Virginia Roberts Giuffre describes being trafficked to Prince Andrew

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting yes but
17 is old enough to decide.
Regret, changing your mind and rewriting history through today's lens, is not r#pe.

I think that the coercion, and having been essentially a sex slave for Epstein/Maxwell, dispels the notion of free will. These girls were also controlled psychologically.

But unfortunately, she has to own it. She did not describe Andrew as a forceful or manipulative person. I don't think Andrew is smart enough to be manipulative. Anyway, she could have said no.

[Anonymous]

I've always believed there is so much proof out there on Andrew. The Queen is protecting him but I don't know how long she can fight American, British, and French law enforcement + media.

"I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts," she says in the video. "We would not put it on the air. First of all, I was told, ‘Who’s Jeffrey Epstein?’... Then the palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways. ... It was unbelievable what we had. [Bill] Clinton — we had everything. I tried for three years to get it on to no avail and now it’s all coming out and it’s like these new revelations.”

- 20/20 Anchor Amy Robach

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/abcs-amy-robach-made-jeffrey-epstein-comments-private-moment-frustration-1252410

[Anonymous]

OH MY GOD!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she was 17 years old and they were in London, then absolutely zero laws were broken if she did indeed sleep with any member of the royal family.

In the UK the age of consent for any gender, is 16.

So she has no case even if it were true.

Funny - is prostitution legal in London?

Because she describes being paid $15,000 to be raped by Andrew in a townhouse bathroom.

Did he pay Epstein that absurd amount of money for access to what was between her legs?

Or worse - did he trade access to the Queen for his sick perversions?

Everyone knows Andrew hosted Epstein in Buckingham Palace after all.

I think sadly without proof of payment, rape or anything else, there is nothing to go on. Everyone knows that, no matter how much noise she chooses to make about it now.

Why do you think the FBI raided Epstein’s house after he died? For funsies?

They’re getting all the evidence they need, including financial transactions, and he’s not around to stop them.

You are a fool if you think that anything will come of this. The FBI can easily ‘lose’ information retrieved. As much as Dem and GOP politicians hate each other you can believe they are working hand in glove to keep this contained. They will protect themselves and their rich donors. This story is going to fade away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she was 17 years old and they were in London, then absolutely zero laws were broken if she did indeed sleep with any member of the royal family.

In the UK the age of consent for any gender, is 16.

So she has no case even if it were true.

Funny - is prostitution legal in London?

Because she describes being paid $15,000 to be raped by Andrew in a townhouse bathroom.

Did he pay Epstein that absurd amount of money for access to what was between her legs?

Or worse - did he trade access to the Queen for his sick perversions?

Everyone knows Andrew hosted Epstein in Buckingham Palace after all.

I think sadly without proof of payment, rape or anything else, there is nothing to go on. Everyone knows that, no matter how much noise she chooses to make about it now.

Why do you think the FBI raided Epstein’s house after he died? For funsies?

They’re getting all the evidence they need, including financial transactions, and he’s not around to stop them.

You are a fool if you think that anything will come of this. The FBI can easily ‘lose’ information retrieved. As much as Dem and GOP politicians hate each other you can believe they are working hand in glove to keep this contained. They will protect themselves and their rich donors. This story is going to fade away.

Unfortunately I agree with you.

Andrew is disgusting.

[Anonymous]

I didn’t see Amy on GMA today. I hope this doesn’t bite her in the ass, I really like her reporting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t see Amy on GMA today. I hope this doesn’t bite her in the ass, I really like her reporting.

I don't understand how ABC or GMA can find her at fault. She was clearly pictured IN THEIR STUDIOS having this conversation at their news desk.

Its not like she was at home and secretly recorded by a drunk hook-up. They have no one to blame but themselves and their security teams.

[Anonymous]

You can't tell me that Andrew isn't being protected still.

1. ABC News dealt with a firestorm (and is still dealing with it) after Project Veritas published the video of @arobach
talking about her Epstein story in a hot mic moment.

