The Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein Controversy 2010-2023 - Page 86

Osipi · #**1701** 07-13-2019, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaira

Sometimes I am shocked by the lengths people go to excuse royals, especially royal men.

For me, its simply an "innocent until proven guilty" kind of thing.

Troy Thompson · #**1702** 07-13-2019, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

Trump is alleged to host a party for him and Epstein and a gaggle of girls.

I understand that caution needs to be exercised, but, back in 2016, he was alleged to have done a bit more than that...

Osipi · #**1703** 07-13-2019, 02:10 AM

What you have pointed out, Troy, is factual evidence that a complaint was filed against both Epstein and Trump in a court of law. Not gossip or tabloid fodder but actually a legal case.

My eyes aren't as good as they used to was and have a hard time reading the .pdf file and legal jargon is not my best talent but am I right in stating from what I've read that the lawsuit was dropped and closed?

Its stuff like this that is going to come out that really will do damage to a person's reputation no matter who he/she is. The facts. As Epstein's pyramid collapses, I do believe that more and more facts are going to be brought into the light of day and made public knowledge.

I'd suggest that anyone really interested in following all this read the legal document that Troy has posted for us. Some of those allegations in that case are very, very scary and heinous to say the least.

Lilyflo · #**1704** 07-13-2019, 02:21 AM

During Prince Andrew's long association with Epstein prior to his conviction, it's possible he didn't know the criminal activities he was engaged in. However, I'm surprised that some posters think Prince Andrew might have found out about Epstein's conviction, prison sentence & registration as a sex offender via the tabloids and therefore not believed these things were true. I am quite sure these events were reported by serious & reliable media and there is no way Prince Andrew could have been ignorant of them when he agreed in 2011 to attend a party at Epstein's house & converse with him in Central Park.

Troy Thompson · #**1705** 07-13-2019, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

What you have pointed out, Troy, is factual evidence that a complaint was filed against both Epstein and Trump in a court of law. Not gossip or tabloid fodder but actually a legal case.

My eyes aren't as good as they used to was and have a hard time reading the .pdf file and legal jargon is not my best talent but am I right in stating from what I've read that the lawsuit was dropped and closed?

Its stuff like this that is going to come out that really will do damage to a person's reputation no matter who he/she is. The facts. As Epstein's pyramid collapses, I do believe that more and more facts are going to be brought into the light of day and made public knowledge.

I'd suggest that anyone really interested in following all this read the legal document that Troy has posted for us. Some of those allegations in that case are very, very scary and heinous to say the least.

Granted, that lawsuit was dropped shortly after the 2016 United States presidential election. The question of why the lawsuit was dropped is open to interpretation. One such interpretation could be that the entire lawsuit was a partisan hit job meant to derail Trump's presidential campaign, though, the thing that makes me less likely to support that interpretation is that, given Bill Clinton's connection to Epstein, bringing Epstein into the 2016 presidential campaign would have done nearly as much damage to Hillary Clinton as it would have done to Donald Trump (and I suspect this is why the Clinton campaign never even acknowledged that Trump was being sued, let alone make it a campaign issue).

As for the other interpretation... Well, it does say in the affidavit that Trump and Epstein both threatened this Jane Doe, telling her that they were wealthy and powerful men and, if she talked, they could make her disappear. There was also a point before the election when this Jane Doe was slated to give a press conference, but backed out at the last moment, her attorney stating that she had received threats. Considering all of this, I don't find myself experiencing any disbelief at the thought that the suit was dropped out of fear—if someone tells you that they're this wealthy and powerful individual who can have you killed if you talk, that's enough of a disincentive for most people to be willing to talk; but then, if you start to indicate your willingness to talk and suddenly this person now is about to have the resources of the executive branch of the government of the world's sole remaining superpower at his disposal... Yeah, I'd probably be scared out of my wits at that point...

Kataryn · #**1706** 07-13-2019, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaira

Sometimes I am shocked by the lengths people go to excuse royals, especially royal men.

Or by the length people are going to accuse royals.... It's a game on both sides and as long as we don't know more about that scandal it is very difficult to take sides when it comes to Andrew.

