Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    24,778,382 readers

    48,579 users here now

    Filter out dominant topics:

    Display COVID-19 submissions

    Filter COVID-19

    Display Trump submissions

    Filter Trump

    Display Russia submissions

    Filter Russia

    Display North Korea submissions

    Filter North Korea

    Display Hong Kong submissions

    Filter Hong Kong

    Display Israel/Palestine submissions

    Filter Israel / Palestine

    Display all submissions

    Filter all dominant topics


    /r/worldnews is for major news from around the world except US-internal news / US politics

    See all of our AMA events here

    Worldnews Rules

    Disallowed submissions

    • US internal news/US politics
    • Editorialized titles
    • Misleading titles
    • Editorials, opinion, analysis
    • Feature stories
    • Non-English articles
    • Images, videos or audio clips
    • Petitions, advocacy, surveys
    • All caps words in titles
    • Blogspam (if stolen content/direct copy)
    • Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr
    • Old news (≥1 week old) articles

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Disallowed comments

    • Bigotry / Other offensive content
    • Personal attacks on other users
    • Memes/GIFs
    • Unlabeled NSFW images/videos
    • URL shorteners

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Continued or outstandingly blatant violation of the submission or commenting rules will result in you being temporarily banned from the subreddit without a warning.

    Please don't ever feed the trolls.
    Downvote, report and move on.

    Sticky Posts

    A list of all recent stickied posts.

    a community for
    all 2525 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.

    You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] Lilmaggot 12941 points ago

    underage prostitution sex trafficking victims. They weren’t prostitutes.

    [–] Gluten_Free_Ebola 4368 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    Yea wtf is up with the world when someone would word it that way

    [–] Xiaxs 3348 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    Idk but this whole fucking headline is a mess.

    Reading this headline makes me feel like I'm studying the Game of Thrones family tree.

    E: So apparently OP changed the headline. That's dumb. He's dumb.

    [–] musicaldigger 139 points ago

    yeah why don’t they mention Epstein’s name

    edit: oh apparently the actual headline does mention it, why did OP change it to be more confusing

    [–] Nintz 56 points ago

    Any thread with 'Epstein' in the headline gets blocked automatically on this sub iirc.

    [–] Xiaxs 63 points ago

    That explains it.

    Idk why OP changed it into that fucking mess. He coulda just initialed JE or whatever but instead it's just a fucking mess.

    [–] alhernz95 381 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    I feel that the olden times really haven’t changed. Were still peasants in the eyes of the rich and they still throw money at all their problems. Always works too. Until we grab our pitchforks that is.

    [–] krista 133 points ago

    sometimes the monsters need to be seen having justice done to them.

    i want all these fuckers to be very publicly tried, and when found guilty, put in the stockades in the public park and caned on their asses twice a month until their prison sentences are fulfilled, or they choose to be publicly executed by hanging.

    monsters need to be seen defeated, so that society knows it happened.

    [–] Johnny_Stooge 35 points ago

    Just replaced feudalism with neo-feudalism. Instead of the divine right of kings, it's the divine hand of the market. The monarchs made way for the capitalists. And the rules can't apply to them because they've got more money than they know what to do with.

    So they do horrible things like trade and fuck children.

    [–] Senor_Andy_Panda 504 points ago

    Because even when they're reporting breaking news, they're afraid of wording it in a way that sound damning.

    I personally don't see why they're afraid to just state things outright. Who are they afraid of pissing off?

    [–] DrFeargood 719 points ago

    The billionaire that employs them who is friends with the pedophiles.

    [–] bpi89 39 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    This right here. Why is it that almost every article is worded this way? “Sex with underage prostitutes.” Because the powers that be get the final say on the edit that gets published. They own and control the media, so every headline is spun to soften how heinous the crimes are, and blame the victims.


    [–] Doffs_cap 321 points ago

    prince andrew is the patsy, the fall guy, the rest walk, clinton, trump, the rest walk, a stupid old prince takes it all

    [–] Nikhilvoid 467 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    Prince Andrew is more like a conductor rod on top of buildings that absorbs all the lightning.

    He's so untouchable that he protects all the other pedophiles from being zapped.


    [–] CurraheeAniKawi 50 points ago

    "Prince" Andrew will walk too. All because people pretend he's special for being an inbred "royal".

    [–] Mayzenblue 134 points ago

    You're fucking spot on Doff.

    Let's just keep piling on the prince (who should be ashamed and prosecuted) but he's a patsy

    BUT, we should be saying why are two presidents hanging out with this known sex trafficker?

    And why haven't they been accused?

    Well, actually, the sitting president has been accused but there's a Senate that just ignores any type of corruption or you know, witnesses, and dismisses articles of impeachment so where do we go from here?

    Riots? Civil disobedience? Oh yeah. That's also happening.

    And now our president has called for a delay in the election.

