Former Prince Andrew arrested

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one is paying Fergie $10m to write a tell-all. She’s saving face by saying she decided not to do it.

+1. She also can't write about it without putting herself under more scrutiny by law enforcement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a single American arrested before a freaking British royal prince.

What a joke we are here.

So true. I hope this arrest leads to testimony that damns trump. Even if our government wimps out, our children and grandchildren will know the truth.
I admire the British do much for this brave and just move.

Do you even understand why he was arrested??

it doesn't matter why, they arrested him for something they know he'll go to prison for.

Right - so of course it matters why. You can't arrest people just because you suspect them of sexual crimes. There has to be a concrete case against them, which there is in this case - and it doesn't involve the sexual crimes. "The truth" about the sordid sexual escapades he engaged in will probably never come out because that's not why he was arrested.

If only somebody in DOJ would interview the victims.

Maybe they don't want to be interviewed and end up dead.

Touche'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latest is they may take him off the succession line , I thought he already lost it with the Prince title?

A non starter anyway. He was already so far down the line because William and all 3 of his kids and then Harry and his 2 kids all come before Andrew in any line of succession. Removing him from a line of succession is performative at best and immaterial to the gravity of what he’s done.

They should do it anyway. They don’t have to announce it—just do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

But were they? Are you really the worst parts of all your friends and the people whom you know through work and other connections? Ever stood next to someone at a cocktail party you don't really know but see now and again because they are in your general circle, and slung your arm around them? Or pretended you were better friends with someone because it's just the social thing to do (e.g., sure let's go to dinner together)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Snort. You think they’re not being utterly humiliated now? At least they’ll have some more money, which apparently is a problem for this branch of the royals.

They don't need their mother's money.

They need someone’s money. It’s not like their husbands are that rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one is paying Fergie $10m to write a tell-all. She’s saving face by saying she decided not to do it.

Epstein's orbit controls the publishing industry. None of these much publicized "book deals" are worth it, it's all legalized money laundering.

[Anonymous]

I suspect he will be prosecuted and found guilty. Will they put him in prison or house arrest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

But were they? Are you really the worst parts of all your friends and the people whom you know through work and other connections? Ever stood next to someone at a cocktail party you don't really know but see now and again because they are in your general circle, and slung your arm around them? Or pretended you were better friends with someone because it's just the social thing to do (e.g., sure let's go to dinner together)

DP. Your excuse applies to the people who may have rubbed elbows with Epstein prior to his conviction and in a limited way, like just attending similar events (not at his island, not traveling with him) or reaching out to him to raise money since he was wealthy and connected to other wealthy people. I don't think anyone is indicting people who did stuff like that, even if there is some photo of them floating around standing next to him from like 2002.

But the latest documents show just how many people continued to communicate and socialize with him AFTER he'd been convicted in 2008, especially since it was widely known and reported that his conviction was a sweetheart deal and the actual investigation had implicated a much larger sex trafficking operation. People who chose to stay chummy with I'm after that, people who went to his island and "partied" with him, people who sent him emails asking them to set them up with young women, etc. -- these people absolutely fall with in the "company you keep" rule that PP is talking about.

Also I will note that actually, I don't ever pretend I'm better friends with people than I am. I find it weird when people do that and am put off by social groups where people get super chummy really fast. It's fake. And this thing with Epstein actually illustrates how it can also be dangerous. Just get to know people in a normal time frame. You can be perfectly pleasant to someone while also treating them as an acquaintance or someone you don't know well. This is called being genuine and honest in your personal interactions. I recommend people try it. If you are routinely acting like best friends with people you barely know due to social pressure, there is something wrong with your social circle. Not necessarily Epstein-level wrong, but people are being fake and weird and I would steer clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Snort. You think they’re not being utterly humiliated now? At least they’ll have some more money, which apparently is a problem for this branch of the royals.

They don't need their mother's money.

They need someone’s money. It’s not like their husbands are that rich.

I presume that the disinheriting of Andrew will pass the money he would have gotten onto Eugenie and Beatrice and their kids. Especially if they remain working royals. They are both reasonably close with William and his family, I don't think he or Charles would cut them out, unless something comes out to implicate them. I think most people view them sympathetically for having had Andrew as a father and suffering this humiliation. Also I think William and Harry have always felt some kinship with them because their parents all divorced within a few years of each other and they all had to grow up in that weird tabloid environment that detailed their parents' splits and tawdry behavior.

