What Does the Arrest of Andrew Tell Us?
One of my Democrat friends pointed to the arrest of former Prince Andrew as proof that there were prosecutable crimes concealed in the Epstein files – covered up by both the Biden and Trump administrations. I suspect that most people might see it that way. And there is no doubt that the Trump Derangement Syndrome folks will spin it that way. It may be a widely held misconception, but it is not accurate.
The first and most important point is this that Andrew is not being charged with pedophilia. Not now, not previously, not in the United States, and not in the United Kingdom. The allegations that have circulated for years are well known, and Andrew has consistently denied them. Two separate U.S. Justice Departments – under two different presidents, two different attorneys general, and two very different political climates – reviewed the available evidence. Both concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against Andrew that would stand up in court. That does not mean he is innocent. Just that a case cannot be proven based on known evidence. That is not a political cover‑up. That is the legal system doing what it is supposed to do. Deal with evidence, not rumors.
People forget that the Epstein saga is a magnet for speculation. It is a story with powerful figures, secretive behavior, and a man who died before he could be fully interrogated. That combination practically invites conspiracy theories. But the fact that something is suspicious does not automatically make it prosecutable. The Justice Department cannot indict someone because the public finds them unsavory or because social media has already declared them guilty. Prosecutors need evidence that meets a legal standard, and in Andrew’s case, they did not have it. That could change, but I would not bet on it.
So if the arrest is not about sexual misconduct, what is it about? A completely different issue – one that has nothing to do with Epstein’s sex trafficking crimes in the United States. Andrew is being investigated under British law for allegedly providing Epstein with confidential or sensitive information related to British security matters. That is a serious allegation, but it is a British one. It is not an American crime, and it is not connected to the U.S. criminal allegations that have dominated headlines for years.
It is also a crime that has been under investigation by the British before the release of the Epstein files. It was one of the reasons that the monarchy stripped Andrew of his royal positions and evicted him from the royal estate.
This distinction matters. The British legal system has its own statutes governing the handling of official information, national security, and the conduct of members of the royal family. If Andrew violated those laws, the British authorities have every right – indeed, an obligation – to investigate. But that investigation does not retroactively prove that the U.S. had a prosecutable case on unrelated allegations. It does not mean the Biden or Trump administrations buried evidence regarding Andrew. It simply means that British authorities believe there may have been a breach of British law.
The temptation to connect every development in the Epstein orbit into one grand unified theory is understandable. The story is sprawling, emotional, highly political and unresolved. But not every thread ties together. Sometimes a new development is just that: a new development, not a revelation that everything we thought we knew was a lie.
It is also worth noting that the U.S. Justice Department has been under intense public scrutiny regarding Epstein for years. If there had been credible, chargeable evidence against Andrew, it would have been politically safer to bring the case than to ignore it. No administration benefits from appearing to protect a foreign royal from culpability in heinous crimes. The idea that two administrations – one Republican, one Democrat, each eager to expose the failures of the other – would both independently choose to hide the same evidence strains credibility.
What Andrew’s arrest really tells us is something far less dramatic but far more grounded. Legal systems operate according to evidence, jurisdiction, and the specific statutes that apply. The British government is pursuing a case that falls under its laws. The U.S. government declined to pursue a case that did not meet its legal threshold. These two facts can coexist without implying corruption, conspiracy, or political manipulation.
People will continue to project their own narratives onto the Epstein story. Some will see Andrew’s arrest as vindication of their salacious suspicions. Others will see it as proof of a global cover‑up. But the reality is simpler. Andrew is facing a British investigation for a British offense. The U.S. allegations remain uncharged because the evidence did not support prosecution. That may not satisfy those who want a more sensational explanation, but it is the explanation grounded in law rather than dubious speculation.
So, there ‘tis.
I only read a few sentences of this long, tiring, screed from what appears to be a pedophile protector in his defense of Epstein and everyone attached. He just does not want to know. Where’s the morality or legality in that.
My conclusion: the survivors think this is a step in the right direction as did we when we locked up kingpin murderer Al Capone for tax evasion. Like most civil litigants, they will never get justice, maybe just a little compensation.
Beyond the US, the Epstein files is causing arrests, resignations, of many powerful white men. Good. The survivors are all for more of that. So am I. Out them. Out them all and let the chips fall where they may. No need to lower yourself for their favor, they are very rich and can protect themselves if innocent.
Horist does not answer the highest priority question for the US —- where are the rest of the files, release them under the law. AND how can Lutnick still be in office, why hasn’t he resigned and what about Bondi and Blanche who knew the Lutnick truth about visiting and even doing business with Epstein, as in Lutnick profited monetarily from convicted sex offender Epstein, they knew it, they knew he lied, and these two sat on the truth and protected Lutnick and, by extension, Epstein.