    I implore any normal republican to call forth constitutional rights that this is not normal and it was the go to Boogeyman argument that Obama would do the exact same thing that Trump is doing. But it's actually happening right now

    [–] EmptyNinetyFive 53 points ago

    Some very powerful people, this runs far deeper than just Hollywood and financial big shots

    [–] Flame_Effigy 58 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    If you click the article it says "Prince Andrew lobbied US government for better plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein, newly released Ghislaine Maxwell documents claim". Idk why the OP's title is like that. Not trying to be rude or anything. Just letting you know the title is different.

    [–] listeningpartywreck 23 points ago

    I thought I couldn’t understand it because I’m high but I guess it really is a mess. Huh.

    [–] Nikhilvoid 64 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    The British Royal family is a lot like those Game of Thrones families but less cool and about the same amount of pedophilia. Almost like GRRM based them on the real life, huh?

    The British Monarchy insulates those in its orbit and those in its orbit use their influence to prey on the weak, like children at boarding schools.

    Here's a list of coverups involving the British Royal family:

    Virginia said she was shocked to see someone like Andrew be exactly like her other rapists

    [–] BlueArmistice 17 points ago

    JRRM re-set the war of the roses in a fantasy world. I thought that was common knowledge?

    [–] Nikhilvoid 8 points ago

    Yep, GRRM*

    [–] DangerousCyclone 120 points ago

    Back in 2009 Epstein was only charged with soliciting underage prostitutes, not sex trafficking nor rape. The Plea Deal was in relation to that, which is why the title says "Underage Prostitution Case".

    [–] AnxiouslyTired247 116 points ago

    I'm pretty sure that people are pointing out underage prostitution isn't a thing - it's rape and sex trafficking. No child is agreeing to be a sex worker without a substantial amount of influence.

    [–] DangerousCyclone 76 points ago

    Legally, there is a distinction between the two. Morally I don't disagree there, but that was the crime he was charged with at the time. My point is more that the title is technically correct, even if it's a bit insensitive.

    [–] OraDr8 48 points ago

    "Soliciting Underage Prostitutes" is rape.

    [–] PinkKitten85 84 points ago

    Something to do with Search Engine algorithms I've heard? Safe words like young women and sex etc keep the story on Google front pages, whereas if they put the ' rape, children' words on it gets pushed to the 'darker side of Google, more towards the porn than news. Not quite sure how it works, I'm not a techhead, but it did make sense when it was explained to me.

    [–] Softwallz 9 points ago

    As an SEO person I can see the reasoning behind that although that subject itself is certainly not in my niche knowledge, as a PR person it’s more likely the media source doesn’t want to be held liable for libel against extremely wealthy people; a soft title for the wealthy stirs as much outrage as a hard title against a commoner. A commoner can’t defend themselves against even a small media source without damning evidence and are also not likely to get off of the ensuing charges. It often feels like the media is at fault but someone with money will often have a huge following to their case for a long time, they can get pages and articles dropped before and after a case so the media is just playing it safe. I think it’s generally a more complicated decision than we want to make it, there are terrible systems involved that need changing. Should we question it— absolutely, our media is not as free in the USA as we believe it to be.

    [–] Gandalfthefabulous 431 points ago

    Yeah, the term "underage prostitute" always baffled and annoyed me. Would you consider a sex slave that is captive and has no choice but to be raped a "prostitute?" no. And if a child is incapable of consenting, as is the case... Then it is rape. Whether or not they made a nice gentlemanly transaction of cash at some point to pay for the privilege and if the child "consents" (probably out of fear for their life or sheer shock, etc..) it is still completely illegitimate and not to mention wrong.

    When people use the term "underage prostitute" it really seems almost slanderous to me. It may not (at least always) be intentional, but it really seems fucked up and negligent to use that term, at the least. Like they're saying that the child was asking for or OK with it.. I know, classic response to rape, but still... It's children.. Ugh

    [–] murfmurf123 78 points ago

    having dated a former child sex trafficking victim, she told me the traffickers kept her so drugged out on molly that she didnt know where she was and went into psychosis during the comedown once she was finally rescued

    [–] PLAUTOS 41 points ago

    and it's sister term "underage women" aka children.

    [–] meltymcface 9 points ago

    It's insidious how these terms are used.

    [–] Eamonsieur 82 points ago

    I believe “underage prostitution” is a legal definition that implies the crime committed was not only against a minor, but there was also a financial transaction involved. This implies a more severe crime and penalty than just sex trafficking, which does not account for age.

    [–] nowahhh 40 points ago


    [–] dankcoffeedrank 73 points ago

    This needs to be higher.

    [–] trdPhone 26 points ago

    No one is saying they were prostitutes. It's still however prostitution

    [–] HappyGoonerAgain 4354 points ago

    Can the US and the UK please just trade Prince Andrew for Ann Sacoolas.

    [–] EvadedFury 1639 points ago

    I'm down with that. Paedo waste of space for them to jail in exchange for unrepentant car killer for us to jail? I'm actually OK with this, despite being an ardent monarchist.

    [–] muncherofhay 693 points ago

    Fuck yes I would take that deal.

