Toggle sidebar

Former Prince Andrew arrested due to connections with the Epstein files

  • Thread starter Thread starter The Catboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 1,857
  • Replies Replies 17
  • Likes Likes 1
  • Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions. Saying NO to fascists/nazis - if you are one of those, you are not welcome here
The Catboy

The Catboy

GBAtemp Official Catboy™: Nnnaaaa
Member
I am Catboy 😼
Level 46
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,648
Solutions
14
Reaction score
66,976
Trophies
8
Location
Making a non-binary fuss
XP
49,763
Country
Antarctica
  • Like
Reactions: Xzi
For the record: "the accusations by Republic focus on his actions as a British trade official.".

Yes, he's in the Epstein files. If he's found to have engaged in seed with minors he can face a lifetime of jail. But that 'if' is warranted.. Not everyone whom Epstein ever crossed turns is a pedophile. Trump happens to be so because of the direct accusations, the card and his own remarks, NOT because he's in those files over a million times (though he's, that's a freaking lot). Same with Andrew... What do we know exactly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SylverReZ and cearp
there will never be no actual justice just media tactic playbook by showing people saying look we investigating then everyone says first Epstein co-conspirer is getting questioned then the people be brainwashed thinking some real stuff is happening but at the end of the day he will pay to keep out, consequences are for civilians not for elites which is crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndorfRequissa
cearp said:
You're right, he wasn't arrested about any sex stuff, just about him sharing secret information
Click to expand...
Taleweaver said:
For the record: "the accusations by Republic focus on his actions as a British trade official.".
Click to expand...
Ah, here I was getting a little hope that something might happen. Should always bet on nothing ever happening
 
  • Like
Reactions: SylverReZ, Xzi and cearp
Hanafuda said:
They're not going to arrest him for something they can't prove.
Click to expand...
Are you serious right now?
IMG_5079.jpeg
Just how deep is that boot down your throat?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reualed
The Catboy said:
Are you serious right now?
View attachment 558249
Just how deep is that boot down your throat?
Click to expand...

Direct your browser to Merriam-Webster and check out the difference between "proves" and "suggests."

Also, how old is that girl at the time that picture was taken? I think ... yeah we did have that "age of consent" discussion, didnt we? Yeah, we did.

There may be other evidence that damns him. But that photo isn't it.
 
Hanafuda said:
Direct your browser to Merriam-Webster and check out the difference between "proves" and "suggests."

Also, how old is that girl at the time that picture was taken? I think ... yeah we did have that "age of consent" discussion, didnt we? Yeah, we did.

There may be other evidence that damns him. But that photo isn't it.
Click to expand...
Here's a fun question. Al Capone was killing people left and right and really REALLY good at covering up the evidence, or at least not having the evidence point to him. Everyone knew he was the head of the mob, but they could never pin it on him directly.

Instead of nailing him for murder, they got him for tax evasion and gave him the longest sentence in history at the time for it, which was 11 years. He served 7 and a half years and then was released because he had a brain rot condition which left him with the mental capacity of a 12 year old.

So in this situation, they never got the evidence for murder. Anyone who came forward would be killed. Was it justice to basically find any reason to throw him in jail for something else that everyone KNEW he was guilty of, but couldn't proove?
 
titan_tim said:
Here's a fun question. Al Capone was killing people left and right and really REALLY good at covering up the evidence, or at least not having the evidence point to him. Everyone knew he was the head of the mob, but they could never pin it on him directly.

Instead of nailing him for murder, they got him for tax evasion and gave him the longest sentence in history at the time for it, which was 11 years. He served 7 and a half years and then was released because he had a brain rot condition which left him with the mental capacity of a 12 year old.

So in this situation, they never got the evidence for murder. Anyone who came forward would be killed. Was it justice to basically find any reason to throw him in jail for something else that everyone KNEW he was guilty of, but couldn't proove?
Click to expand...

Who gives a fuck about Al Capone?

But, I get the comparison. And since his punishment for the tax offenses was within the law (even if longer than other tax evaders), sure, I'm fine with that. When a person is convicted of a felony, the court frequently orders a "pre-sentencing investigation" which looks into other factors about the person's life, conduct, and lifestyle which are relevant to the sentence. So in Capone's case, his organized crime ties, his obstinance in refusing to acknowledge guilt, refusal to cooperate with investigations of others, etc. were all relevant to his sentence for tax evasion. (Because the money he failed to pay taxes on was money he 'earned' as a mob boss.)

So considering the science of compromise against his associates that Epstein is alleged to have practiced, Prince Andrew's conduct with Epstein made his state secrets breach all the more potentially damaging. So even if it will never be fully known what Prince Andrew got up to on the other side of that curtain, the very fact that he was over there in the first place is relevant to his sentencing (if he is convicted).

