UK - (Former prince) Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor accused of underage sexual relationship, 1999-2002 *settled* #2

[Luna20]

Again ... where are the demands that Bill Clinton appear and answer questions? Do the Democrats view Andrew as an easy target, while Bill Clinton requires more effort? Why are the Democrats hyper-focused on one man, and not the many others who live in

This is what I recall seeing on it.August/2025

“During her nine hours speaking with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche last month, Ghislaine Maxwell said nothing during the interview that would be harmful to President Donald Trump, telling Blanche that Trump had never done anything in her presence that would have caused concern, according to sources familiar with what Maxwell said.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, is considering publicly releasing the transcripts from the interview, multiple sources familiar with the internal discussions told ABC News”

Ghislaine Maxwell told DOJ Trump never did anything concerning around her: Sources

During her interview with the DOJ last month, former Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell said nothing that would be harmful to President Trump, sources say.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Snoopster]

Have the Democrats requested an interview with Clinton and Trump? If not, why not? What's the obsession with Andrew?

I'm confused by this as well.
Is it because a specific person has publicly accused Andrew of impropriety and no one has stepped forward to do the same for either Clinton or Trump (and other well-known American figures)?
Have the other victims not stepped forward publicly?

In the end the justice system should be investigating and giving the public confidence that they are doing so in good faith.

 

[otto]

I’m no lawyer but I think he can ignore these ‘requests’.

Go after the American ‘friends of JE’, lots of rich and famous amongst your own crowd.

I think it's too dangerous to travel to the US at this time. Facial biometric reading is mandatory, all digital devices and passwords must be given to border officers, and border officers may retain a copy of all digital information. People are detained without cause, put in prison, and deprived of rights.

I don't think anyone should travel to the US anymore. Andrew is at risk because he could find himself in prison paying for everything the Epstein did. The US courts no longer appear to be entirely impartial and law based.

If someone wants to ask Andrew questions, there are many options that do not require him risking travel to the US.

He has until Nov 20 to respond, and he cannot be compelled to testify.

 

[otto]

Re. Clintons.....

Chairman Comer Subpoenas Bill and Hillary Clinton, Former U.S. Attorneys General and FBI Directors, and Records Related to Jeffrey Epstein - United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

oversight.house.gov

Congressional Subpoena Compels Bill Clinton To Testify An...

Key Developments In early August, the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed former President Bill Clinton for a deposition on October 14, 2025, concerning his ties to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter cites four flights on Epstein’s private jet, a photo of Clinton receiving a...

usaherald.com

As for Trump, he has immunity as a sitting President, right?

Isn't the justification for speaking with Andrew and Clinton that the Democrats want information to better understand Epstein? No one needs immunity if that is the honest reason for wanting to ask questions.

 

[otto]

I'm confused by this as well.
Is it because a specific person has publicly accused Andrew of impropriety and no one has stepped forward to do the same for either Clinton or Trump (and other well-known American figures)?
Have the other victims not stepped forward publicly?

In the end the justice system should be investigating and giving the public confidence that they are doing so in good faith.

Interviewing the other victims would provide a lot more insight than interviewing Andrew. The other victims also have names of Epstein's friends. I don't understand the obsession with Andrew - other than he's an easy target.

 

[Snoopster]

Interviewing the other victims would provide a lot more insight than interviewing Andrew. The other victims also have names of Epstein's friends. I don't understand the obsession with Andrew - other than he's an easy target.

I don't think an 'oversight committee' should be interviewing victims. Those interviews should be done by law enforcement individuals. The question is why hasn't law enforcement acted on any of that.
(I think we know the answer. Powerful people.)

I find it interesting that Andrew is raked over the coals (as he should be), but all of the Americans (and some from other countries) aren't being called out. Hence the call from the public to release the Epstein files.

 

[Anxala]

I agree that everyone on this list should have to answer questions, but shouldn't it start with those in a position of power?

Unfortunately, I think those in positions of power have the power to use that power to remain in the shadows.

It is what it is. Power corrupts and in this case, absolutely corrupts.

 

[otto]

I don't think an 'oversight committee' should be interviewing victims. Those interviews should be done by law enforcement individuals. The question is why hasn't law enforcement acted on any of that.
(I think we know the answer. Powerful people.)