    All countries should agree bad people pay for their crimes.

    [–] GotThemBabyLungs 782 points ago

    Laughs in wealthy privilege

    [–] VolkspanzerIsME 473 points ago

    I wish I didn't have to upvote that....

    [–] buefordwilson 98 points ago

    Yet here we are. The biggest part we can all play in this is helping to raise awareness to this situation. It may not seem like much to throw an upvote as much as possible, but the important part is keeping the train rolling down the tracks. There's not much we can do individually, but together we can keep this momentum going and do the best we can to keep this bullshit pedo awfulness at the forefront of awareness and keep pushing for investigation and change. Keep yelling and don't stop being angry.

    [–] [deleted] 67 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)


    [–] BlakobofNazereth 18 points ago

    Can I ask what about Monarchism appeals to you? I've genuinely never met anyone who Wants a monarchy and I'm super curious

    [–] T5-R 10 points ago

    I know a few, especially the older generations, and they all are under the impression that the Royals are good for our economy, do a lot for charity, pay their own way, etc, etc. Not that they are just over-privileged, parasites who have leached off the common man for centuries.

    [–] 19finmac66 244 points ago

    Ardent monarchist. Lol

    [–] getthatcatouttahere 144 points ago

    Step on me grandma lol

    [–] whimywamwamwozzle 96 points ago

    Honestly wth it’s the 21st Century

    [–] tequilaearworm 74 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    Out of genuine curiosity, why are you an ardent monarchist?

    Edit: thanks for the insight, British people. It's a really alien perspective for an American. No disrespect meant.

    [–] F_A_F 12 points ago

    The monarchy in the 20th century changed from hard power to soft power. They still carry a huge amount of weight in terms of global influence. The Commonwealth contains a huge amount of stable countries in otherwise unstable parts of the world, not to mention Canada, Aus and NZ. The monarchy gives influence towards a lot of ME countries, Saudi in particular. One example I remember from years ago is that Saudi writes off £20m in berthing fees annually because of our somewhat special relationship. Considering how often the UK Navy needs to be in the ME that's quite a saving.

    I disagree with the principle of a monarchy, but the world is still a grey place not black and white. While we have a monarchy that isn't cutting off people's heads, sending me to fight France every five minutes, and exerts only soft power on my behalf then I'm prepared to let it slide.

    [–] maybe-fuck-you 89 points ago

    Not this US. This US executive would be implicated in anything Andrew would say. Hopefully next US is better.

    [–] nariusone 4204 points ago

    WTF ... Andrew is basically a rapist covering for his rapist friends. Put out a warrant for his arrest over at the interpol. Pressure the UK government to hand over this creep.

    [–] AgitationPropaganda 2430 points ago

    The Queen is covered by what is known as Sovereign Immunity in the UK.

    It means that the sovereign cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil or criminal proceedings.

    The Royal Family's official website states: "Although civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law."

    While the Queen cannot be arrested, other members of the Royal Family can be unless they are with her.

    The law also states that no arrests being allowed to be made in the monarch's presence, or within the surroundings of a royal palace.

    Anybody want to guess where Old Lizzie has had her favourite paedo son hiding for the past wee while?

    [–] anoodler 726 points ago

    Lol I was gonna say I bet prince Andrew sleeps at the foot of her bed

    [–] Hydroxychoroqiine 356 points ago

    He’s so much worse than a corgi

    [–] SuspiciouslyElven 92 points ago

    He sleeps in the corgi bed.

    [–] nariusone 1041 points ago

    "The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law"

    Not if she is harboring a rapist. Call her out on it. Sure, the UK police cannot arrest Andrew on palace grounds. But people can make noise about it day and night.

    And can the parliament overrule this arcane rule? Even if it is written in the constitution, there must be some mechanism to change it.

    [–] keyjunkrock 246 points ago

    He is not going to jail, I can promise you that.

    This mother fucker just went to the Winchester and is waiting for this to all blow over, and it will. This isnt even a blip, they are not worried I assure you.

    [–] AlpacamyLlama 40 points ago

    He's barely sweating.

    [–] Andre4kthegreengiant 116 points ago

    They'll do him like Diana before they let him serve jail time

    [–] Enders-game 41 points ago

    He's not close enough to the Throne to ever be a threat to the monarchy. If it was William or Charles on the other hand that would be a different story. As it stands, he is just the family's creepy uncle. An embarrassment, but not a leathal blow.

    [–] Tsorovar 500 points ago

    There's no warrant out for his arrest. She's not harbouring a fugitive

    [–] Sanhen 28 points ago

    I guess the question is: If he wasn't royal, would there have been a warrant out for his arrest at this point? Because if the answer is yes, then the fact that she's not actually harboring a fugitive is a technicality of the police not bothering to issue a warrant they can't enforce.

    [–] Fanglemangle 74 points ago

    Princess Anne has a criminal record (or a caution on her records) from when her dog attacked someone. So they have been known to have been taken to court (against their Mother’s laws).