Fergie's money issues have always been about her and her alone. Ever since she divorced Andrew, she's been hustling to try and maintain enough income to stay within that social circle. In a way, the fact that her daughters remain a part of the BRF had made Fergie's lack of inheritance a bigger problem for her -- I think often she's trying to save face because the girls are still "on the inside" and until recently Andrew was too, which left her the odd woman out, especially when it came to family functions and events (she's scrambled for invites to things, begged to borrow designer clothes so she can look correct when she's there, etc.). This is why she continued to live on the same estate as Andrew for years (also they remained friends, which obviously calls her judgment into question, but you might wonder if she would have struck out on her ow a lot sooner if she'd had her own inheritance/title/etc.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least he was arrested unlike Epstein perpetrators in the US.

The US will not arrest anyone. They are either working in the current White House administration or big financial donors. There will be no arrests. Look, we cannot get any resignations, forget about arrests.

Not trying to be an --hole but wanting to clarify facts. Brad Karp, the longtime chairman of Paul Weiss (a T-20 law firm) resigned, and so did the female General Counsel of Goldman Sachs, both due to ties with Epstein as evidenced by the release of the Epstein files.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Latest is they may take him off the succession line , I thought he already lost it with the Prince title?

Actually, he still is a prince. His big brother said don't not to call him that and Andrew agreed to it but technically the monarch can't take away someone's birth title without a vote of parliament which hasn't happened and apparently he can't be removed from the line of succession unless parliament and all the commonwealth countries agree so he is still prince andrew only in a smaller mansion and fewer servants as a punishment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Snort. You think they’re not being utterly humiliated now? At least they’ll have some more money, which apparently is a problem for this branch of the royals.

They don't need their mother's money.

They need someone’s money. It’s not like their husbands are that rich.

I presume that the disinheriting of Andrew will pass the money he would have gotten onto Eugenie and Beatrice and their kids. Especially if they remain working royals. They are both reasonably close with William and his family, I don't think he or Charles would cut them out, unless something comes out to implicate them. I think most people view them sympathetically for having had Andrew as a father and suffering this humiliation. Also I think William and Harry have always felt some kinship with them because their parents all divorced within a few years of each other and they all had to grow up in that weird tabloid environment that detailed their parents' splits and tawdry behavior.

Fergie's money issues have always been about her and her alone. Ever since she divorced Andrew, she's been hustling to try and maintain enough income to stay within that social circle. In a way, the fact that her daughters remain a part of the BRF had made Fergie's lack of inheritance a bigger problem for her -- I think often she's trying to save face because the girls are still "on the inside" and until recently Andrew was too, which left her the odd woman out, especially when it came to family functions and events (she's scrambled for invites to things, begged to borrow designer clothes so she can look correct when she's there, etc.). This is why she continued to live on the same estate as Andrew for years (also they remained friends, which obviously calls her judgment into question, but you might wonder if she would have struck out on her ow a lot sooner if she'd had her own inheritance/title/etc.).

Neither Beatrice nor Eugenia are working royals. They have jobs outside of the the royal family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Snort. You think they’re not being utterly humiliated now? At least they’ll have some more money, which apparently is a problem for this branch of the royals.

They don't need their mother's money.

They need someone’s money. It’s not like their husbands are that rich.

I presume that the disinheriting of Andrew will pass the money he would have gotten onto Eugenie and Beatrice and their kids. Especially if they remain working royals. They are both reasonably close with William and his family, I don't think he or Charles would cut them out, unless something comes out to implicate them. I think most people view them sympathetically for having had Andrew as a father and suffering this humiliation. Also I think William and Harry have always felt some kinship with them because their parents all divorced within a few years of each other and they all had to grow up in that weird tabloid environment that detailed their parents' splits and tawdry behavior.

Fergie's money issues have always been about her and her alone. Ever since she divorced Andrew, she's been hustling to try and maintain enough income to stay within that social circle. In a way, the fact that her daughters remain a part of the BRF had made Fergie's lack of inheritance a bigger problem for her -- I think often she's trying to save face because the girls are still "on the inside" and until recently Andrew was too, which left her the odd woman out, especially when it came to family functions and events (she's scrambled for invites to things, begged to borrow designer clothes so she can look correct when she's there, etc.). This is why she continued to live on the same estate as Andrew for years (also they remained friends, which obviously calls her judgment into question, but you might wonder if she would have struck out on her ow a lot sooner if she'd had her own inheritance/title/etc.).

Who is Andrew supposed to inherit from? His parents are dead.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I'm sorry for what happened to you. This is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATION, however.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Um, this thread is about one person. One. Not everyone. Just one. Are you saying you don't think Andrew engaged in any wrongdoing?