Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

AZJonnie

(2,639 posts)
2. The situations are different between them for at least 2 important reasons
Mon Nov 3, 2025, 10:57 AM
Nov 3

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!"



Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»IF ANDREW CAN'T BE PRINCE...»Reply #2