Osipi · #**1707** 07-13-2019, 02:54 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong here but after doing a bit of digging and searching, I've found out that as the legal case in this discussion was filed in SDNY and then dropped before a jury trial and the case was never presented, there is a good chance that these charges could be filed again as part of the recent case pending against Jeffrey Epstein as it wouldn't be double jeopardy.

It will be interesting to see if this happens. Perhaps even, this is a reason and a concrete backing for even filing new complaints in SDNY. Let me reiterate that I'm *not* literate in legalities and court documents and just presenting my ideas that come to mind and use search engines a lot.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/c...ur-188855.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kataryn

Or by the length people are going to accuse royals.... It's a game on both sides and as long as we don't know more about that scandal it is very difficult to take sides when it comes to Andrew.

Regardless of whether Andrew was ever involved in "the dark side" of things or not, just by association his reputation has and will take quite a hit. We just don't know and we're not Andrew's judge or jury. I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt as innocent until proven guilty. I'm sure that there will be many more factual bits and pieces that will come out when Epstein is taken to trial as we've seen with the documents that were filed in court against both Epstein and Trump that never made it into court at all and then the situation resolved (in Epstein's favor) with the "sweetheart deal".

victor1319 · #**1708** 07-13-2019, 05:34 AM

I did read a bit about this. And it is all so cheap and primitive and disgusting.

Here some pictures from the island in question:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...om-pedo-island

Never would one think, that this happens in broad daylight: A frequent flying plane dubbed "Lolita Express" and everybody knows, what is going on.

Prince Andrew - and we don't know how deep his involvement was - should have known better, the British secret services should have known and warned him!

Rena M. · #**1709** 07-13-2019, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaira

Sometimes I am shocked by the lengths people go to excuse royals, especially royal men.

Me too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHSPgPjyXBc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csFXLzLczVQ

MARG · #**1710** 07-13-2019, 07:03 AM

I think Osipi is advising a very sensible approach. Guilt by association is hardly due process. Your reply seems to cover more royal men than than Prince Andrew, if you have a legitimate source please share.

The worse that can happen is someone won't agree with you.

Empress Merel · #**1711** 07-13-2019, 01:37 PM

Andrew went with Epstein to Thailand.. Come on people, think! I am not going to take the ''innocent until proven guilty'' route here. I am going to stand with the underage women who were RAPED and then labelled as prostitutes to get away with it. Epstein should rot in jail for the rest of his life, and if Andrew's association proves that he also participated in sexual intercourse with minors, he should rot alongside him.

Osipi · #**1712** 07-13-2019, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empress Merel

Andrew went with Epstein to Thailand.. Come on people, think! I am not going to take the ''innocent until proven guilty'' route here. I am going to stand with the underage women who were RAPED and then labelled as prostitutes to get away with it. Epstein should rot in jail for the rest of his life, and if Andrew's association proves that he also participated in sexual intercourse with minors, he should rot alongside him.

I do agree with you but the thing is, Andrew has to be proven to have had the contacts with minors that you allege he has had. That, in and of itself, is a big *IF*. It remains to be proven to be true. Until then, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

**Ista** · #**1713** 07-13-2019, 02:00 PM

To a degree, we are all judged by the company we keep. Prince Andrew chose to continue to interact with someone who was well known enough to "like them young" that jokes were made about it, and his private plane was known as the Lolita Express. These accusations against Jeffrey Epstein are not new, but they are persistent, and if you are a person who has paid attention to the recurrent stories (over years) about this in the press, then there comes a point where giving him the benefit of the doubt turns into willful blindness. I am skeptical over whether the law will be successful in bringing someone with as much money and as many powerful friends as Epstein has to anything resembling justice, but at the minimum, Andrew's association with him does him no credit at all, and inevitably calls into question his own activities and judgment.

Osipi · #**1714** 07-13-2019, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ista

To a degree, we are all judged by the company we keep. Prince Andrew chose to continue to interact with someone who was well known enough to "like them young" that jokes were made about it, and his private plane was known as the Lolita Express. These accusations against Jeffrey Epstein are not new, but they are persistent, and if you are a person who has paid attention to the recurrent stories (over years) about this in the press, then there comes a point where giving him the benefit of the doubt turns into willful blindness. I am skeptical over whether the law will be successful in bringing someone with as much money and as many powerful friends as Epstein has to anything resembling justice, but at the minimum, Andrew's association with him does him no credit at all, and inevitably calls into question his own activities and judgment.

