Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is superficial, but he looks so awful. Bloated and nasty.

Yuck.

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.

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:I know this is superficial, but he looks so awful. Bloated and nasty.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extremely telling, no arrests in USA or Israel yet.  

Reported to Jeff for antisemitism.

Anonymous wrote:It’s like going after the mob for tax evasion. Lots of sexual assaults are her words against his. You have to get the creeps on stuff they can irrefutably prove.

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.

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

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!