Aged Out at 17? Prince Andrew Raises Surprising Defense to Giuffre Lawsuit

Florida Southern District Court

There was a surprising claim by Prince Andrew this week by his defense in the lawsuit from Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who claims that she was forced to have sex with him at the behest of Jeffrey Epstein. The Duke of York is arguing that Giuffre was too old at the time of the alleged sexual acts to use the New York Child Victims Act (CVA) to “revive” her claims now. He also repeats his main defense that Giuffre signed a release that bars her lawsuit against him.

Giuffre has alleged that she was the victim of sex trafficking by Epstein (who hanged himself in prison) and Ghislaine Maxwell (who is now on trial).

The motion for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) first and foremost relies on an alleged release of Prince Andrew from any lawsuit stemming from his involvement in the Epstein matter.

In his original motion, Prince Andrew argued that the entire action was barred under the 2009 Settlement and General Release Agreement, which allegedly included a complete release of any claims and/or potential claims against him. He argues that the court is allowed to take “judicial notice” of the agreement in light of the fact that it has been used previously in court, including the voluntary dismissal of her battery claims against Epstein’s former attorney, Alan Dershowitz in a parallel case. See Giuffre v. Dershowitz, No. 19-cv-03377-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2021).  For the purposes of this dismissal motion, Prince Andrew argued that “[t]he Release Agreement must be read alongside and in conjunction with the complaint that Plaintiff filed in the Epstein Action” and used to dismiss the action.

Giuffre insists that Prince Andrew is not covered in the agreement, which was connected to the controversial resolution of the charges in Florida against Epstein. She notes that he was not expressly referenced in the agreement, but Prince Andrew maintains that “[h]ad the parties to the Release Agreement intended to release only those persons identified in Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement, the language of the Release Agreement would so state.”

That does create a credible threshold defense and a tough question for the court. However, the more interesting challenge is to the use of the CVA itself. The law is needed because Giuffre’s action against Prince Andrew would be otherwise time-barred. The CVA relieves a party of that restraint, but Prince Andrew is attacking the Act itself as containing an inherent conflict.

Prince Andrew is arguing that there is an inherent conflict under state law with these claims in light of the general consent law in New York. The Act classifies those under the age of 18 as minors, but the age of consent in New York is 17.

Prince Andrew argues that

“[t]he CVA effectively strips defendants of any timeliness defense so long as the conduct over which they are sued constitutes a sexual offense under Article 130 or violations of other enumerated statutes. The threshold issue is whether Giuffre is entitled to assert her claims belatedly and without regard to the long-expired statute of limitations applicable to her tort claims.”

To put it bluntly, Prince Andrew is saying that Giuffre at 17 (and some months) was simply too old to later sue as an under-aged CVA victim:

The CVA revives claims for those who allegedly suffered harm as a result of certain sexual offenses they claim were committed against them when they were under the age of eighteen, even though the age of consent in New York is seventeen. While lack of consent is established as a matter of law for individuals who were under the age of seventeen at the time of the alleged underlying sexual offense, the issue of consent is unsettled with regard to those – like Giuffre – who were between the ages of seventeen and eighteen.”

Prince Andrew is arguing that the Act must be read in conjunction with the New York law on the age of consent and thus be limited to those under seventeen.

Moreover, Prince Andrew is arguing that the Act itself is unconstitutional given the conflict with the state age of consent. Prince Andrew earlier raised other due process objections to the CVA, but his latest motion raises this specific conflict. The earlier due process objections are less compelling since, as Giuffre points out, New York courts have previously rejected such claims. See, e.g.,  PB-36 Doe v. Niagara Falls City Sch. Dist., 152 N.Y.S.3d 242, 248 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021); Torrey v. Portville Cent. Sch., No. 88476, 2020 WL 856432, at *4 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 21, 2020); ARK3 Doe v. Diocese of Rockville Ctr., No. 900010/2019, 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1964, at *15 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 11, 2020).

