Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2020/01/27/prince-andrew-wont-reply-to.html
"To date Prince Andrew has provided zero cooperation’ —
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman
2 Likes
Um…
…I could guess.
3 Likes
Pretty sure it’s cause he believes he doesn’t have to…
And I suspect the crown is helping to shield him because they believe it will undo the work they did to rehabilitate the image of the royal family after the death of Diana.
21 Likes
Not confirmed yet, but if true…:
(Realize DB is left leaning, but this was reported on right leaning new sources as well. Everyone has a dog in the Epstein race!)
8 Likes
Can the Queen have MI6 kill someone? Asking for a friend.
2 Likes
Am I missing something? Why does the main image have chase bank logos on the bottom of the scales of justice? Seems unrelated to the story.
2 Likes
I figured that Prince Andrew was simply following the advice proposed by BoingBoing a while back:
9 Likes
He’s not even been questioned to get to the point of needing to have a lawyer to say “my client has no comment” in the first place. Understanding your rights under the law as someone accused of a crime or who may have information on a crime is NOT the same thing as being hidden away and not even being asked when it’s clear that someone has information that may be useful. He’s very welcome to have his lawyers say to the investigation that he refuses to cooperate.
5 Likes
I don’t know about that, but there’s certainly rumors that Prince Phillip knows how to get something like that done, if he thinks someone is an embarrassment to the royal family.
2 Likes
Indirectly. I believe the traditional protocol is " Will no one rid me of this turbulent [pedophile]?"
It would seem a bit cold-blooded in this case, since Andrew is her son, but he’s only about eighth in line to the throne, and royal families don’t stay royal families by shirking the hard decisions.
5 Likes
No, she really can’t.
3 Likes
Because money can buy “justice”
1 Like
I just hope the terms are too ambiguous…
3 Likes
“Don’t speak to the cops for me, but not for thee” is an interesting ethos.
It is the heart of vigilantism.
sovereign immunity
2 Likes
I imagine the reason that a member of the Royal Family is refusing to be interviewed by the FBI or the SDNY is exactly the same reason that the US Ambassador would say ‘nope’ if the Metropolitan Police wanted to interview them - diplomatic immunity. Remember that a US member of embassy staff recently ran away to the US (from the UK) after running over and killing a boy and the US are refusing all co-operation. If the principles of immunity cover a minor embassy worker to that extent, to what extent do you think they cover the son of a reigning monarch?
7 Likes
You’re right, but it’s still bad optics. The only reason to not help an international pedophile ring case, is because one is some how mixed up in said case.
5 Likes
That advice is solid, and goes double when dealing with the FBI. Their first play is always “find someone you can charge with providing false statements to a federal investigator.” This is almost never the person they actually charge with a crime, just the person they get to make incriminating statements about the person they eventually charge with crimes (presuming they were smart enough to play ball, but dumb enough not to shut up).
2 Likes
This sounds like grandstanding on the part of the FBI - surely Andrew is not essential to their investigations. And he’s foreign, and a Royal. I don’t think there’s a 5th amendment to the British Constitution, either (it’s not a written Constitution). It looks like he’s up to his neck in it, but he’s beyond the reach of the U.S. justice system. And there were so many more men involved who are U.S. citizens, and within the reach of U.S. justice. Including Trump.
Epstein was pedophiling for many, many years, there must be plenty of witnesses they can call in the U.S…
1 Like
Yeah, “because he doesn’t have to” is the boring obvious answer
SEE ALSO: Mark Zuckerberg showing up to answer questions in the UK
7 Likes