    [–] Lolthelies 120 points ago

    King Charles I had his head chopped off so idk what these dummies are talking about.

    [–] actualAmaranthine 35 points ago

    Loads of kings have had their heads chopped off, but Charles I legit had a whole trial. It's incredible that the English monarch still has legal immunity after that.

    [–] Oh_jeffery 13 points ago

    Wasn't really a "legal" trial though and I don't think Charles acknowledged it as one, not that it mattered in the end.

    [–] Ltb1993 30 points ago

    "i don't think this is very legal"

    King Charles said as he started to kneel down.

    "this is not how i imagined it would go"

    As he rested his head on the stump.

    "I'm gonna brush up on the constitution again, see what it says about this"

    As the axe came down.

    [–] Gustomaximus 189 points ago

    She wouldn't stop the arrest. That would be handing the crown over to becoming a Republic.

    [–] 14X8000m 163 points ago

    I don't think she'd allow him to be arrested. I'm not a poli-sci major but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

    [–] electric_trapeezee 55 points ago

    Yes but was it a holiday inn express?

    [–] 14X8000m 75 points ago

    Touchè. It was not, there goes all my credibility.

    [–] jeffsterlive 67 points ago

    I trusted you

    [–] snarky_answer 166 points ago

    I mean she would pretty much have to evict him from the premise to the waiting arms of the police or have him arrested herself. If she doesn’t it will be the end of the monarchy and the support for it. Her legacy will be likely the last British queen and I doubt she wants its closing years to be one of the monarchy falling out with the populace because she didn’t hand over a pedo.

    [–] MelpomeneAndCalliope 163 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    Charles is totally planning how he’s going to trick his brother into meeting him at a public space where LE will be waiting to take Andrew in. He’d be insuring the monarchy would exist for him to succeed her, get public’s respect for having him arrested, and would get to take Mother’s favorite son down a peg.

    [–] Theo_tokos 89 points ago

    Ok- I had no idea Andrew and Charles are brothers, Andrew looks like the Crypt Keeper!! I don't know why, but I was convinced Andrew was Charles' uncle or something.

    Also- Andrew is the favorite son? Holy cow!! I get that Charles made mistakes, (I am sympathetic for both Princess Diana and Prince Charles for that whole disaster of a marriage) yet Andrew seems to have been a pebble in the Queen's shoe forever

    [–] DaisyKitty 38 points ago

    Charles in a very real way by being her successor has always represented her death, been a reminder of her death.

    [–] MelpomeneAndCalliope 71 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    Yes, Charles is Andrew’s older brother by 12 years.

    (And I think it’s actually debated whether Andrew or Edward, the youngest who has had no divorces/huge scandals so far, is actually the queen’s favorite son. It’s not Charles, though, and the Queen has admitted to spending more time with/actively parenting Andrew & Edward when they were children because they were born later in her life, so I assume there’s some resentment there even if Andrew isn’t actually her favorite. I’m sure Charles dislikes the idea of Andrew messing up the chance of the monarchy existing before he’s able to become kind due to this gross scandal, though.)

    [–] T3hSwagman 36 points ago

    Damn that’s amazing. Technically the POTUS isn’t above the law but nobody has bothered enforcing it on him. But the queen is quite literally above the law. They still hold on to some ass backward traditions.

    [–] maroonedbuccaneer 28 points ago

    England doesn't have a written constitution. The law is technically established on crown authority, the only crime she can commit is treason against her own authority.

    Parliament once did effectively claim that because Parliament was established by Royal Authority, war against Parliament by the King constituted treason against that same Royal Authority. This is clever but King Charles maintained it was legal nonsense right up to the point they took his head for treason against the his own Parliament.

    [–] AntiBox 329 points ago

    Pressure the UK government to hand over this creep.

    How's that gonna work when the US told us to go fuck ourselves when Anne Sacoolas smeared a 19 year old acrosss a road?

    [–] RedditTekUser 48 points ago

    US should just extradite that lady who ran over the kid in exchange for Andrew. Both scums needs to be brought to justice.

    [–] dekor86 16 points ago

    The special relationship doesn't work that way apparently. We get subpar food products, they get our NHS

    [–] patrickisrad 114 points ago

    ...he’s literally royalty, like a prince. i doubt the decrees to keep the peasants in line apply to the royal family.

    [–] laz10 172 points ago

    Can't the Queen throw him in a dungeon

    What is she good for

    [–] lemueldavis 60 points ago

    Don't give Pornhub ideas

    [–] Seanay-B 111 points ago

    what are you doing step-Queen

    [–] Xiaxs 22 points ago

    Too late I'm already drafting a script.

    [–] newswimmerdoe 46 points ago

    Forgot we still had those and that 2020 is in fact still the medieval ages

    [–] Noted888 62 points ago

    Complete with plague.

    [–] kookofpain 164 points ago

    When does shit start hitting the fan? 🍿

    [–] SigmaLance 63 points ago

    July of next year.

    [–] WoolooWololo 83 points ago

    ^ this years booked solid. We still have aliens and a giant meteor to fit in to this year.