If Giuffre cannot claim the status of an under-aged victim under the Act, Prince Andrew insists that she should be required to establish unconsented to sexual relations:

In that regard, lack of consent is an element of an Article 130 offense that must be affirmatively established when the alleged victim is over the age of seventeen. N.Y. Penal Law § 130.05.1 (“Whether or not specifically stated, it is an element of every offense defined in [Article 130] that the sexual act was committed without consent of the victim.”). Giuffre and other similarly situated individuals may establish lack of consent by an “implied threat,” or, for certain offenses, by “any circumstances in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce.” Id. §§ 130.00(8), 130.05(2)(c). These highly subjective determinations are the kind most likely to be hampered by the passage of time, as memories fade, false memories are created, and witnesses die or otherwise become unavailable.

I am not convinced that “memories fade” generally on sexual trafficking violations. Yet, there is a valid question raised on how the two laws can be read consistently.

Prince Andrew insists that, if a lack of consent must be proven, there is a paucity of witnesses: “Here, the only witnesses to the purported implied threats under which Giuffre allegedly engaged in unconsented sex acts with Prince Andrew are Epstein (deceased), Maxwell (incarcerated), Prince Andrew (the accused), and Giuffre herself.”

Of course, at the motion to dismiss stage, the facts are to be read in favor of the non-moving party (Giuffre). There are three parties who can attest to the lack of consent, even if the court finds that it must be proven due to Giuffre’s age: Prince Andrew, Giuffre and Maxwell. Even as the typical “he-said-she-said” case, the jury is allowed to reach its own judgment on who is lying.

The court will need to resolve if the inherent conflict in the use of the CVA. The court has agreed to allow amicus briefing on the CVA.

Here are some of the filings:

Giuffre Opp. Mem

Prince Andrew Motion

Prince Andrew Reply Mem


50 thoughts on “Aged Out at 17? Prince Andrew Raises Surprising Defense to Giuffre Lawsuit”

  1. Does anyone know if Giuffre was directly threatened if she didn’t sleep with Prince Andrew, or if she had a feeling that she’d get in trouble somehow? Was Prince Andrew aware she was under any duress?

    Pressure and grooming can be insidious things. I live in Southern California, the playground of movie starts (until they began buying ranches in WY, CO, and ID), Arab princes and sheiks, and tech billionaires. Girls feel special and exited to be “chosen” to hang out with the rich and/or famous, or the rich and elusive. Some of them are courtesans who just love the money, trips, and jewelry, and some think they can get a relationship or marriage out of it. Most of these girls are just used. Most of them go along with it willingly, the access to the rich or famous its own reward, but then later realize that they were essentially trafficked.

    It’s everywhere.

    A club promoter’s job is to pack a club with beautiful young women. Handlers easily procure girls in clubs by offering them back stage passes, entry to a private lounge, an invitation to a private yacht party. They get offered “movie” or “modeling” deals.

    Many girls are naive, and totally unprepared for the sophisticated grooming and subtle pressures exerted to induce them to willingly enter a trap.

    It can be hard to tell the difference between a rich player telling girls what they want to hear, and then dropping them when he’s done, and organized sex trafficking. Epstein and Ghislaine appeared to have a well-oiled, sophisticated system to procure girls that was extremely effective.

  2. Prince Andrew was 40 years old when she was 17. Would you let your high school junior “date” a 40 year old man whose intentions are to exploit your underaged teen? Now the prince/pervert has to mount a complex defense to try and wiggle out of the consequences of his actions.

    I can see where consent age may play into things if it were a young 18-20 year old and a 17 year old who let things go a bit too far. But a grown man, old enough to be her father, with an underaged teenybopper is another.

    1. My grandfather was in his 40’s when he dated and later married my 19 year old grandmother, after returning from 1st World War servie. Their marriage lasted for life (i.e. 52 years), during which time Grandad sired three children, retiring off the family farm at age 88, and he eventually died aged 94 after a brief illness. His brother and sister-in-law had similar age differences, and they too remained married to the same person for life, My Granny likewise had four sisters, every one of whom married men between 20 and 30 years their senior, and every one of those marriages lasted 50 years or more. No-one, least of all me, though my relatives “creepy” in any way.

      Fast forward to my own parents, my Mum aged 26 and my Dad aged 24 when they married – they divorced within 9 years.

      So long as someone has reached the age of consent, and I really do mean “consent”, all that parents can do is offer advice. You are not in a position to “let them marry” someone they already have a legal right to marry.

  3. “…sex trafficking by Epstein (who hanged himself in prison)…”

    – Professor Turley

    Must Americans accept lies born of conspiracies as fact and truth?

