IF ANDREW CAN'T BE PRINCE BECAUSE OF EPSTEIN, TRUMP CAN'T BE PRESIDENT BECAUSE OF EPSTEIN - 11.3.25 Keith Olbermann

[ihaveaquestion]

SEASON 4 EPISODE 30: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN

A-Block (2:30) SPECIAL COMMENT: If Andrew can no longer be PRINCE because of Jeffrey Epstein, Trump can no longer be PRESIDENT because of Jeffrey Epstein.

I think Trump understands this. I have no doubt Mike Johnson understands this. I believe even large swaths of the otherwise imbecilic MAGA understand this. It is why Trump and Johnson and the others are starving the needy; dissolving Congress; destroying the domestic balance of power and gutting the work infrastructure at airports, government agencies, and services. It is why they are even cutting the legs out from under every Republican candidate in tomorrow’s handful of elections.

Andrew has been convicted of nothing; Trump has been convicted of nothing. There are no astounding legal findings against Andrew; there are no astounding legal findings against Trump. There are probably no smoking guns about Andrew in the Epstein files; there are probably no smoking guns about Trump in the Epstein files. The status of their scandals is roughly identical.

[flashman13]

1. If King Charles can fire the Prince (his own brother) because of Epstein, then We the People can fire

the President because of Epstein.

Olbermann does mention that news of the firing was second only to stories on the destruction in Jamaica on the BBC on Friday. There are suggestions that Andrew may issue some sort of statement (possibly at the King's insistence) on what he knows about Epstein.

[AZJonnie]

2. The situations are different between them for at least 2 important reasons

1) Andrew has an accuser who sued him, and put her experience in writing and court testimony. This same accuser has said she never saw Trump around Epstein. Never saw him at Epstein's estate, never spoke to another victim who said they had seen him there.
2) The removal of Andrew's royal titles requires the direction of only one person, the reigning monarch. Removing Trump from office requires that hundreds of craven and feeble-mined sycophants which I call the GQP (also known as republicans) direct and consent to that removal.

The more clear-cut sex-related example for Trump should be E. Jean Carroll, and the 20 or so women who've said Trump grabbed 'em by the hoohah, in some sense or another. And yet, a sizeable enough percentage of Americans saw that verdict, and these claims (and most of those were before the FIRST time in 2016), and said "Meh, pwning the libtards is more important than little old sexual assaults! Like Dear Leader says, we let you do it!"