web analytics

DIDDUMS

By Pete Moore On January 27th, 2020

I wasn’t aware that the Duke of York was obliged to cooperate with the Feds. I don’t think he is obliged to cooperate. If they have anything on him then they can request his presence in the US, through official channels.

We can do a swap, get into the whole trade deal thing. They can have the Duke of York in exchange for Mrs Sacoolas. That’s a win-win in my book.

37 Responses to “DIDDUMS”

  1. He chooses not to cooperate, for reasons that we can imagine.

    And he wouldn’t have to travel in order to do so.

  2. The Royal child Diddler has been officially asked….. I guess it’s best we just Subpoena him and when he doesn’t show issue a warrant for his arrest.

  3. Well if anyone would have immunity it would be a royal?

  4. There is no authority to subpoena him, and he has no obligation to cooperate. He likely would be entitled to diplomatic immunity if he came over here, but I am fairly certain he wouldn’t risk it. I also think that whatever the merits that the US Attorney for the Southern District is grandstanding.

  5. Wouldn’t an honest man want to talk to investigators?

    He would not have to travel at all.

  6. No. Never talk. Even honest people can implicate themselves, or set themselves up for vcollateral issues.

  7. Plus as lowly a human from a behavioral standpoint as I consider him, he is obviously a trophy target. His best legal option is a refusal to cooperate (of course some place idiot coached him to say he would which defies sanity).

  8. Wouldn’t an honest man want to talk to investigators?

    Or woman?

    Of course he shoud cooperate. I’m sure he’d get a fair shout in the Brit tabloid press. I mean, it’s not as if he’s married to a black haired, dark eyed Yank actress.

  9. Mahons, on January 27th, 2020 at 7:50 PM Said:
    No. Never talk.

    That’s how we create the wretched society that we have.

    At least he could respond to written questions, if he knows how to read and write.

  10. Why should the potential subject of a criminal investigation cooperate with law enforcement, especially one that is grandstanding about him?

  11. Where is the grandstanding?

    It may be sound legal advice to say ” never talk to the police ” but if everyone did that, we’d have twice the crime that we have now.

  12. Should ‘trophy targets’ not make themselves available for questioning on account of their status?

    It might be a good idea to cooperate in order to allay any allegations of child sexual abuse?

  13. The US Attorney traveled to use Epstein’s Manhattan Residence to make this announcement. It is highly unusal for Federal Prosecutors to disclose such information, let alone stage managing it. That is called grandstanding.
    The right to silence is constitutional. If we let police coerce statements we’d have less crime.

  14. We can do a swap, get into the whole trade deal thing. They can have the Duke of York in exchange for Mrs Sacoolas. That’s a win-win in my book.

    High five!

  15. Should Trophy Targets make themselves available? Ask Martha Stewart.

  16. The US Attorney traveled to use Epstein’s Manhattan Residence to make this announcement

    Wasn’t aware of that.

    Yes, that is grandstanding.

  17. Obviously legally speaking he shouldn’t (and most Americans in that situation would not bend over backwards to help such an enquiry). However, as a public figure, in receipt of substantial amounts of public money, who insists they did nothing inappropriate or wrong, then he has a moral duty to assist investigators. So he has a choice. Should he act as public person (and assist the authorities in investigating pretty despicable crimes) or should he act as a potential suspect in those heinous crimes (in which case he should be stripped of all public offices and monies)?

  18. You’re answering a question with a question Mahons.

    You seem to be suggesting that the status of prominent people is reason enough for them to preclude themselves from questioning.

    If that’s the case I absolutely disagree.

  19. Trump, Bill Clinton and Alan Dershowitz the big mastermind all flew on Epstein’s plane and all visited that sex slave island

    Will they be cooperating.

  20. The pursuit of Justice isn’t horse trading. Even if one thinks a wrong result happened in one case it can’t be cured by trading it for another. That would set as terrible a precedent as could be imagined.

