Former Prince Andrew arrested

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fergie tried to shop a tell-all last year, I’m told. The interest wasn’t there at the price she was expecting.

Didn't she already write has autobiography a decade or two ago? Obviously, more has happened, but much of it sad and unglamorous that people may not want to read.

[Anonymous]

https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity-life/nothing-much-to-lose-now-royal-biographer-says-sarah-ferguson-is-writing-a-book-amid-epstein-storm/news-story/36a922b2369df13ded9afcfcc7d69550

'Nothing much to lose now’: Royal biographer says Sarah Ferguson is writing a book amid Epstein storm
Sarah Ferguson is reportedly preparing to publish a candid new memoir, as a royal biographer claims the Duchess of York believes she has little left to protect - and much to gain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity-life/nothing-much-to-lose-now-royal-biographer-says-sarah-ferguson-is-writing-a-book-amid-epstein-storm/news-story/36a922b2369df13ded9afcfcc7d69550

'Nothing much to lose now’: Royal biographer says Sarah Ferguson is writing a book amid Epstein storm
Sarah Ferguson is reportedly preparing to publish a candid new memoir, as a royal biographer claims the Duchess of York believes she has little left to protect - and much to gain.

She has her two daughters and grandchildren to protect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SPILL IT ALL ANDREW!

+1. We need Andrew to confirm Trump's involvement.

"he's a criminal! I'd never be friends with him!" - DJT probably

Never liked the guy. Don't really know him. But I was totally exonerated.

I posted that jokingly, but that was literally his response.

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1r9kndr/trump_responds_to_question_about_prince_andrews/

You nailed it, PP. Nearly verbatim. Well done.

I really hope Andrew squeals about Trump.

If he does squeal about anyone, likely it'll be about one in his own extended royal family

While that would be a good thing, I'm tempted to think Andrew would throw Trump under the bus before throwing his own family. He still wants Charles to give him a home when he's not in prison. In fact, I could see there being some sort of immunity thing, where Charles gave up William in exchange for the BRF being off-limits.

I'm confused--what crime would William have committed? And are you proposing just skipping William and going to George once Charles dies?

PP here, I meant to type "Charles gave up Andrew" not William. Sorry for the confusion!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity-life/nothing-much-to-lose-now-royal-biographer-says-sarah-ferguson-is-writing-a-book-amid-epstein-storm/news-story/36a922b2369df13ded9afcfcc7d69550

'Nothing much to lose now’: Royal biographer says Sarah Ferguson is writing a book amid Epstein storm
Sarah Ferguson is reportedly preparing to publish a candid new memoir, as a royal biographer claims the Duchess of York believes she has little left to protect - and much to gain.

She has her two daughters and grandchildren to protect.

And she can use her $10 mn book advance to say lovely things about her daughters and leave them an inheritance. But the rest of the royal family should be very afraid because she only gets her $10mn if she spills the dirt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Why is almost every other country pursuing Epstein sex pests, but in the U.S? Nothing.

Instead we have one in the Oval Office and one running the commerce department and a secretary of labor whose husband assaulted employees on govt premises.

Seems like a feature of this administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SPILL IT ALL ANDREW!

+1. We need Andrew to confirm Trump's involvement.

"he's a criminal! I'd never be friends with him!" - DJT probably

Never liked the guy. Don't really know him. But I was totally exonerated.

I posted that jokingly, but that was literally his response.

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1r9kndr/trump_responds_to_question_about_prince_andrews/

You nailed it, PP. Nearly verbatim. Well done.

I really hope Andrew squeals about Trump.

If he does squeal about anyone, likely it'll be about one in his own extended royal family

While that would be a good thing, I'm tempted to think Andrew would throw Trump under the bus before throwing his own family. He still wants Charles to give him a home when he's not in prison. In fact, I could see there being some sort of immunity thing, where Charles gave up William in exchange for the BRF being off-limits.

I'm confused--what crime would William have committed? And are you proposing just skipping William and going to George once Charles dies?

PP here, I meant to type "Charles gave up Andrew" not William. Sorry for the confusion!

Thanks for the explanation!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity-life/nothing-much-to-lose-now-royal-biographer-says-sarah-ferguson-is-writing-a-book-amid-epstein-storm/news-story/36a922b2369df13ded9afcfcc7d69550

'Nothing much to lose now’: Royal biographer says Sarah Ferguson is writing a book amid Epstein storm
Sarah Ferguson is reportedly preparing to publish a candid new memoir, as a royal biographer claims the Duchess of York believes she has little left to protect - and much to gain.