I find it interesting that Andrew is raked over the coals (as he should be), but all of the Americans (and some from other countries) aren't being called out. Hence the call from the public to release the Epstein files.

I don't know what the oversight committee is supposed to do, but if they want information about Epstein, then interviewing victims will provide answers. If they want to interview people like Andrew because they want him charged and convicted, then no one should agree to be interviewed.

The Royal Family and UK government have taken strong decisions regarding persons who had an association with Epstein. The US hasn't done anything regarding US citizens with the same circumstance. It has the appearance that the US (oversight committee) wants to double-down; they see that Andrew has been dealt with and they want to have another go at him.

The oversight committee should do their own work, rather than grabbing onto UK decisions and trying to make more of it - as though the UK government and Royal Family need help from the US. Surely the US can find someone in the US to interview or investigate without relying on the UK to do the work for them.

 

[otto]

Furthermore, I think the oversight committee is confused about the reasons that Andrew has been stripped of royal status.

I think the committee believes that Andrew was demoted because Giuffre alleges that she was victimized by Andrew during a meeting in NYC. However, that has been known for years. That's nothing new, so it cannot be related to recent decisions.

Other's believe that Andrew was demoted due to new information that Andrew and Sarah publicly announced they would cease contact with Epstein, then privately pursued a friendship with a convicted pedophile. They failed to uphold the values of the monarchy.

If Andrew's most recent mistake is failing to uphold the values of the monarchy, how does that result in the oversight committee believing that he can tell them something about Epstein that they cannot learn from Maxwell, Epstein's many powerful friends, and Epstein's victims?

It's illogical.

 

[otto]

Congress cannot compel a non-US citizen living in a foreign country to comply.

I am seriously confused that with all the ongoing serious issues in the US, Giuffre is a top priority for congress.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1986478601345102311

 

[Anxala]

Furthermore, I think the oversight committee is confused about the reasons that Andrew has been stripped of royal status.

I think the committee believes that Andrew was demoted because Giuffre alleges that she was victimized by Andrew during a meeting in NYC. However, that has been known for years. That's nothing new, so it cannot be related to recent decisions.

Other's believe that Andrew was demoted due to new information that Andrew and Sarah publicly announced they would cease contact with Epstein, then privately pursued a friendship with a convicted pedophile. They failed to uphold the values of the monarchy.

If Andrew's most recent mistake is failing to uphold the values of the monarchy, how does that result in the oversight committee believing that he can tell them something about Epstein that they cannot learn from Maxwell, Epstein's many powerful friends, and Epstein's victims?

It's illogical.

It just reeks of distraction.

 

[otto]

It just reeks of distraction.

Yes. Australian citizen Giuffre and British citizen Andrew met in London 25 years ago. Andrew and Sarah relied on Epstein for money. On that basis, valuable US federal government time has been allocated to interview Andrew.

Meanwhile, there is US government activity related to Christians in Nigeria, reducing global environment protections, legality of global tariffs, the US bombing boats in international water, Russia bombing Ukraine, the random arrest and deportation of people, shutting down the government for several weeks, 12% of the population without food, threats that many more will lose health care, and so much more.

Distraction.

 

[Anxala]

Agree, and apart from anything else, the idea that Andrew is going to cooperate, come clean and name names (as per your above letter link) is beyond ludicrous. As if!

He and his current fall from grace is an absolute gift to those who need a distracting target on which to focus their 'busy being busy' operation.

It's all so cynically and transparently performative, isn't it, all for show.

 

[otto]

Agree, and apart from anything else, the idea that Andrew is going to cooperate, come clean and name names (as per your above letter link) is beyond ludicrous.

He and his current fall from grace is an absolute gift to those who need a distracting target on which to focus their 'busy being busy' operation.

It's all so cynically and transparently performative, isn't it, all for show.

Absolutely! Given the choice of: confronting the serious ongoing problems in the US, or chasing down a foreigner based on a book written by a deceased foreigner ... what to do? We know what Congress decided was best.

 

[Anxala]

Absolutely! Given the choice of: confronting the serious ongoing problems in the US, or chasing down a foreigner based on a book written by a deceased foreigner ... what to do? We know what Congress decided was best.

^ But not just that though. Congress, Reps and Demos alike, absolutely 100% know the contents of the Epstein files and the names named. They know who they are. When both are in danger of being exposed, they'll unite to do whatever it takes to keep the focus elsewhere.

