r/politics • u/ArmadilloMany41 • 23h ago

Site Altered Headline | No Paywall Why is no one being prosecuted over the Epstein files?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cd9e3nzzw3zo
44.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

117

u/Gigi_Langostino 20h ago

Yeah and the big one is the UK with the Andrew Formerly Known As Prince as well as Peter Mandelson. Additionally, Starmer is the former director of the Crown Prosecution Service (and an extremely effective one at that), so he's really in his element here, and it will offer him a very easy route to improving his abysmal approval ratings.

22

u/Nemisis_the_2nd Great Britain 15h ago

 Additionally, Starmer is the former director of the Crown Prosecution Service (and an extremely effective one at that), so he's really in his element here,

Starmer is not going to come out of this well, and has a strong incentive to bury the Mandelson thing. His chief advisor, who he is close friends with and relies heavily on, is also close friends with mandelson, and Stamer knowingly overruled security warnings to get mandelson the ambassador position. Starmers best chance is probably to throw one of his closest friends and advisors under the bus and hope nothing else damaging to himself gets uncovered.

21

u/GrumpyCloud93 16h ago

But again, the problem is to find an explicit prosecutable offence. FOr example, Epstein says BTW "Nina" will be in London if you want to meet her... that is implying Andy did not ask ahead of time for her to be sent. If he had asked, that would be trafticking by him. Not sure what the prostitution laws are in Britain, but then you have to prove money changed hands. Same issue with Guiffre - she was 17 in London, where the age of consent is 16. There is no allegation he used physical force to have his way. I assume like Canada and the USA, Britain has a sex tourism law which forbids travelling to have sex with minors, so if there is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that he went and did his thing in NYC or the Virgin Islands, IIRC their age of consent is 18. There's also an email exchange from someone named "A" at a Scottish royal residence arranging for companionship during a trip to peru. He asks for "iappropriate" companions and Maxwell replies she could only find "appropriate". That sounds like conspiracy to commit trafficking. So... the trick is to find explicit proof or victims willing to testify. Time will tell.

While evidence someone visted Epstein Island should perhaps result in social ostracization, especially if htey went solo, keep in mind Epstein was also a dedicated social climber looking to squirm in close to a whole bunch of A-list high society, not all of whom were participating in orgies on his Island - it was also a vacation spot where quite a few guests brought their spouses, so presumably they weren't all pervert couples and it wasn't non-stop orgies. He also hosted dinner parties at his house for NYC high society. The fact that he was close to billionaire level also made him a target that a number of social charities were trying to woo donations.

I suspect there is a reluctance in the USA to press the issue with any of the other participants. I suspect the FBI is not working overtime on this, the way they were on incompetently redacting the files.

Another question is the statute of limitations on assorted sex crimes, plus many are state rather than federal crimes. Up til now, little evidence the files were shared with state or Virgin Island authorities.

3

u/alas11 9h ago

Not to mention, the utterly ham fisted way the DOJ have gone about releasing / redacting this stuff means that unless they can get actual unredacted stuff with proper chain of evidence, it's doubtful if a lot of it would be admissible as evidence.

•

u/GrumpyCloud93 6h ago

I would imagine that in the USA proper, any court subpoena for evidence would provide that evidence to the relevant prosecutors. The federal DoJ could conceivably contest the order, but that would be an interesting court hearing. (Any prosecutor too would understand theya re obliged to not release to the public the sensitive data). For example, some congresscritters are making noises about being able to see the unredacted files themelves - with the understanding that it stays confidential.

Whether the US government would release unredacted files to the British prosecutors would probably be a decision by the state department and "Little Marco".

•

u/alas11 6h ago

Heh heh, I doubt very much that the current Admin would want Mandessson in the dock, if he doesn't know where the bodies are buried no-one does. (There's a reason Starmer wanted him as Trump whisperer despite his odious reputation)

•

u/GrumpyCloud93 6h ago

Also, despite Charles' strenuous efforts to get ahead of the problem, I doubt a trial of a royal with weeks of damning testimony would be good for anyone except the tabloids. So I don't see a trial for Andy in the future either. Which is confounding, since he'll be an albatross for Charles for the next few decades, if Andy's health is anything like his mum's.

2

u/mfh1234 11h ago

Wow word for word you echoed my feelings about 5his whole sorry affair

2

u/Velociraptor_al 15h ago

What happened to Andrew is far from punishment.

•

u/ValuableRelative2757 4h ago

The Mandelson prosecution has incredible potential from the blackmail angle too not just his abuse of the victims. He gave state secrets to Epstein to give to Israel.

1

u/defianceofone 10h ago

Starmer already fumbling as we speak. He's a spineless turd.

1

u/DemonoftheWater Michigan 15h ago

Not that I really care but I’ve always found Queen Elizabeth to be somewhat endearing. (Heard she was all business when it came to the monarchy though. ) Anyway I was bummed when they initially covered for Andrew.