But ABC News tells me they don't plan to cover the controversy and will also not be addressing it on air

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1192122175563714560

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can't tell me that Andrew isn't being protected still.

1. ABC News dealt with a firestorm (and is still dealing with it) after Project Veritas published the video of @arobach
talking about her Epstein story in a hot mic moment.

But ABC News tells me they don't plan to cover the controversy and will also not be addressing it on air

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1192122175563714560

They said they have a 2 hour 20/20 set to air about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't tell me that Andrew isn't being protected still.

1. ABC News dealt with a firestorm (and is still dealing with it) after Project Veritas published the video of @arobach
talking about her Epstein story in a hot mic moment.

But ABC News tells me they don't plan to cover the controversy and will also not be addressing it on air

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1192122175563714560

They said they have a 2 hour 20/20 set to air about this.

Where? I don't see anything on their social media. Or Amy Robach's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting yes but
17 is old enough to decide.
Regret, changing your mind and rewriting history through today's lens, is not r#pe.

I think that the coercion, and having been essentially a sex slave for Epstein/Maxwell, dispels the notion of free will. These girls were also controlled psychologically.

tell that to the Manson followers dying in prison

So you don't believe in anything called sex trafficking if you are over 18, it does not exist, it's a myth?

[Anonymous]

Found a mention of the '20/20' 2-hour episode. Funny its not until next year. I'm willing to bet November or December 2020 is going to be their 'next year'.

As long as possible to delay and let the furor die down. And of course, they won't do it around Beatrice's wedding in late spring/early summer. F*ckers.



https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/06/abc-news-leak-raises-questions-about-unaired-interview-with-epstein-accuser

If they really wanted this to move forward, they'd air it in two weeks with all new interviews from Virginia Guiffre and have Amy Robach run with it. She's clearly ready and they have the resources to make this move quickly if needed.

[Anonymous]

A couple points-
1) there are possibly tapes of P Andrew's interactions with Virginia. Epstein kept the sex tapes in his vault on his island, which was raided this year. The BRF should probably be less emphatic in their denials, especially with the pic of a rapacious-looking prince with his hands gripping the waist of a teenager.

2) this is actually a story about how the legal system aids and abets rich men in sexually exploiting disadvantaged women and children. So to say things like, hey, in London it's totally legal for a man to ply a teenager with alcohol and have sex with her in circumstances that suggest a lack of ability to consent- really all you're saying is that you are 100% fine with the status quo. Let them eat cake, right? Be careful with that thinking. The number of poor and disadvantaged are rising, and if we accept that the state is here to protect the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor, we put our society in serious jeopardy. If P Andrew and Clinton have to have a reckoning for their sins, so be it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A couple points-
1) there are possibly tapes of P Andrew's interactions with Virginia. Epstein kept the sex tapes in his vault on his island, which was raided this year. The BRF should probably be less emphatic in their denials, especially with the pic of a rapacious-looking prince with his hands gripping the waist of a teenager.

2) this is actually a story about how the legal system aids and abets rich men in sexually exploiting disadvantaged women and children. So to say things like, hey, in London it's totally legal for a man to ply a teenager with alcohol and have sex with her in circumstances that suggest a lack of ability to consent- really all you're saying is that you are 100% fine with the status quo. Let them eat cake, right? Be careful with that thinking. The number of poor and disadvantaged are rising, and if we accept that the state is here to protect the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor, we put our society in serious jeopardy. If P Andrew and Clinton have to have a reckoning for their sins, so be it.

100% this.

The BRF is being extremely foolish with their adamant denials - there is loads of circumstantial evidence of Andrew with Epstein and victims, including Giuffre. It's just a matter of time for some more definitive evidence to come out.

[Anonymous]

Dominoes are falling. To think Andrew was stupid enough to do this interview and then to use 'he doesn't sweat' to prove that he wasn't pictured with Virginia says it all.

And he doesn't go to pizza places.