  21. I think that he’s saying that if you’re the possible target of an investigation that you shouldn’t speak

    I’ve heard lawyers say that before.

    If all did that, where would any society be?

  22. Paul – all I meant was Mata Stewart’s conviction arose out of cooperating with the FBI. She never should have spoken with them. I don’t think non cooperation should be limited to prominent people. I do think prominent people are in more jeapardy when targeted.

  23. I doubt Trump, Clinton or Dershowitz will be cooperating.

  24. The right to silence is a Constitutional Right. The individuals right to it has long been recognized here as more important than whatever the benefit may be gained by the authorities.

  25. I thought Stewart’s conviction arose from illegal insider trading, obstructing justice and lying to investigators?

    Promiment people’s status shouldn’t put them above the law. I’d suggest that if promnent people don’t wish to be ‘targetted’ then they should put themselves in the vulnerable position of being suspected of breaking the law.

  26. Prince Andrew should be locked up for being a pompous arrogant and self inflated Pratt regardless of whatever he may have got up to with Epstein and his girls.

  27. Paul – in cooperating with investigators she managed to get caught in a lie, something she would have avoided by not cooperating.

    I have not argued that a prominent person’s status puts them above the law. I also do not wish them to put themselves in a position where they could be suspected of breaking the law. I’ve only said they have no obligation to cooperate legally.

  28. Andrew is a member of the royal family and has an obligation to act properly which includes aiding law enforcement. His mother and older brother need to come down on him like a ton of bricks to force him to act properly which he apparently has no ability to do on his own. This could be another PR disaster for the royal family and I have no doubt they will want to avoid that.

  29. More of a disaster than him becoming the direct subject of a potential criminal investigation and possible application by the US for participation in underage sex trafficking?

  30. “More of a disaster than him becoming the direct subject of a potential criminal investigation and possible application by the US for participation in underage sex trafficking?” I believe it would be. Forcing Andrew to act properly and face the music would reflect well on the royal family. Shielding a black sheep would bring an unending storm of bad PR for the royal family, but forcing him to act properly would likely bring good PR.

  31. The Royal child Diddler has been officially asked ..

    The complainant was 17 when he allegedly shagged her. From what I hear an unmarried 17 year old is regarded as a spinster in parts of the US.

  32. In a weird way I think Pete has stumbled onto an interesting point. If my understanding of the extradition treaty is correct then Andrew von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha won’t be able to be extradited to the United States, should they seek his extradition. Extradition can only occur in cases that is a crime in both countries and carries a prison sentence of at least a year. Now unless the prosecutors can prove some other form of force used (she was drugged, raped etc…) then what Andrew did is not a crime in the UK as the alleged victim would have been over the age of consent.

  33. On the up side, if air miles Andy ever does get banged up in a Yankee jail at least his ginger nephew over the border won’t now have to travel too far to visit him while he is banged up 😉

  34. I hold absolutely no candle for Prince Andrew not giving a toss about the Royal family.

    But in Prince Andrews defence, he allegedly shagged a 17 year old in London, England.

    Its legal, he committed no crime, apart from shagging a serf and commoner.

    But, I strongly suspect, truth be told, he was also shagging underage girls outside the jurisdiction of Great Britain.

  35. The allegation is he forced the 17 year old which would be a crime in either country.

  36. //The allegation is he forced the 17 year old which would be a crime in either country.//

    I think she claims only that Epstein wanted her to have sex with Andy, not that the Prince forced her. She says that (when dancing with Andrew) “I knew that I had to keep him happy because that’s what Jeffrey would have expected from me”.

    That’s a long way from rape. Even that isn’t very convincing: “It was a screwed up family, you’re, like, eating popcorn while giving him (JE) a blowjob and watching Sex in the City”.

  37. I don’t know the particulars Noel, I was responding to those suggesting consensual sex with a 17 year old would be viewed as a crime.