Dem
47
GOP
53
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who was until recently Prince Andrew, was arrested by British police yesterday, on suspicion of misconduct in public office.
The misconduct in question is not sexual, it should be noted. It is probable that there was some of that from Mountbatten-Windsor, but it's apparently hard to prove. What he's being popped for is allegedly sharing privileged financial information with Jeffrey Epstein, back in 2009 and 2010. At that time, Mountbatten-Windsor was Britain's special envoy for international trade, so he most certainly was privy to all sorts of stuff that was not available to the general public. If he traded that information for money, or for sexual favors, or for nothing it all, it would be very bad.
Arresting members of the royal family is not something the Brits do very often, to put it mildly. The last time it happened was nearly 400 years ago (1647), when Charles I was placed under arrest on the orders of Parliament. That ended with Charles losing his head. That's not likely to be Mountbatten-Windsor's fate, since the U.K. doesn't have capital punishment anymore (and since, even when it did, it stopped using beheading as a method of execution back in 1747). However, a stint in prison, and maybe even life in prison, is on the table.
Mountbatten-Windsor is the latest person to be ensnared in the fallout from the latest Epstein files release, and to have suffered, or to be facing, serious consequences as a result. Here are some others (and this is FAR from a comprehensive list):
There is one rather glaring omission from the list, a fellow whose name is all over the Epstein files, and who has yet to suffer so much as a scratch because of them. That fellow was flying on his airplane yesterday and, addressing the press about Mountbatten-Windsor's arrest, had this to say: "It's very sad. I think it's so bad for the royal family. It's very sad. It's a very sad thing. To me, it's a very sad thing." He added that he has an "expert" opinion on this particular subject, because he's in the files too, and yet he's been "totally exonerated."
Donald Trump, of course, has told some real whoppers in his time, but you'd have to look long and hard to find a bigger whopper than that one. The Department of Justice has been very obviously protecting their boss/master/lord, both by withholding some files and by grossly over-redacting others. And yet, the President is very, very far from having been "totally exonerated." It's actually considerably more correct to say he's been "totally implicated." As in "completely," "fully," "wholly," "entirely" and "beyond all reasonable doubt."
We actually thought this was as good a time as any to step back a small bit, and to give an overview of our sense as to where things stand. We'll start by saying that we think there are really three distinct "levels" of guilt that are possible here. The first of those, and least serious, is "Trump knew what Epstein was up to, and yet accepted it and they remained friends, even after Epstein was in serious legal trouble."
We have absolutely no doubt that Trump has, at very least, this level of guilt. Start with the now-infamous Epstein 50th birthday card, and work from there; as The New York Times reported, the publicly available files reference Trump/his family/his businesses over 38,000 times. There are, in other words, mountains of evidence that Trump was well aware of his good buddy's proclivities, and that he had no issue whatsoever with them. In fact, it's clear that Epstein's crimes were something the two men bonded over. It is also clear, beyond all doubt, that Trump lied about the date that his friendship with Epstein ended. The relationship continued years beyond that date, and years beyond Epstein's becoming a convicted felon, and there's some indication it lasted at least until Trump became a serious presidential candidate. Maybe even up to, and beyond, Trump's election in 2016.
The second, considerably more serious, level of guilt, is if Trump himself was a "client" of Epstein's, and had people procured for him. If Trump knew and looked the other way, that's sleazy, but probably not illegal. However, if Trump became a part of the whole arrangement, now we move into the realm of criminality, because at the very least, being a john is against the law.
There is plenty of evidence Trump was indeed a john, starting with witness and police reports that appear all over the Epstein files, even with the withholdings and the redactions, along with court and public testimony from victims. We also know Trump has absolutely no issue with paying for sexual partners. And we know that Trump views access to any woman he wants, any time he wants, as his birthright as a wealthy person. Is it really conceivable that a walking id like him would be close friends with the nation's most notorious procurer, and yet would not take advantage of those procurement services? Not to us, it isn't.
The third, and most serious, level of guilt is if Trump not only partook of Epstein's service, but committed felony-level offenses while doing so. Paying for sex is a crime, but it's not going to put you away for years or decades. But rape, forcible or statutory, certainly is. Assault certainly is. Murder certainly is. Trafficking women certainly is. All have been alleged against Trump, either within the files, or without, or both.
We've been confident about Trump's "level one" and "level two" guilt for some time now. And with everything that's come out in the last month or so, we're now confident in his "level three" guilt, as well. To start with, there is some really, really brutal stuff about Trump in the latest tranche of documents. Stuff that pretty clearly was not supposed to see the light of day because it was on the DoJ website, then disappeared, and then reappeared after an outcry (apparently, at least SOME people in the White House understand the Streisand Effect).
It is true that much of the material was preliminary reports to law enforcement, and that anyone can say pretty much anything they want to a police officer or FBI agent, and the officer/agent has to memorialize that. But there are so many women, and sometimes girls, making claims against Trump in the publicly available Epstein files (and lord knows what's in the stuff that's been held back). Then add in what's known for other reasons. "Grab 'em by the pu**y." Ivana Trump's claim that Donald raped her. The de facto finding that Trump raped E. Jean Carroll. His undisputed habit of visiting the dressing rooms of the beauty pageants he owned in order to leer at the teenage contestants. Because the consequences of making such reports, even if they are true, can be brutal for the women/girls who make them, they are rarely lies. And it's beyond credulity to believe that Trump could possibly be the subject of so many falsehoods, over so many years.
And then, add in what we know of Trump. He has little or no moral compass. He is also extremely careless and does not bother himself with details. If he was provided an underage victim by Epstein, can we really imagine Trump would bother to check and make sure the girl was of legal age? Or that he would care if he found out she wasn't? He's lived his whole life believing that rules and laws are for losers and suckers, not rich people like him. Indeed, not only do we believe he would not be bothered if he found out the target of his sexual desire was underage, we imagine it would likely be a plus. It would make him feel young and virile, and would also serve as affirmation that he's above the rules. Indeed, Trump's view that the rules are not for him was the point he was making with the whole "grab 'em" monologue:
You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pu**y. You can do anything.
If someone thinks like that, would they really say, "You can do anything. Well, unless the girl is not of age, of course"? Doubtful. Highly, highly, highly doubtful.
In short, we are now entirely confident that Trump committed sexual (and possibly other) crimes that are felonious in nature. This would also explain why he and his underlings are working so very hard to try to shield him as much as they can. But even if we limit ourselves to what is publicly known/available, we think there's evidence enough to convict in a court of law. Undoubtedly, the case would get even stronger if the full set of files was released, with the redactions done properly, instead of partisan-ly. The only questions that we think remain unresolved, when it comes to Trump-Epstein, are: (1) Did Epstein have video/audio kompromat on Trump and, if so, what was it? and (2) Was Trump helping run Epstein's shakedown schemes?
It is true that the Epstein situation has faded from the headlines many times, but it keeps coming back. Clearly, it has legs, and is not going away anytime soon. Meanwhile, it is also clear that Trump is very, very, very exposed. Will he one day pay an actual price for his misdeeds, and join the list above? We just don't know. However, we will say that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was feeling pretty good about things, and feeling like he might just have dodged most of the bullets, right up until a bunch of bobbies showed up to arrest him yesterday. So, Trump shouldn't be sleeping TOO soundly these days. (Z & A)