Any of you taking my post above as a defense of Prince Andrew (or whatever you want to call him now) is not getting my meaning. I said only what I meant --- regardless of any offenses he may have committed, they're not going to arrest and prosecute someone that high profile unless they've got it sown up. And they didn't arrest him for diddling kids. So it's not unreasonable to assume that they don't have any such proof.
 
Hanafuda said:
Who gives a fuck about Al Capone?

But, I get the comparison.
Click to expand...
Normally I wouldn't talk about Capone, but I thought the idea of going for guilt wherever possible was similar to what we are seeing, or what we might see.
Hanafuda said:
And since his punishment for the tax offenses was within the law (even if longer than other tax evaders), sure, I'm fine with that. When a person is convicted of a felony, the court frequently orders a "pre-sentencing investigation" which looks into other factors about the person's life, conduct, and lifestyle which are relevant to the sentence. So in Capone's case, his organized crime ties, his obstinance in refusing to acknowledge guilt, refusal to cooperate with investigations of others, etc. were all relevant to his sentence for tax evasion. (Because the money he failed to pay taxes on was money he 'earned' as a mob boss.)
Click to expand...
The fact that he was found guilty and sentenced for tax evasion isn't the real issue here. The main issue is that the FBI couldn't get him for his mob crimes, so they had to coordinate with the IRS to find anything they could to stop him from being a monster. It was the FBI basically giving up any potential of nailing him with evidence of his murders. He didn't go to jail for tax evasion, he was sent for murder, just in a round-about way.

Hanafuda said:
Any of you taking my post above as a defense of Prince Andrew (or whatever you want to call him now) is not getting my meaning. I said only what I meant --- regardless of any offenses he may have committed, they're not going to arrest and prosecute someone that high profile unless they've got it sown up. And they didn't arrest him for diddling kids. So it's not unreasonable to assume that they don't have any such proof.
Click to expand...
I'll keep banging the drum about how they can have this all sewn up with no wiggle room for excuses if they allow for a review of the terabytes of video evidence, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

Going back to what happened to Capone, Epstein and his group are very VERY good at covering up their evidence and murdering anyone who may be a threat to them. Having a 330 gallons of sulfuric acid going to his island when you're being investigated isn't something innocent people do. So would you be alright with Andrew being charged with a smaller crime, but it would be more of a proxy for his other charges which he definitely did, but can't be proven as easily.
 
AceyBwoi said:
there will never be no actual justice just media tactic playbook by showing people saying look we investigating then everyone says first Epstein co-conspirer is getting questioned then the people be brainwashed thinking some real stuff is happening but at the end of the day he will pay to keep out, consequences are for civilians not for elites which is crazy.
Click to expand...
It's too early to tell, but so far I'm inclined to disagree.
Why? Well...for one, he was stripped of his ranks and privileges. Second: he got arrested as the first royal in God knows how many years (it's in the OP, iirc). Third: this was on his birthday.

The British Royal court may very well distantiate themselves from the whole affair thoroughly. Or not, but again: too early to tell. I'd remind you that this isn't the US, so actions do tend to have consequences.
 
Hanafuda said:
Direct your browser to Merriam-Webster and check out the difference between "proves" and "suggests."

Also, how old is that girl at the time that picture was taken? I think ... yeah we did have that "age of consent" discussion, didnt we? Yeah, we did.

There may be other evidence that damns him. But that photo isn't it.
Click to expand...
Are you paid to be like this or just doing it for the love of the game?
 
Hanafuda said:
Direct your browser to Merriam-Webster and check out the difference between "proves" and "suggests."

Also, how old is that girl at the time that picture was taken? I think ... yeah we did have that "age of consent" discussion, didnt we? Yeah, we did.

There may be other evidence that damns him. But that photo isn't it.
Click to expand...
She was 17.
 
Since the infamous news night interview, the general consensus was that Andrew did it and his alibi was pathetic. In my own personal circles when this has come up for discussion is the man is a rapist. Only good thing that came out of it was was the memes about him sweating and Pizza Express Woking,

The reality is a potential conviction for misconduct in office rather than rape is it easier ( or less difficult) to prove that). Sex crimes are generally difficult with the UK having a concerning low conviction rate for rape under the last Tory government. Speaking with my ABC hat and the context, if Andrew was telling confidential shit to people he shouldn't have, that would be an example of corruption and considering these fuckers used email for that, there is your evidence. The same thing is happening to Peter Mandelson who just got arrested. For my job, I know not to share confidential shit, the fact these fuckers did it shows how arrogant and stupid they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sir Tortoise and SylverReZ
You must log in or register to reply here.

Site & Scene News

Go to forum More news

Popular threads in this forum

Trump is the most corrupt US president in history

One of last trump critics purged

US "counter terrorism" strategy reads a lot like a confession

"Epstein's suicide note" vs Epstein's handwriting

New poll finds a majority of Americans unsure if attempts on Trump's life were real

Trump warns Taiwan against declaring independence, hours after summit with China's Xi

Counter terrorism agency issues warning DHS is inciting violence.

Rubio in China with Trump despite ban