In recent weeks, a cache of Jeffrey Epstein’s emails were released by the House of Representatives, and then the House and Senate approved of the release of the FBI/DOJ Epstein files. Alongside all of these Epstein revelations, House Democrats have repeatedly requested that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (the degenerate formerly known as Prince Andrew) speak to the House Oversight Committee about what he knows about Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. This has been a years-long attempt, first by the FBI and now by the House Democrats, to get Andrew on the record and under oath in some way about his dealings with Epstein. Andrew has consistently refused, and he has not traveled to America in years and years because he’s afraid he’ll be arrested or compelled to testify in some way. Andrew’s “friends” are always happy to speak to journalists though:

Andrew’s friends say there is “no way on earth” he will ever voluntarily sit for a congressional deposition—an exclusive insight that lands just as lawmakers in Washington grow increasingly infuriated by his silence.

One close friend of Andrew’s told The Royalist that representatives on the House Oversight Committee were merely “showboating” and “issuing self-aggrandizing press releases,” insisting they knew the former prince would never agree to testify and could not be compelled to do so.

Another friend said: “I hate to state the obvious, but no, he is not going to do a deposition in Congress.”

The comments came as Democrats on the House Oversight Committee issued an angry statement after a two-week deadline for Andrew to respond to the committee’s request for his cooperation in their Epstein enquiry expired without a peep from him.

Robert Garcia, the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, and Suhas Subramanyam, another member of the panel said: “Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s silence in the face of the Oversight Democrats’ demand for testimony speaks volumes. The documents we’ve reviewed, along with public records and Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s testimony, raise serious questions he must answer, yet he continues to hide. Our work will move forward with or without him, and we will hold anyone who was involved in these crimes accountable, no matter their wealth, status, or political party. We will get justice for the survivors.”

[From The Royalist Substack]

Yeah, it’s a pretty awful look for Andrew to accuse House Democrats of “showboating” for simply making a formal request that Andrew – a credibly accused rapist and human trafficker – testify about his knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein and participation in Epstein’s criminal activities. That being said, Andrew isn’t coming to America whatsoever, especially not to sit for a depo or to give testimony before Congress.

On the heels of the deadline passing, Prime Minister Keir Starmer was asked whether he believes Andrew should speak to Congress. Starmer said: “A general principle I’ve held for a very long time is that anybody who has got relevant information in relation to these kinds of cases should give that evidence to those that need it. That would be my general position on this.” Well, Andrew’s friends also raged about that as well:

[Starmer’s comments were] met with eye-rolling from Andrew’s ever-shrinking circle.

“Isn’t it incredible,” one told me, “that just as there’s talk of a leadership challenge against Starmer, he suddenly decides he’s the hammer of Prince Andrew?”

Andrew’s allies have long argued that he is a convenient political piñata. They made the same complaint when the House Oversight Committee sent a formal letter requesting that Andrew sit for a deposition or a transcribed interview about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Friends previously told The Royalist that U.S. politicians know perfectly well that Andrew will never testify, and cannot be compelled to do so. They say they are merely using his name to juice their press releases. Where the saga becomes more constitutionally fraught is in Andrew’s friends’ insistence that Britain will never prosecute him.

“He is the brother of the head of state,” one said. “He’s a lineal heir to the throne. He has had plenty of conversations with Charles over the years about the whole thing, because Charles signed off on the payment.” By “payment,” they mean the reported £12 million ($15m) Giuffre settlement, funded with significant royal assistance.

The argument essentially is that if Andrew discussed any part of the Giuffre matter with his brother before or after Charles became king, then the monarch is now entangled in that knowledge. Any prosecution in Britain could pull the king directly into the process as a material witness.

[From The Royalist Substack]

This has always been one of the things Andrew has held over his brother: if I go down, I’m taking you with me. Charles has known a great deal about Andrew’s crimes and activities for years and years. As this source says, Charles also had to sign off on the settlement to Virginia Giuffre in 2022. There’s absolutely no way that the British government/legal system can touch Andrew without blowing up what’s left of Charles’s reign as well. I believe that extends to any political press being applied to get Andrew to testify in America as well – there’s no mechanism with which the British government can “force” Andrew to speak to Congress. Now, all of Andrew’s dumb sh-t about “woe is me, I’m just a political pawn” is extremely pathetic. But that’s classic Andrew.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.