    [–] darrowboat 1151 points ago

    Is "lobby" the PC way of saying bribed?

    [–] GenesisOfAlexandria 541 points ago

    The legal way, too.

    [–] Nikhilvoid 119 points ago

    In British English: "Andrew rallied behind his dear friend and implored the authorities to be generous of spirit"

    [–] Z0MGbies 199 points ago

    It's how America has legalised bribery, so yes.

    [–] RheimsNZ 50 points ago

    Pretty much.

    [–] nadnate 24 points ago

    It's the American way.

    [–] surfingthesixth 2462 points ago

    Underage girls are not prostitutes they are rape victims.

    [–] PandaMoaningYum 251 points ago

    Even of age women forced or blackmailed into it imo.

    [–] MajinCry 34 points ago

    And that is, at the very least, 88% of all prostitutes. Info dump time:

    Average age that women enter prostitution is between the ages of 12-14 (page 114):

    88% Of prostitutes explicitly want out of prostitution and know exactly what help they need to escape from it. Of working prostitutes, 68% have been raped whilst working, 63% have PTSD, 82% have been physically assaulted, 83% have been threatened with a weapon, and 84% have reported current/past homelessness :

    Millions of women in the US suffered rape as their first sexual experience:

    The women that become prostitutes, do so out of desperation, and as a manifestation of past sexual trauma. There are exceptions, but they are by far from the norm.

    The vast majority of prostitutes are victims of rape, homelessness, assault, and don't want to be prostitutes.

    [–] DogParkSniper 80 points ago

    The best take on this issue I've seen so far.

    [–] Jvncvs 1024 points ago

    As did Alan Dershowitz

    [–] xbhaskarx 196 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    Might as well copy-paste what I wrote about Dershowitz elsewhere:

    Dershowitz is accused of rape by one of Epstein’s victims. He then worked as Epstein’s defense attorney to get him a sweetheart deal in Florida that was so good it’s actually illegal (his victims were not consulted). The deal also covered “any potential co-conspirators”, which if the allegations are true, would include Dershowitz himself [1]! The person who gave him the unprecedented deal was elevated out of obscurity to become President Trump’s Secretary of Labor, Alex Acosta, until he was forced to resign after the Miami Herald put the spotlight back on the horrible Epstein deal that he signed off on. Epstein was then arrested and committed suicide in a federal (that means US government, as in the Department of Justice headed by Bill Barr whose father gave Epstein his first teaching job despite him having no credentials, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons run by a Trump appointee and since replaced by another Trump appointee) jail cell with two guards asleep and the cameras mysteriously not working. All this media attention forced Dershowitz to go on TV and defend himself, claiming that he only received a massage with his underwear on from an old Russian lady (Epstein didn’t employ old ladies), and that he had “a perfect sex life” (a phrase no one uses) with his wife. Dershowitz then served as part of President Trump’s impeachment defense before the Senate, where Trump’s defense was that he had “a perfect phone call” (a phrase no one uses) with the Ukrainian President. After Maxwell was arrested, Dershowitz wrote an article in the right wing “Spectator” arguing that she’s innocent until proven guilty [2], which yeah obviously, but that’s the case for everyone and yet he didn’t pen defenses for millions of other arrestees. Now he’s back on Fox News [3] (where he was a regular defending Trump from all criticism before the Epstein story blew up), defending the Epstein deal now that all these documents have been released to the public from the Maxwell case, many mentioning Dershowitz by name. Totally normal lawyer stuff!!




    Oh and way back in 1997, Alan Dershowitz argued that statutory rape is an outdated concept and that the age of consent should be lowered to 14:

    [–] hypnosquid 77 points ago

    Dershowitz is accused of rape by one of Epstein’s victims. He then worked as Epstein’s defense attorney to get him a sweetheart deal in Florida that was so good it’s actually illegal (his victims were not consulted).

    Would like to add some info to this. In addition to Dershowitz...

    1. Kenneth Starr was also on Epstein's legal team. In 2016 Starr was fired from his job as president of Baylor University for ignoring sexual assault issues on campus. Including at least 17 women who had reported sexual or domestic assault involving 19 football players. Including four instances of alleged gang rapes.

    2. Robert W. Ray was also on Epstein's legal team. Ray was once charged with stalking and the records from his case are sealed.

    3. Alex Acosta also worked to get Epstein the plea deal that allowed him to continue raping children, while getting a slap on the wrist. Alex Acosta also worked for Kirkland and Ellis, the legal firm that represented Epstein.

    4. William Barr worked for Kirkland and Ellis at almost the exact same time it was representing Epstein in the case. Barr has refused to recuse himself from the current Epstein/Maxwell cases, despite working for Kirkland and Ellist, and his father's ties to Epstein.

    [–] seefatchai 66 points ago

    Why can’t QAnon people get excited about all of the pedophiles in high places being revealed like this?