She has her two daughters and grandchildren to protect.

And she can use her $10 mn book advance to say lovely things about her daughters and leave them an inheritance. But the rest of the royal family should be very afraid because she only gets her $10mn if she spills the dirt

It's tawdry and her daughters are princesses that don't need their mother adding to their humiliation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity-life/nothing-much-to-lose-now-royal-biographer-says-sarah-ferguson-is-writing-a-book-amid-epstein-storm/news-story/36a922b2369df13ded9afcfcc7d69550

'Nothing much to lose now’: Royal biographer says Sarah Ferguson is writing a book amid Epstein storm
Sarah Ferguson is reportedly preparing to publish a candid new memoir, as a royal biographer claims the Duchess of York believes she has little left to protect - and much to gain.

She has her two daughters and grandchildren to protect.

And she can use her $10 mn book advance to say lovely things about her daughters and leave them an inheritance. But the rest of the royal family should be very afraid because she only gets her $10mn if she spills the dirt

Sorry to disappoint you but she's not writing the book. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a70430565/sarah-ferguson-police-andrwe/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity-life/nothing-much-to-lose-now-royal-biographer-says-sarah-ferguson-is-writing-a-book-amid-epstein-storm/news-story/36a922b2369df13ded9afcfcc7d69550

'Nothing much to lose now’: Royal biographer says Sarah Ferguson is writing a book amid Epstein storm
Sarah Ferguson is reportedly preparing to publish a candid new memoir, as a royal biographer claims the Duchess of York believes she has little left to protect - and much to gain.

She has her two daughters and grandchildren to protect.

And she can use her $10 mn book advance to say lovely things about her daughters and leave them an inheritance. But the rest of the royal family should be very afraid because she only gets her $10mn if she spills the dirt

It's tawdry and her daughters are princesses that don't need their mother adding to their humiliation.

Beatrice and Eugenie have always stood by their parents, no matter how embarrassing. Well, at least that's how it has always appeared to the public. I feel bad for them. I know they are privileged and wealthy and all that, but they REALLY got dealt a crappy hand in the parent lottery. I hope they have other trusted relatives to lean on in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity-life/nothing-much-to-lose-now-royal-biographer-says-sarah-ferguson-is-writing-a-book-amid-epstein-storm/news-story/36a922b2369df13ded9afcfcc7d69550

'Nothing much to lose now’: Royal biographer says Sarah Ferguson is writing a book amid Epstein storm
Sarah Ferguson is reportedly preparing to publish a candid new memoir, as a royal biographer claims the Duchess of York believes she has little left to protect - and much to gain.

She has her two daughters and grandchildren to protect.

And she can use her $10 mn book advance to say lovely things about her daughters and leave them an inheritance. But the rest of the royal family should be very afraid because she only gets her $10mn if she spills the dirt

It's tawdry and her daughters are princesses that don't need their mother adding to their humiliation.

They had royal privilege, luxury upbringing and powerful connections thanks to their parents so obviously they'll inherit some of the negativity as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Epstein files have become bigger than life, people are turning the files into something they want it to be rather than what they are.

We do know Epstein was "recruiting" young women and putting them in positions of availability. But it doesn't mean many of the men's named in the files did anything illegal on their end. It is not illegal to sleep with a woman you met at a party. Most of these women were of legal age. That is why prosecution is so complicated in this area.

Andrew was arrested because he apparently shared government information. That can be prosecuted. Howard Lutnick lying about his association with Epstein is not prosecutable as he didn't lie under oath.

There are also many names in the Epstein files of people who clearly knew him but there is no evidence they actually did anything wrong and their greatest crime is having been friendly with him. That's Lutnick, so far. Or the Clintons. You don't arrest people simply for being known to having been at an Epstein party. Much of the reaction right now reeks more of a sanctimonious vigilante mob and Salem Witch trial mentality. Which is a shame as there were really unethical things Epstein and Maxwell did.

I totally agree.
I was sexually abused by someone no one would have guessed is a child abuser. And I don't blame them because he doesn't seem like it typically.
Even as a victim, the idea of anyone who has associated with him being guilty, too, is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Epstein files have become bigger than life, people are turning the files into something they want it to be rather than what they are.

We do know Epstein was "recruiting" young women and putting them in positions of availability. But it doesn't mean many of the men's named in the files did anything illegal on their end. It is not illegal to sleep with a woman you met at a party. Most of these women were of legal age. That is why prosecution is so complicated in this area.

Andrew was arrested because he apparently shared government information. That can be prosecuted. Howard Lutnick lying about his association with Epstein is not prosecutable as he didn't lie under oath.