They just will.

 

[JDG]

The other thing seemingly being ignored is the age of consent.

In England, the age of consent is 16. IIRC, VG was almost 18 at the time of the alleged ‘intimacy’ with Andrew.

No one can be tried, in a different country, with a lower age of consent, as if it took place in said country.

It’s very odd that Andrew is being persued in this manner when there are so many Americans available who could answer any & all questions.

<modsnip> MOO, JMO

Edit: to fix auto correct

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes. Australian citizen Giuffre and British citizen Andrew met in London 25 years ago. Andrew and Sarah relied on Epstein for money. On that basis, valuable US federal government time has been allocated to interview Andrew.

Meanwhile, there is US government activity related to Christians in Nigeria, reducing global environment protections, legality of global tariffs, the US bombing boats in international water, Russia bombing Ukraine, the random arrest and deportation of people, shutting down the government for several weeks, 12% of the population without food, threats that many more will lose health care, and so much more.

Distraction.

Virginia was actually an American citizen (only) when these crimes took place.
She was born in the US, grew up mostly in Florida, and became (also) an Australian citizen later - presumably some time after she married Robert, having met him in 2002.

Her dad got her the job at Mar A Lago when she was 16 - her dad was a groundskeeper at Mar A Lago.

I know this from her book Nobody's Girl, but here are a couple of other links.

The American-born mother, who lived in Australia for years ...

Staring down the elite, Virginia Giuffre refused to be silenced

She exposed the elite and broke her silence — now she's gone, but her story refuses to die.

www.abc.net.au

Virginia Giuffre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

The other thing seemingly being ignored is the age of consent.

In England, the age of consent is 16. IIRC, VG was almost 18 at the time of the alleged ‘intimacy’ with Andrew.

No one can be tried, in a different country, with a lower age of consent, as if it took place in said country.

It’s very odd that Andrew is being perused in this manner when there are so many Americans available who could answer any & all questions.

Makes it seem like a witch hunt or that they need a patsy of sorts. MOO, JMO

Respectfully, it does not seem that the age of ‘consent’ is relevant to what it had seemed IMO were allegations of rape or coercion or trafficking or the like, or similar offenses. MOO

 

[SouthAussie]

The other thing seemingly being ignored is the age of consent.

In England, the age of consent is 16. IIRC, VG was almost 18 at the time of the alleged ‘intimacy’ with Andrew.

No one can be tried, in a different country, with a lower age of consent, as if it took place in said country.

It’s very odd that Andrew is being perused in this manner when there are so many Americans available who could answer any & all questions.

Makes it seem like a witch hunt or that they need a patsy of sorts. MOO, JMO

Apparently he could be tried in the UK for misconduct in public office, for attempting to smear Virginia as she was releasing her allegations.


An email obtained by Britain's Daily Mail newspaper, and published earlier in October, claimed that Andrew asked his Metropolitan Police bodyguard to investigate Virginia Giuffre shortly before her accusations against him were made public in 2021.

The newspaper reported that Andrew passed British police Giuffre's date of birth, U.S. social security number and suggested she had a criminal record. Andrew has not publicly responded to the accusation. The Metropolitan Police said they were looking into the claims.

Dai Davies, the former head of royal protection for the British monarchy and now a royal commentator, says that if the Mail's report turns out to be accurate then it means Andrew committed a criminal offense. Says Lownie: “Misconduct in public office, which carries life imprisonment, could be what they bring against him, quite apart from the sex trafficking allegations."

Could Prince Andrew go to jail? Royal experts answer burning questions

By stripping Prince Andrew of his titles, King Charles may have protected the royal family. But the former duke still faces legal risks.

www.usatoday.com

 

[otto]

The other thing seemingly being ignored is the age of consent.

In England, the age of consent is 16. IIRC, VG was almost 18 at the time of the alleged ‘intimacy’ with Andrew.

No one can be tried, in a different country, with a lower age of consent, as if it took place in said country.

It’s very odd that Andrew is being perused in this manner when there are so many Americans available who could answer any & all questions.

Makes it seem like a witch hunt or that they need a patsy of sorts. MOO, JMO

Exactly. Maxwell has answers. There's nothing that Andrew can add.