Morals Larry, here’s a buck, buy some.
Larry, I think that most of us that listen to mainstream news (in your parlance ‘leftist’) understand that Andy’s arrest is due to passing state secrets to Epstein rather than the actual pedophilia that he likely (but not conclusively) committed. And I think that most of us (and Brit’s as well) think ‘couldn’t have happened to a nicer (not) guy’. So what is the point of your tome? To show that stupid people don’t listen to mainstream news? If that’s the case we already knew that…
I’m SO sick of this Epstein sh*t. In short, it’s nothing but political manuring. And the worst of it is that the poor victims have to relive their pain over and over again when it keeps getting “hashed” up. Enough already!
Michelle, So glad to hear this, so am I! However, I suspect that you are a trump voter, and the only reason that we are hearing all this ‘Epstein sh*t’ is because that was a major one of Trump’s campaign promises, to finally come totally clean with everything the government had on Epstein and release all the files-otherwise the issue would be dead. Now I always thought that was a really stupid campaign promise, because we all knew he was really close to Epstein (and more likely than not had sex with underage girls while he was with Epstein), buts that’s just another item to conclusively prove how really stupid he is. So instead of being sick, be glad that Trump is being forced to follow through on at least one of his campaign promises…..
Michele, Trump’s own folks, like Blanchard and Bondi confirm over 1,000 survivors. Yes, they probably don’t like to relive their horror, but many are stepping forward and would like to see the files for some closure. The fact that the files have found 15 people attached to Epstein grants the survivors some closure. Of these 15, 10 have resigned, 2 arrests, 1 charged, 1 removed, and 1 apology. It’s a start.
Most of these are overseas, so pretty sure it’s not our politics. Here, yes we have politics. Otherwise, Trump would not be able to protect the remaining files against the law. The Republican Congress would not protect Trump breaking the law in this fashion, And no way in hell would the liar pedophile partner in business Lutnick be in office still. Not to mention Bondi and Blanche who testified they read the files and no there there when the files clearly showed, as evidenced in the Congressional testimony of Lutnick, that Bondi and Blanche, our top cops, knew Lutnick was seeing Epstein, doing business with Epstein and lying under oath to Congress about it. Bondi and Blanche knew he was lying before his testimony and they did nothing except protect him.
So yeah, the people need to see all of the files, redacted as specified, by law, asap.
Let the chips fall where they may, who cares what party or politics they have.
Michelle and Mike: uh oh, it appears that there are four interviews with an Epstein survivor that mention a terrible act perpetrated by Donald J. Trump referencing a force bj, a biting, and a beating. Like Nixon’s 18 and a half missing audible on the tapes, the files appear to have vanished.
The existence of the memos was revealed in an released documented index listing the investigative materials related to her account, the summary which was publicly released. According to the documented index, the F.B.I. conducted four interviews in connection with her claims and wrote four summaries covering each and every one. Just one of the summaries, which describes her accusations against Mr. Epstein, survives and was released by the Justice Department. The other three are missing. Gone. Vanished like those words on Nixon’s tapes that toppled his Presidency. Now, some of us know exactly what’s on the Nixon tapes as the song Alice’s Restaurant is also 18 minutes, 34 seconds long, but I digress. Looks like none of us will ever know what’s in the Trump interviews and we all should know who is responsible for hiding them. Similar interview notes were released for other witnesses and survivors.
The Department of Injustice said on Monday this week that: “the only materials that have been withheld were either privileged or duplicates.” Uh, check that, on Tuesday, the the DOJ added that documents could have been withheld because of “an ongoing federal investigation.” They made no specific claim about the Trump memo’s which sounds like the “taxes are being audited so can’t be released” story all over again. On Wednesday, the DOJ said it was reviewing which documents were released in connection to the index and would publish any documents “found to have been improperly tagged in the review process” that are legally required to be made public. Glad they cleared that one up. The ole “improperly tagged” routine. As is the case on Nixon and Arlo: Arlo asks: “if you didn’t know about this one, then what else don’t you know?” It appears in this case, according to the index, 50 pages have fallen into the cracks.
I think it’s nice to bring back old songs for new reasons: *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhj17yq9khk*
There is no smoking gun here, yet, and the woman feared retaliation by Trump so asked agents to redact him from a photograph of her, Epstein, and Trump. She dropped her claim to a 2019 suit against the Epstein estate, and no one knows if she settled otherwise. Plus, for unknown reasons, she was deemed ineligible for an Epstein’s victim fund. As in it’s not a smoking gun, other things going on here, but the files are gone for now to shed light on the initial interviews, at least three out of four.
They need to release all the files, redacted as specified, by law. They are breaking the law.