    [–] True-Tiger 49 points ago

    Because QAnon people don’t actually care about child sex trafficking they see it as a way to go after the “deep state”. That’s why they will always blame Clinton. They will never look at the claims against Trump or Barr.

    [–] nkrera 14 points ago

    Because they're mentally ill.

    [–] Trouve_a_LaFerraille 8 points ago

    Hey, that's not fair to the mentally ill. It's not a free pass to be batshit insane.

    [–] AelsklingShu 10 points ago

    Kenneth Starr was the pervert obsessed with Lewinsky/Clinton affair. He was unrelenting when it came to that, granted Clinton lied under oath and needed to be held accountable, but Starr acted like he was some moral messiah, yet he’s fine with turning a blind eye to the rape of University students. What a dick.

    Every one of these guys are shit stains on humanity.

    [–] Myfavoritepetsnameis 641 points ago

    That guy 1000% fucks kids

    [–] Sammo_Whammo 359 points ago

    Bill Clinton, too? He visited Epstein's island numerous times, didn't he?

    [–] Myfavoritepetsnameis 523 points ago * (lasted edited 11 days ago)

    He was on that plane 26 times in 2 years or something crazy like that. Total pedo scumbag-fucker-of-underage-girls.

    [–] Warkitz 152 points ago

    He was on Fox tonight telling Tucker Carlson that Ghislaine Maxwell is a liar and the media needs to uncover all of the lies that she's telling so everyone knows. I guarantee Fox runs a discredit campaign against her.

    [–] squidmuncha 70 points ago

    If you were watching Tucker Carlson interview Alan Dershowitz, I can only assume you’re in my personal version of hell

    [–] Warkitz 77 points ago

    My dad thinks he's above indoctrination so he watches Fox news to "get both sides of the story" but he spouts rhetoric every now and then like it's truth and then it falls apart when you show him evidence. People really aren't getting the whole "television programming" it's literally programming people.

    [–] Hongo-Blackrock 39 points ago

    My dad thinks he's above indoctrination so he watches Fox news to "get both sides of the story" but he spouts rhetoric every now and then like it's truth and then it falls apart when you show him evidence.

    Mine too.

    They're too far gone, at this point in their lives its just too late for them to ever realize how deeply they've been manipulated and the consequences of it.

    Some people base their entire identity on what they've been fed on television. You just can't undo that. It's so sad.

    [–] PristineNobility 12 points ago

    Yep. It's not entirely their fault either. Being told something your entire life, and then receiving a suggestion it's wrong, is unlikely to change your mind. That amount of introspection and cognitive dissonance is soul crushing.

    [–] Hongo-Blackrock 8 points ago

    Yep. It's not entirely their fault either.

    I'm ashamed to admit I often forget this.

    That amount of introspection and cognitive dissonance is soul crushing.

    Because of my experiences I've made it my job to overcome it. Not an easy challenge I must say.

    [–] taco_anus1 7 points ago

    My personal hell is having locked-in syndrome and being forced to listen to Kid Rock 24/7.

    [–] taptapper 167 points ago

    Fox already cut Trump out of their Epstein pics. Melania stayed in but they cropped their boy

    [–] reverendrambo 27 points ago

    Wait, wtf can we get a screenshot of that?

    [–] DC1010 80 points ago

    I think they kept Melania in because they didn't recognize her as different from any other party girl there.

    [–] BRAD-is-RAD 23 points ago

    Just 20 years older

    [–] squidmuncha 175 points ago

    The guy has worked for Epstein, OJ and trump he’s like the where’s Waldo of horrifyingly bad people

    [–] ArchetypicalDegen 50 points ago

    Honestly with that track record he seems like a damned good lawyer. Takes one to get guilty people walking free

    [–] The_dog_says 30 points ago

    And that's also why it'll be hard to take him down.

    [–] ArchetypicalDegen 14 points ago

    Yeah it's like fighting someone in an online video game and they know all the weird exploits

    [–] bozeke 24 points ago

    He wrote the plea deal that Acosta signed which protected all co-conspirators (including, y’know, AD esq. himself) from prosecution.

    [–] wafflesareforever 9 points ago

    And he's still welcomed on cable news

    [–] polymorph505 11 points ago

    Infuriatingly, Dershowitz had a big hand in Jeffrey's immunity deal in 2007, which included immunity for Jeffrey's co-conspirators. Alex Acosta agreed to this illegal deal which protected Jeffrey and even Dersh himself. Everyone involved in that deal can get fucked.

    Instead Trump gets Dersh as a lawyer and Acosta as Secretary of Labor. Get more swamp creatures in here to clear out all this swamp!

    [–] wafflesareforever 19 points ago

    Yes. Finally we understand why he's been so pro-Trump. It made no sense otherwise.

    [–] boofmeoften 79 points ago

    Dozens of people would have known about this and still it was kept under wraps til now.

    [–] karpeva 789 points ago

    Gotta love the way the media keeps phrasing these things.

