Alan Dershowitz Calls The Prince Andrew/Virginia Lawsuit A "Blunder"

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein’s alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act’s principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein’s associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors’ discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:[email protected]:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein’s alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act’s principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein’s associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors’ discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:[email protected]:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein’s alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act’s principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein’s associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors’ discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:[email protected]:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew’s tone-deaf Instagram moment perfectly encapsulated his inability to read the room—or reality. In February 2020, the Royal Family’s official Instagram account posted a cheerful birthday tribute for Andrew’s 60th birthday, complete with smiling photos and warm captions. The problem? This came right in the middle of the Epstein scandal, when Andrew’s name was synonymous with disgrace, denial, and alleged sexual abuse. The public reaction was instant and furious, with thousands calling it “inappropriate,” “insensitive,” and “tone-deaf.” At a time when most of the world expected humility, contrition, or silence, the royal social media team delivered a sugar-coated reminder of how out of touch the monarchy still was.The post didn’t just misfire—it symbolized the broader dysfunction of Andrew’s response to scandal. Rather than showing accountability, it projected the same self-serving blindness that had defined his downfall since the Newsnight interview. What should have been a quiet, private acknowledgment turned into another PR disaster that reignited anger and humiliation for the palace. In trying to pretend everything was normal, the monarchy only reminded the public how far from normal things truly were. The Instagram post wasn’t just a bad look—it was a case study in how delusion and privilege can sabotage even the simplest act of communication.to  contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Alan Dershowitz’s defense of Prince Andrew’s settlement with Virginia Giuffre reads less like legal analysis and more like a PR smokescreen dressed up as intellect. Dershowitz, himself a controversial figure tied to the Epstein saga, has claimed that Andrew only settled to avoid embarrassment and spare the monarchy further scandal — not because of guilt. But that explanation collapses under the weight of its own irony. If Andrew truly believed himself innocent, why not fight for exoneration? Why not take the stand and defend his name under oath, instead of wiring millions of pounds to a woman he insists he’s never met? The idea that a royal prince with endless legal resources had no choice but to settle is laughable; what he really had was too much to hide.Dershowitz’s framing — that Andrew “could have won on legal grounds” — ignores the brutal truth: a deposition would have been a public execution. His credibility had already been obliterated by the Newsnight interview, and a sworn testimony would’ve exposed even more inconsistencies, documents, and witnesses. The settlement wasn’t a tactical misstep; it was a desperate escape hatch. And Dershowitz defending him is rich, considering his own denials of involvement with Epstein’s victims. Both men relied on the same playbook — deny, deflect, and claim persecution by the media — while conveniently sidestepping the question of why their names appear in the same grotesque orbit. In the end, Dershowitz’s “legal strategy” argument feels less like reasoned commentary and more like damage control for a club of men who mistake settlements for salvation.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew’s attempts to maneuver his way out of disgrace were always doomed, a tragic farce masquerading as strategy. From the moment the Epstein connection came to light, every move he made only dug the hole deeper. His insistence on maintaining innocence while refusing transparency, his ill-fated Newsnight interview, and his reliance on royal privilege rather than accountability painted him as a man utterly detached from reality. Andrew seemed to believe that royal insulation and denial could outlast public outrage, yet every deflection—every "no recollection" and every attempt to hide behind Buckingham Palace—only amplified his guilt in the court of public opinion. By the time he settled with Virginia Giuffre, his options were no longer strategic—they were survivalist.The truth is, Andrew’s exile wasn’t a punishment; it was an inevitability. His downfall wasn’t the result of a single mistake, but a lifelong pattern of entitlement colliding with modern accountability. His efforts to cling to status—whether by trying to stage a “comeback,” whispering about new roles, or leaning on family ties—were like a drowning man grasping at fog. The monarchy, desperate to preserve itself, eventually realized that Andrew was a liability too radioactive to rehabilitate. His downfall was written the moment he mistook impunity for immunity. Now, stripped of titles, dignity, and relevance, Prince Andrew stands as the embodiment of how arrogance and denial can turn royal blood into social poison.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The downfall of Prince Andrew evolved over more than a decade, beginning with his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Initially dismissed as mere poor judgment, the relationship became indefensible after Epstein’s 2008 conviction and the release of court documents in 2014 linking Andrew to Epstein’s trafficking network. The real collapse began in 2019 after his disastrous BBC Newsnight interview, where Andrew appeared unremorseful and detached from reality while denying ever meeting Virginia Giuffre, who accused him of sexual abuse. The public backlash was swift and brutal, forcing him to step back from royal duties, lose numerous military and charitable titles, and face widespread condemnation across the UK and abroad.The second phase of Andrew’s downfall solidified in 2022 when he reached an out-of-court settlement with Giuffre, reportedly paying millions to avoid trial—an act widely viewed as an admission of guilt in everything but name. His exile deepened under King Charles III, who moved to strip him of all remaining titles and honours in 2025 and remove him from the Royal Lodge. Once a favored son of Queen Elizabeth II and decorated naval officer, Andrew has become a symbol of privilege without accountability—a man who tried to bluff his way through scandal but ultimately folded under the weight of his own arrogance and denial.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn’t justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta’s insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he’d been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:[email protected]:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bill Clinton continues to dodge a formal deposition about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein despite having ample time for public appearances, marathons, and speeches. The same lawmakers who claim that “no one is above the law” have shown no urgency in questioning the former president who welcomed Epstein to the White House seventeen times, accepted his seed money for the Clinton Foundation, and invited Ghislaine Maxwell to his daughter’s wedding. While they posture about accountability, their silence and inaction reveal a political double standard that shields their own. Clinton’s carefully managed image — complete with polished smiles and “I don’t recall” evasions — remains intact because those in power prefer the illusion of justice to the risk of truth.The spectacle has become political theater. Committees hold hearings, the media offers soft profiles, and the powerful continue to protect each other while victims are left waiting for real answers. Clinton’s absence from the witness chair is more than an oversight — it’s proof that justice in America operates on a sliding scale determined by status and influence. Every public event he attends is a reminder that accountability is optional for the elite, and every unasked question deepens the rot at the core of the system that claims to serve justice but exists only to preserve power.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In recently surfaced reports, it was revealed that Prince Andrew personally deleted references to sexual abuse survivors from official palace statements drafted in the aftermath of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. According to palace insiders, senior aides attempted to include lines acknowledging and expressing sympathy for the victims of Epstein’s crimes, but Andrew repeatedly struck those sections out before public release. His edits reportedly came at a time when the royal family was under immense scrutiny, and his actions were viewed internally as both tone-deaf and self-serving, reflecting his continued refusal to show genuine contrition or empathy.The revelations have reignited public anger and further cemented Andrew’s fall from grace. Royal commentators noted that his removal of those references symbolized how out of touch he remains, prioritizing his own reputation over compassion or accountability. This incident also underscores the divide between him and the rest of the royal family — particularly King Charles III — who later approved a statement explicitly expressing sympathy toward “the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.” The move was interpreted as a deliberate correction and an implicit rebuke of Andrew’s earlier actions.to contact me:[email protected]:Andrew erased royal tributes to Jeffrey Epstein victimsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.