "Why does the Department of Justice refuse to release any information about those parties?

Meanwhile, the Chicago media maintains its silence and refuses to ask the obvious question: "Who attended the illegal drug parties with Stuart Levine, while he was spending millions of dollars of teachers' retirement money?" Or, perhaps several key reporters know who was there, and are, for one reason or another, unwilling to report what they know.

http://illinoispaytoplay.com/tag/stuart-p-levine/

A few more of his crimes.

"You defrauded the good people of the state of Illinois. You stole from close friends. You stole from charities. The havoc that you wreaked is certainly substantial," St. Eve declared. "You were certainly one of the most corrupt individuals this district has ever seen."

Yet minutes later the judge imposed the 51/2-year prison term on Levine, saying she was convinced that he was not the same arrogant and egotistical defendant she met four years ago when he testified in her courtroom.

Before his arrest, Levine appeared to the public to be a successful businessman living in a North Shore mansion who served on the boards of charities and key state agencies.

But behind the scenes he was using the access and influence he had amassed to steal from a long list of victims. He teamed up in kickback schemes with some of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's top advisers, squeezing millions of dollars from people seeking to do business with the state. And he stole $2 million from the estate of a close friend.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-20/news/ct-met-stuart-levine-sentencing-0720-20120720_1_political-insider-stuart-levine-purple-hotel-attorney-christopher-niewoehner

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by royal rob

Using their power to get such a reduced sentence for Epstein and sorry I thought we could say what we thought and felt but it appears not !!

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

It isn't a crime to contact a prosecutor and ask him to go easy on a friend or member of the family. People do it all the time. I agree that it would be reprehensible if Andrew did so in this case, but there is no proof that he did. We will know for sure if the court decides to release the documents.

Epstein has (or had) many powerful friends. I don't think a letter or call from Prince Andrew alone would have had much impact on the prosecution. It's possible that the prosecution cut the deal because several famous people, including Andrew, were involved, but I bet that there were many considerations that went into the plea bargain.

Epstein cut deals with many of the girls and no prosecutor likes to force victims of trafficking to testify against their will. There may have been other considerations, including admissibility of evidence, police mistakes, etc... We don't have the information yet.

If it comes out that Andrew contacted the prosecutor on Epstein's behalf, his "payment" will be in the court of public opinion. I see no credible evidence that Andrew has committed a crime. There is no allegation that Andrew had sex with anyone other than Jane Doe #3, who admits she was at least 17 at the time of the encounter. It may have been a crime if the encounter took place in Florida but we don't know that yet.

Jane Doe #3's memory for dates and places does not seem to be accurate. That is not an attack on the victim. It's based on the manifests Dershowitz released. Other information may confirm her story. We don't have the facts yet.

Just because someone is a victim of a crime does not mean that we have to believe every word that comes out of her mouth.

[Winnie]

Oh my God, I completely forgot about the Stuart Levine story. Greed and power sure warps 80% of people in position to screw other human beings. The one doing the illegal deeds and the many others letting it happen just so that their lives are made a little bit easier are equality at fault. By turning their eyes and playing ignorant to immoral practices, they are just as guilty. Makes no different if they are family, friends or their employers, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If anyone has had to testify in court against a person that your own family and friends thinks you shouldn't, but you must because it is the correct and truthful thing to do, you will know exactly how life should be treated.

[Rudolph]

Jeffrey Epstein breaks his silence over Prince Andrew 'sex slave' scandal | Daily Mail Online

Paedophile Jeffrey Epstein has hit out at 'outlandish attacks' by the 'gossip media' in his first statement since former friend Prince Andrew was accused of having sex with a 17-year-old girl.

The billionaire spoke out as he tried to prevent the release of a key plea bargain letter from the 2008 underage prostitution case which saw him jailed for 18 months.

Epstein's lawyers condemned what they called a 'media frenzy' and said their client - who Virginia Roberts said in court papers compelled her to have sex with the Prince - deserved 'protection'.

[ladongas]

I apologize if this old article from 2003 has already been posted, but it's quite interesting. Apparently Epstein let it be known that he managed the Queen's money- maybe that's the source of her so-called financial problems. And Rosa Monckton (Diana's good friend) is a long time friend of Epstein's. Plus Donald Trump is amusingly referred to as "real estate personality Donald Trump".

The Talented Mr. Epstein | Vanity Fair

[royal rob]

Golly hope he didn't really have anything to do with the Queens money. Surely that's just him lying about himself I would be shocked if that's true.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by royal rob

Golly hope he didn't really have anything to do with the Queens money. Surely that's just him lying about himself I would be shocked if that's true.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I certainly hope that Epstein's ego was just talking. Surely the Queen's accountants would never permit.

[Princess of Durham]

Originally Posted by royal rob

Using their power to get such a reduced sentence for Epstein and sorry I thought we could say what we thought and felt but it appears not !!


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

How do you KNOW that????

[Curryong]

In the Vanity Fair article it just says that Nobel Prize winner Murray Gell-Mann was 'under the impression' that Epstein manages the Queen's money. The article is not exactly sympathetic to Epstein's manner, surroundings or ways of living his life!

Maybe he gave Andrew investment advice and told others that he was giving financial advice to Britain's royal family. He sounds like he would boast in that sort of way. I think the Queen has a circle of discreet top British advisers.

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by Curryong

In the Vanity Fair article it just says that Nobel Prize winner Murray Gell-Mann was 'under the impression' that Epstein manages the Queen's money. The article is not exactly sympathetic to Epstein's manner, surroundings or ways of living his life!

Maybe he gave Andrew investment advice and told others that he was giving financial advice to Britain's royal family. He sounds like he would boast in that sort of way. I think the Queen has a circle of discreet top British advisers.

That would make sense on the investment advice and Epstein just blew up the story with his imagined self-worth and importance. If true, I am sure that Epstein would have been told discreetly to cut the BS and that would have put an end to the silly story.

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Originally Posted by ladongas

Apparently Epstein let it be known that he managed the Queen's money

I can not imagine that Epstein had something to do with Her Majesty's money.

Originally Posted by ladongas

maybe that's the source of her so-called financial problems.

The Queen has never had problems with her private finances.

[MariaBee]

These allegations will sort themselves out one way or the other. But I'm beginning to suspect that not much will come of them for one simple reason. If Roberts had proof of these encounters with Andrew, wouldn't she have come forward with it by now? Andrew is already tarnished and will forever be haunted by his lousy judgement in associating with Epstein. But without proof that he's lying, he has nothing to worry about legally.

The real question about Andrew that I'd like the papers to explore is how he's ended up such a sad, lonely figure. Why did he allow the mega-selfish Sarah Ferguson to betray him more than once and still keep giving her the benefit of the doubt? Why did he throw away any chance to remarry in allowing her to keep her greedy grip on his sense of chivalry? How did he go from being such a dashing and appealing young man to a pudgy and arrogant has-been who seems desperate to be taken seriously?
How did his once promising life end up this way? Those are the questions I'd like to see answered. Thoughts?

[GracieGiraffe]

Andrew got 'daily massages’ at Epstein Fla. home: testimony - NY Daily News