There are also many names in the Epstein files of people who clearly knew him but there is no evidence they actually did anything wrong and their greatest crime is having been friendly with him. That's Lutnick, so far. Or the Clintons. You don't arrest people simply for being known to having been at an Epstein party. Much of the reaction right now reeks more of a sanctimonious vigilante mob and Salem Witch trial mentality. Which is a shame as there were really unethical things Epstein and Maxwell did.

Female humans who are not of legal age are called children, and there were a lot of them who were raped.

Trafficking is criminal no matter the age of the victims.

JFC. We all know this. The PP was correct that there is no concrete evidence to arrest these people for sex crimes as it is. Being mentioned in the Epstein files is not proof of criminal activity. You can't just arrest someone because you "feel" they're guilty. You have to have actual evidence of something.
DP

I would take it a step farther - which is to say, this was a clearly powerful and connected guy who got around and had a lot of friends. So what if someone was friends with him? Maybe you don't have the best judge of character but it doesn't mean you yourself are a rapist, it doesn't even imply it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Epstein files have become bigger than life, people are turning the files into something they want it to be rather than what they are.

We do know Epstein was "recruiting" young women and putting them in positions of availability. But it doesn't mean many of the men's named in the files did anything illegal on their end. It is not illegal to sleep with a woman you met at a party. Most of these women were of legal age. That is why prosecution is so complicated in this area.

Andrew was arrested because he apparently shared government information. That can be prosecuted. Howard Lutnick lying about his association with Epstein is not prosecutable as he didn't lie under oath.

There are also many names in the Epstein files of people who clearly knew him but there is no evidence they actually did anything wrong and their greatest crime is having been friendly with him. That's Lutnick, so far. Or the Clintons. You don't arrest people simply for being known to having been at an Epstein party. Much of the reaction right now reeks more of a sanctimonious vigilante mob and Salem Witch trial mentality. Which is a shame as there were really unethical things Epstein and Maxwell did.

Female humans who are not of legal age are called children, and there were a lot of them who were raped.

Trafficking is criminal no matter the age of the victims.

JFC. We all know this. The PP was correct that there is no concrete evidence to arrest these people for sex crimes as it is. Being mentioned in the Epstein files is not proof of criminal activity. You can't just arrest someone because you "feel" they're guilty. You have to have actual evidence of something.
DP

I would take it a step farther - which is to say, this was a clearly powerful and connected guy who got around and had a lot of friends. So what if someone was friends with him? Maybe you don't have the best judge of character but it doesn't mean you yourself are a rapist, it doesn't even imply it

Sure they weren’t all rapists, the rest were insider trading and scheming and stealing and defrauding and lots of things I cannot even fathom. You are the company you keep. Lie down with dogs, you’re gonna get fleas. FAFO!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Epstein files have become bigger than life, people are turning the files into something they want it to be rather than what they are.

We do know Epstein was "recruiting" young women and putting them in positions of availability. But it doesn't mean many of the men's named in the files did anything illegal on their end. It is not illegal to sleep with a woman you met at a party. Most of these women were of legal age. That is why prosecution is so complicated in this area.

Andrew was arrested because he apparently shared government information. That can be prosecuted. Howard Lutnick lying about his association with Epstein is not prosecutable as he didn't lie under oath.

There are also many names in the Epstein files of people who clearly knew him but there is no evidence they actually did anything wrong and their greatest crime is having been friendly with him. That's Lutnick, so far. Or the Clintons. You don't arrest people simply for being known to having been at an Epstein party. Much of the reaction right now reeks more of a sanctimonious vigilante mob and Salem Witch trial mentality. Which is a shame as there were really unethical things Epstein and Maxwell did.

Female humans who are not of legal age are called children, and there were a lot of them who were raped.

Trafficking is criminal no matter the age of the victims.

JFC. We all know this. The PP was correct that there is no concrete evidence to arrest these people for sex crimes as it is. Being mentioned in the Epstein files is not proof of criminal activity. You can't just arrest someone because you "feel" they're guilty. You have to have actual evidence of something.
DP

I would take it a step farther - which is to say, this was a clearly powerful and connected guy who got around and had a lot of friends. So what if someone was friends with him? Maybe you don't have the best judge of character but it doesn't mean you yourself are a rapist, it doesn't even imply it

+1
The WSJ makes a point of stating in every article about Epstein that being mentioned in the Epstein files is not a sign of wrongdoing and I think some of these posters should keep that in mind. They want to claim every person who ever had lunch with him is a pedophile and that kind of gross generalization is sickening.