When Peter Mandelson Met Jeffery Epstein

[tyke1962]

You should always judge a man by the company he keeps in my opinion .


https://youtu.be/0sQY8623YlE

[drfchound]

Another one, surely not.

[albie]

The big issue of Prince Andrew having to give evidence under oath in the Civil case brought by Guiffre is whether new information leading to criminal charges could arise.

It is a big risk to put a plank like Andrew under cross examination from an experienced QC in the US courts. He would be stripped to the bone by a starving piranha.

The address book of Epstein is an interesting study.
Why did he need so many different contacts for Mandelson?
Why does he have details of private numbers for new Labour figures like Blair and Campbell...and will we ever know?

[SydneyRover]

You really think for a nanosecond that the lawyers for private citizen Andrew Windsor will allow him to go to America, even if he was dumb enough to want to go Albie? Oh that's right he did an interview with Emily Maitlis against solid advice.

The shame that he and his family have brought upon the British is unfathomable, the company you keep aye?

[albie]

Sydney, you have not understood the legal process.

It is not the choice of Andrew(or his lawyers) if he gives evidence under oath, it is the decision of Virginia Guiffre about whether she will settle out of court.

If Guiffre wants her day in court, I expect Andrew would be interviewed by her legal team in the UK. It makes no difference if that process takes place in the US, or in the UK.

That cross examination under oath would then be submitted as evidence to the civil trial.
What I am saying is that information which comes forward as a part of that cross examination could have implications for others.

[SydneyRover]

Are you saying he will have no choice but to be 'interviewed' by her lawyers Albie?

[albie]

It is not an interview (like Newsnight), it is giving evidence as a part of the formal legal process.

My understanding is that Andrew can refuse to comment, but that will lead to him being found guilty by failing to give a defense against the accusation brought.

[SydneyRover]

It is not an interview (like Newsnight), it is giving evidence as a part of the formal legal process.

My understanding is that Andrew can refuse to comment, but that will lead to him being found guilty by failing to give a defense against the accusation brought.

Legal process not like a tv interview, I'll try and remember that Albie.

so that's a no then?

[Sprotyrover]

The big issue of Prince Andrew having to give evidence under oath in the Civil case brought by Guiffre is whether new information leading to criminal charges could arise.

It is a big risk to put a plank like Andrew under cross examination from an experienced QC in the US courts. He would be stripped to the bone by a starving piranha.

The address book of Epstein is an interesting study.
Why did he need so many different contacts for Mandelson?
Why does he have details of private numbers for new Labour figures like Blair and Campbell...and will we ever know?
[/quote

Hmm the New Labour Sleaze Balks Blair and Mandelson under scrutiny and Blair a ‘33’ very interesting

[albie]

Here you go, Syd.

A summary from the BBC in Jan 2020;
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51283976

Since then, Judge Kaplan ordered that the depositions phase continue, with a view to a hearing in late 2022.

What I don't know is whether Andrew can only refuse to answer on the grounds of self incrimination under US law.
There is little point in contesting the allegations, but not providing evidence in defense.

All that would do is run up legal costs of both parties to no purpose, with Andrew picking up the tab for both sets of costs.

Keep in mind that although this is a civil case, the central allegation of exploiting a trafficked minor is a criminal offense in the US. The FBI investigation into Epstein/Maxwell could take an interest if relevant to their ongoing work.

[glosterred]

Seems this thread needs a title change as it’s gone from “When Peter Mandelson met Jeffrey Epstein” to talking about Prince Andrew, looks like some people are blowing smoke to get off a touchy subject

[albie]

Prince Andrew and the Epstein connections are 2 branches from the same tree, Gloster.

The hearing between Guiffre and Andrew is the next scheduled instalment in the wider consideration.
Depending on what info comes forward, there may be implications for others in the extended Epstein network.

[glosterred]

More smoke

[SydneyRover]

Here you go, Syd.

A summary from the BBC in Jan 2020;
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51283976

Since then, Judge Kaplan ordered that the depositions phase continue, with a view to a hearing in late 2022.

What I don't know is whether Andrew can only refuse to answer on the grounds of self incrimination under US law.
There is little point in contesting the allegations, but not providing evidence in defense.

All that would do is run up legal costs of both parties to no purpose, with Andrew picking up the tab for both sets of costs.

Keep in mind that although this is a civil case, the central allegation of exploiting a trafficked minor is a criminal offense in the US. The FBI investigation into Epstein/Maxwell could take an interest if relevant to their ongoing work.

Thanks Albie, so even though 'I don't understand the legal process' I was pretty much correct?

[albie]

No Syd, I think that you were incorrect.

The BBC report says that Andrew does have to give evidence if he wishes to defend the claim, and he would face examination under oath on that evidence.

If he chooses to make "no comment", then the US system terms that a default. He may try to support that evidence with a defense witness, but it is difficult to see how much weight that might carry on its own.
Essentially it means that Guiffres claim is uncontested.

As the allegation (in a civil case) is that a criminal act took place, it opens the possibility of further interest from the FBI.

Plenty of stuff on-line on the next steps, if you want to look yourself.

Gloster,

What is more smoke?
I don't understand your comment.

[SydneyRover]

No comment, no interview, is that correct?

[albie]

No Syd,

1)
Andrew wants to defend against the claim, so he must make himself available for the examination.
2)
No comment to all questions means he has effectively provided no defence, so Guiffre wins if she does put up reasonable evidence in support of her claim.

Plenty in the Guardian today on this, give it a read.

[SydneyRover]

I know what no-comment means Albie, thanks

[drfchound]

So back to the original topic of the OP……..
I guess no one want to talk about Mandelsons reasons for being Bessie mate with Epstein.

[SydneyRover]

I guess everyone did, all those years ago

[drfchound]

Wow, an answer to a question.

[SydneyRover]

Wow, an answer to a question.

another,23633

[glosterred]

A lot more smoke being blown

[drfchound]

Wow, an answer to a question.

another,23633

That isn’t an answer to a question so normal inane service resumed.

[SydneyRover]

A lot more smoke being blown

that's exactly what the story is about glosterred

[redwine]

I totally agree with OP.

I'll just throw in Big eared Charlie and Jimmy Savile

[albie]

Many questions about the activities of Peter Mandelson, here are some starters;
https://dorseteye.com/the-labour-party-must-now-suspend-peter-mandelson/

Not that there is likely to be any response, unless information thrown up by the court action deposition gives a window.

[drfchound]

Many questions about the activities of Peter Mandelson, here are some starters;
https://dorseteye.com/the-labour-party-must-now-suspend-peter-mandelson/

Not that there is likely to be any response, unless information thrown up by the court action deposition gives a window.

Cheers albie, nice to get a sensible response.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Seems this thread needs a title change as it’s gone from “When Peter Mandelson met Jeffrey Epstein” to talking about Prince Andrew, looks like some people are blowing smoke to get off a touchy subject

If someone is trying to infer that Epstein supplied underage girls for Mandelson to shag I think they're going to look very foolish.

[sha66y]

Mandy likes boys ..........