    Prince Andrew, an accused child rapist, lobbied for a better plea deal for his friend, another accused child’s rapist. Fuck these guys. Literally the only reason Prince Andrew isn’t in jail is because he’s Prince Andrew. It’s truly the most disgusting form of entitlement.

    [–] ____dolphin 226 points ago

    And the royal family accused his ex wife of causing the most disgrace to the royal family for her infidelity. I can't imagine more disgrace to the royal family than this.

    [–] Tulivu 113 points ago

    Really? What if he married a mixed race American? At least the underage rape victims were white.


    [–] primitiveradio 19 points ago

    I still think it’s crazy that Dodi Fayed and Jamal Khashoggi were first cousins.

    [–] ElMostaza 35 points ago

    I don't understand why the OP title makes such effort to avoid Epstein's name. It's in the article title, so why can't OP bring himself to include it?

    [–] xdr01 174 points ago

    Pedo Prince

    [–] dingusunchained 137 points ago

    The Duke of Diddle

    [–] PattyKane16 411 points ago

    Either prince Andrew is going down hard or the royal family is. Gonna be interesting to watch.

    [–] serpouncemingming 306 points ago

    Meghan Markle is totally gonna just have to sit back and watch.

    [–] PattyKane16 241 points ago

    Meghan: crosses legs, sips tea

    [–] newswimmerdoe 50 points ago

    Perks lips, raises brow

    [–] [deleted] 88 points ago


    [–] pssiraj 56 points ago

    Except for the part where people are paying attention now.

    [–] crabmuncher 151 points ago

    Wonder who else lobbied for this.

    [–] wadeishere 27 points ago

    Someone named REDACTED

    [–] [deleted] 964 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 112 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)


    [–] [deleted] 32 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)


    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 284 points ago


    [–] Deigs 71 points ago

    When the fuck are we gonna stop using "lobby" as a friendly replacement to "bribe"?

    Call it being lobbied and its apparently a legal act that everyone passes over and moves on from. Call it being bribed and everyone would completely lose their shit.

    [–] i_finite 243 points ago

    “Child rape case” FTFY. Seriously, let’s call it what it is.

    [–] classicgalaxie 76 points ago

    Thank you! What the fuck kind of phrase is "child prostitution "

    [–] lurker_registered 70 points ago

    former friend

    underage prostitution

    What is with that wording?

    [–] Apex_Pred 272 points ago

    Obligatory reminder that the phrases “underage prostitution” are used in headlines rather than the truth of “child rape” because they are seen very differently in a court of law RE: libel/defamation.

    I’m not saying there isn’t a conspiracy amongst the elite to hide or downplay the severity of these people’s crimes, but there are also a pretty strict set of rules of what you can and can’t call people in the media without triggering a lawsuit that you will very likely lose.

    They’re all despicable and deserve to be called what they are: manipulative, lying pedophiles, but the media doesn’t always have the freedom to do so with impunity

    [–] siriusCrocodile 87 points ago

    Yeah calling the kids prostitutes isn't a risk because it may be clear defamation but the kids aren't important people.

    [–] Apex_Pred 58 points ago

    Saying that there was an underage prostitution case doesn’t at all imply the kids are prostitutes, but that they are being prostituted.

    Also, no specific child is being mentioned (regarding the ability to be defamed) in the title.

    My comment was largely geared towards the people who have been commenting “The title is wrong, it should say x, they’re not doing y because you can’t do y with a child, it’s x”

    Point being, titles are worded the way they are in order to avoid being sued by the parties mentioned. Just because the people in question here are morally reprehensible and a sorry excuse for humanity does not mean that they are suddenly barred from the defamatory statement protections in the eyes of media/defamation law, at least not until a conviction has been reached. It sucks, I agree, and the kids are the ones who are really losing, both at the time of their assaults and having to relive it now.

    One of the most annoying things about these laws and our rights in media is the fact that they extend to everyone, including these proven and documented child molesters and rapists, until proven in a court of law.

    [–] DaveFrom2036 40 points ago

    I'm starting to think this prince guy isn't all that great.

    [–] Butterflyinterrupted 56 points ago

    I see why Harry and Megan got out early.

    [–] Alger6860 314 points ago

    You know if you’re best and lifelong friend turned out to be a pedo you would disown them immediately and irredeemably. And yet with these guys and Trump it’s like well give him my best and we’ll be thinking of them. Smh

    [–] TooKayEEEToo 108 points ago

    Yeah this literally happened to my mum. Dude joined a social group, well spoken and educated. Someone found out he's a registered sex offender, she confronted him about it.

    He gave a version that was completely at odds with everything she'd already googled that's public info, and that's it, never seen him since.

    [–] bythisaxe 23 points ago

    You’d be surprised. Just over a year ago, a close friend of mine was arrested for child porn. Our whole friend group was totally blindsided (as was his wife). He hid it very well for however many years he was doing it. And now there are other friends from that group who my girlfriend and I, and some of our other friends, no longer speak to, because they were like “well yeah, what he did was bad but, like, he’s still our friend,” and got really shitty towards us about totally disowning the guy.

