mcjihge2 wrote:My understanding of the prince andrew/ virginia giuffre case is that - the case is being heard because there is a ruling that the statue of limitations for historic events doesnt apply to under 18s. Im not sure that trafficking across state lines can be pined on andrew rather than epstein/maxwell. But at the time, the legal age of consent in new york was 17, therefore this isnt a pedo case, its a question of consent. Also presumebly virginia was "working" for epstein, and the link to andrew was as a "dissociated third party" (hey jeff- get me that hooker from the photograph again) . I do think andrew and virginia had sex, and that andrew is a amoral lying piece of gooseberry fool, but I dont see how a judge can rule against andrew. This is a civil case too, so the "worst/best" that can happen is that virginia will get awarded a few million of UK tax payers money.
What have i got wrong here?
I think you've missed the rape and trafficking part of the allegations. And that he continued to see the paedophile trafficker even after Epstein was exposed.
Plus while raping a trafficked 17 year old doesn't make him a paedophile, I don't really give a gooseberry fool if people call him a pedo rather than a ephebo, the terminology is not really the main concern here.
