CSotD: Randy Andy Pudding & Pie
Skip to comments
A busy week: In South Korea, former President Yoon Suk Yeol was sentenced to life in prison for having attempted to overturn election results and make himself president again, while in Britain, former Prince Andrew has been arrested and charged over his interactions with Jeffrey Epstein.
And in the United States, President Trump has not been charged with attempting to reverse election results or in connection with his interactions with Jeffrey Epstein.
Asked by the press about Andrew’s arrest, the president said, “I’m the expert in a way because I’ve been totally exonerated so I can speak about it … I think it’s a shame. I think it’s very sad. I think it’s so bad for the royal family. It’s very, very sad. To me, it’s a very sad thing.”
James Comer (R-Ky), having had a chance to examine the unredacted Epstein files, confirmed Trump’s innocence: “What we have seen from the millions of documents that have been released is that Donald Trump is completely exonerated in the whole Epstein saga.”
Comer added that Trump is being falsely accused because he has enemies in the Justice Department, and that the president will not be called to testify in House hearings.
But, in that Guardian article, Virginia Giuffre’s brother commented on the difference between British and American justice and the American “business as usual” buddy-buddy approach:
“The reality is the UK is doing far more. I think that the king can hold his head high when he comes here saying: ‘I am doing the most that I can …’ While here in the United States, our president has yet to even do even remotely the same. And survivors and the people are very disappointed in that.”
Aside from Comer, legislators who have seen the unredacted files are not convinced of Trump’s innocence and, in fact, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) has said that the files contain victim statements claiming that Trump had forcible sex with underage girls, threatening at least one of them with death if she spoke out against him.
Another legislator, Ro Khanna (D-CA), claimed that the FBI redacted materials from the files before passing them on to the Justice Department, including victim statements naming prominent men among their rapists. He also joined a group of Democratic legislators who claimed the DOJ had kept names of accused rapists redacted in the files.
Jamie Raskin (D-MD ) complained that DOJ was logging the visits of legislators to view the files, tracking how long they had spent and what they had seen. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) agreed with Raskin that the surveillance was inappropriate:
“I think members should obviously have the right to peruse those at their own speed and with their own discretion. I don’t think it’s appropriate for anybody to be tracking that,” Johnson told reporters. “I will echo that to anybody involved with the DOJ — and I’m sure it was an oversight.”
Meanwhile, there remained complaints in the US about the difference between how Britain had reacted to the files and, as Luckovich says, the enforcement priorities of the US authorities.
And Patrick Bagley echoed and expanded Telnaes’s accusation that other countries are quicker and more efficient in charging and prosecuting powerful people accused of crimes.
It’s important to note that Andrew is not (yet) accused of sex crimes, but rather has been charged with passing along classified information to Epstein. However, Rowe contrasts the speed with which Britain moved to level those charges with the massive number of times Trump has appeared in the files and continues to pretend he had distanced himself from Epstein.
Appearing in the files is not necessarily an indication of having participated in illicit sexual activities, and many such references are from address books, innocent references or random outsider tips.
Still, it has been pointed out that Trump’s name appears more often in the Epstein Files than Harry Potter’s does in all seven books in his series, and more often than the name of God appears in the Bible. While that’s not proof of guilt, McKee is likely correct that it convinces most people that the overall accusations are not simply a hoax.
As for Andrew’s place in the scandal, it’s hardly a surprise in his home country, and Private Eye magazine came out with this cover the day before the former prince was arrested and charged.
As Canadian cartoonist Graeme MacKay correctly points out, Andrew remains innocent until authorities find and compile evidence, bring it to court and find him guilty of whatever charges may be filed by his court date, but there are potentially far more violations than the leaking of trade secrets.
And while some monarchs might be tempted to pardon him out of sympathy and affection, Bramhall points out that Charles has announced that he will allow the courts to perform their duty.
This schadenfreude-laden response to the royal family’s dilemma suggests the interest among a sizeable number of Britons to see justice done, and Charles would touch off a firestorm if he intervened on behalf of his little brother, though perhaps less on the current charge than on the likely charges that will follow.
Oh well. Becs provides the graphics while Herman adds the soundtrack.
Comments 8