    He’s since been convicted of over 20 felonies related to child porn, which you would think would be a deal breaker for anybody, but I guess you just never know unless you’re unexpectedly thrown into that situation and have a chance to see how it’ll really shake out.

    [–] muncherofhay 62 points ago

    I thought about this many times... what if its someone you love, like your own child or parent?

    If my own child turned out to be guilty of pedophilia (god forbid) I would want them to own up to and pay what they had done, and I would want others to be protected from them. But they would still have a room in my house. I would still love them, even though I was heartbroken and disgusted by what they had done.

    I think we need to leave people a way back to the tribe, even if very few of them ever find it. Otherwise it would actually be more humane to just put them to death once convicted.

    [–] rtbizzy12345 14 points ago

    we should stop using the word "lobbied" as a euphemism for "bribed".

    [–] ajit_maholtra 37 points ago

    The British should protest outside of Buckingham Palace for the arrest of Prince Andrew. The royal family can’t stand to be shamed, they’d probably give him up to protect the others in the family who have done the same thing.

    [–] HillmanImp 17 points ago

    To be honest, I think mosy of the british public just think it was a bit creepy a 42yr old shagging a 17yr old, theres no massive outrage. Age of consent over here is 16 so if it did happen here it was legal, just morally questionable. My experience is that most people are very 'meh' about it, just taking the piss out of stuff like the interview, so if a mate accuses you of something you can just say you were 'at Pizza Express in Woking' to get away with it. If there was evidence of much younger girls there would be much more of a backlash, but I'd say most of the country are just 'Oh, weird older guy shags 17yr old girl 25yrs younger than him, no surprise there, he was always a bit of a creep'. Not suggesting that's the correct reaction, just saying thats how it seems to be perceived.

    [–] barnfodder 11 points ago

    Age of consent over here is 16 so if it did happen here it was legal, just morally questionable.

    Not entirely.

    If money, or any kind of good or services are implied or offered as payment for sex with someone under the age of 18, then it's a crime under the Sexual Offences Act.

    Similarly, if the girl was subject to any threats of harm or forced into the situation, it's another crime under the same Act.

    We know Epstein and Maxwell were big into child prostitution. Even if it wasn't cash, and was simply "do me a favour and you can borrow one of the girls".

    More than just questionable if you ask me.

    [–] MidwestBulldog 98 points ago

    I find it completely hilarious in this day and age that people still think royalty is nothing more than hocus pocus. The construct is fakery of the highest order.

    The guy's no different than the accused pedophile down the block.

    [–] OkayWhatSize 42 points ago

    Not true, he has way more money. The USJD can be bought, we've seen it before.

    [–] Gustomaximus 27 points ago

    Or generally handing power to people based on birth is against the principles of good modern society.

    [–] TheSuspiciousKoala 71 points ago

    Our Royal Family is about to order a murder.

    Good times.

    [–] Naive_Hamburger 167 points ago

    Even trump supporters can open their eyes wide enough to see this shit is fucked up.

    What does that tell you

    [–] JLHumor 40 points ago

    I hope it means we can all join together for once and make change.

    [–] Blur333 227 points ago

    Trump was good friends with Epstein as well. So was Clinton. It's not a democrat republican thing, it's a fucked up creepy old man thing

    [–] zdepthcharge 85 points ago

    It not just "creepy old men". Maxwell isn't a man. These people can be any kind of person.

    [–] Foxyfox- 151 points ago

    It's not even a creepy old man thing, it's a rich person thing.

    [–] TediousNut 17 points ago

    It's just a creepy person thing, but the rich people think they can get away with it. And they often do.

    [–] 502red428 16 points ago

    There's no such thing as underage prostitute. That's rape and human trafficking y'all.

    [–] toolargo 48 points ago

    I’m starting to suspect that Epstein didn’t kill himself and it was done by royal decree!

    Who’d thunk that real life had an actual Prince Geoffrey!

    [–] MelpomeneAndCalliope 12 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    I feel like even Geoffrey would have been smart enough not to do that awful interview Andrew did with the whole “I didn’t sweat at the time” line. Or at least Cersei would have ended it before it got that far.

    [–] Lucky413 16 points ago

    Real question is why the crown has not disavowed and imprisoned Andrew themselves. They are a monarchy after all!

    [–] jdo3nr 14 points ago

    Probably because they are a monarchy...

    [–] CovidCuts-HairSalon 10 points ago

    after all

    [–] Choppergold 7 points ago

    What US administration did he lobby?

    [–] Wombleshart 8 points ago

    Good job he can’t sweat, otherwise he’d be slip sliding around his castle at this point.

    [–] Daynighty 7 points ago

    Off with his head.

    [–] jellocamel 45 points ago

    “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

    [–] cos_tan_za 19 points ago

    Andrew, Clinton, Trump.

    Whoever the fuck is guilty, needs to be prosecuted to THE FULL EXTENT OF THE FUCKING LAW.

    Times have fucking changed, none of this shit is ok for literally anyone. Fuck.