That's just the thing. Regardless of any real proof or any indictment that Andrew was ever really involved, just the fact that he is named as someone close to Epstein is doing him a whole world of hurt. At this point, people have already associated him with with being close to Epstein as a buddy and more and more details are emerging of what could have happened in Andrew's case and it doesn't look good. Regardless if he did or didn't participate in misdeeds towards underage girls, it does really *looks* like he could have. That, in and of itself, is more damaging to his reputation than any pictures or actual videos of Andrew engaging in sex with a minor could.

It can suck to be an innocent bystander at times and not have a clue (or a vague clue) what is going on around him. So much points to just how Andrew isn't as innocent in all of this and to be honest, I do have my doubts that he's so innocent but its not my place to pass judgment on what seems to be. Until we know more facts, I'm not passing judgment on Andrew.

Lilyflo · #**1715** 07-13-2019, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

Until we know more facts, I'm not passing judgment on Andrew.

I'm willing to judge him on his actions after he knew Epstein was convicted, imprisoned and a registered sex offender. For that he was definitely 'out of order' & to my knowledge, he's never been required to explain publicly why he continued associating with him. We know it cost him his trade role (against his wishes) but has he ever tried to justify why he attended a party at Epstein's house after those shocking events?

Osipi · #**1716** 07-13-2019, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilyflo

I'm willing to judge him on his actions after he knew Epstein was convicted, imprisoned and a registered sex offender. For that he was definitely 'out of order' & to my knowledge, he's never been required to explain publicly why he continued associating with him. We know it cost him his trade role (against his wishes) but has he ever tried to justify why he attended a party at Epstein's house after those shocking events?

I remember too the "sweetheart deal" that Epstein got which basically, in Florida, gave him a huge slap on the wrist and sent to bed without his dessert. It could have been taken publicly as "it is what it is" when the details of his conviction were made known.

Now, we know more. The allegations are coming back basically to bite Epstein in the back of the front and the bite is hungry. We'll actually know more as Epstein is actually prosecuted for the crimes he should have been in the first place.

This is what I mean by in the case of Epstein that the truth will hopefully *not* set him free. No sweetheart deals but actual and real disclosure and prosecution for crimes committed and disclosure of all involved.

Madame Verseau · #**1717** 07-13-2019, 04:42 PM

Well, this stumbled out: Andrew's acquaintance with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's ex girlfriend

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mer...port-says/amp/

This could have a drip, drip, drip effect that could build up on Andrew. And if evidence shakes out that Andrew did commit a crime he needs to answer for it. Paying the diplomatic immunity card is bad optics even if it is his right.

Leopoldine · #**1718** 07-13-2019, 07:15 PM

If Charles was looking for a reason to reduce Andrew's royal role, this may be it.

I would have hoped that members of the BRF would be more wary and circumspect about people befriending them in order to gain respectability.

ladongas · #**1719** 07-13-2019, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

Well, this stumbled out: Andrew's acquaintance with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's ex girlfriend

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mer...port-says/amp/

This could have a drip, drip, drip effect that could build up on Andrew. And if evidence shakes out that Andrew did commit a crime he needs to answer for it. Paying the diplomatic immunity card is bad optics even if it is his right.

I hope this isn’t true... but if it is, it answers a question I’ve had for a long time.

MARG · #**1720** 07-13-2019, 10:51 PM

Firstly, Andrew is in no way connected to the current charges. His name is not one of the many discovered. However, along comes these articles written by anonymous authors and/or anonymous sources crawling out of the woodwork to sell their stories.

Where were they when all the people that "knew" who was who and what was what in the intervening years?

Jeffrey Epstein's arrest shows the power of one newspaper's investigation

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/08/m...ald/index.html

Let's face it, it was only through the persistence of one woman with the backing of her editor to turn this around and make TPTB start seeking other avenues such as NY.