    Was Jussie Smollett mugged as he claimed?

    Is O.J. Simpson still searching for the killer(s) of his ex-wife and companion?

    Did Flight 800 factually experience a “spontaneous fuel tank explosion?”

    Did Lee Harvey Oswald kill JFK?

    Did Sirhan Sirhan shoot RFK in the back from the front?

    Did Roosevelt NOT know of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor?

    Was the U.S. Navy attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin?

    Did a ragtag band of Saudis bring down the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center with a few gallons of kerosene?

    Did senile Joke Biden actually prosecute key swing states against the successful, patriotic, animated, energetic and inimitable 2020 candidate, President Donald J. Trump, without a late night “crutch?”

    Did “Crazy Abe” Lincoln have any degree of constitutional authority or any legal basis for suspending habeas corpus?

    Was the illegal immigration engendered by the Emancipation Proclamation actually denied by contemporary immigration law in the Naturalization Act of 1802?

    Did POTUS, Obama, “…want to know everything we’re doing…” according to Lisa Page, FBI paramour of Peter Strzok?

  4. This is an interesting scenario. Take as an example the male homosexual age of consent, which in the United Kingdom was set at 21 in the Sexual Offences Act 1967, then lowered to 18 in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and finally lowered to 16 in England & Wales and Scotland in the Sexual Offences for parity with the heterosexual age of consent. The key word is, of course, “consent”. Rape is not legal at any age.

    If now, in 2021, a man who was 20 in 1971 alleges he had consensual sex with a 21 year old in that year, when it was a crime for a 21 year old to have homosexual relations with a 20 year old, could the police now prosecute the then 21 year old for carnal knowledge against the 20-year-old? In other words, can someone be prosecuted now for something that was a crime at the time, but no longer is illegal?

    The question appears to be simply: if the age of consent is now 17 in New York, and Guiffre was over 17 at the time of the ‘encounter’, even if the age of consent was 18 at the time, can Andrew (or anyone else) be prosecuted for this now when the act would be legal?

    If it turns out that you can be prosecuted for historical acts that are not currently illegal, then prosecutors and defence lawyers have surely struck gold.

  5. Dang. The never before seen and anonymous trolls are out in force today, must have struck a nerve. There are a whole lot of privileged names on Epstein’s list, methinks. No other reason to react so on a simple opinion piece, particularly the invoking the defense of the name, ‘Clinton’ in the comments (sorry trolls: far too many of us here are old enough to remember watching the Lewinsky stuff unfold in real time). If the justice system doesn’t get these miscreants, karma and public opinion will, as evidenced by the deluge here today. There are a whole lot of people that seem to be scared and reactive disproportionately to what would be considered nothing to worry about. The solution is easy: do not get involved with criminals, do not have sex with underage girls, and do not have sex with anyone against their will. Follow those steps and there would quite literally be nothing to worry about, and that shouldn’t be difficult for anyone that is legitimately morally upstanding and sane.

  6. The endless white knighting from the Left and the Right on the Epstein thing is amusing to watch. When this first came to light I looked deeply at the ‘victim’ statements. I didn’t see the assault, rape and physical abuse I’d expected from all the hype I’d heard. Most of what went on with Epstein and his friends was consensual with young women above the age of consent. While perhaps prostitution, and in a few cases with under age girls, it looked very different to me than what I expected based on the hype and hysteria. It looked like he found opportunistic young women who willingly participated in the paid massages and then full on sex. He did maintain a “model apartment” in NYC for some of his girls. He helped many of them in various ways to get on with their careers. He sent them to massage school, for example.

    I’m not saying this isn’t creepy and some of it is certainly illegal. But it’s not “pedophilia”. A pedophile is a person who is attracted to persons who are not sexually mature. They are pathological and quite different from what Epstein did. Epstein was engaged in “ephebophilia” – sexual attraction to persons who are sexually mature but under the age of legal consent which is not pathological. It’s about not following social norms versus a psychiatric disorder. Certainly he lured these girls into this lifestyle he arranged for them. But I’m left wondering just how naïve many of my fellow right winger men are? Do you not understand that there are many young women who will willingly make these kinds of arrangements with successful men? That there are millions of U.S. girls on Seeking Arrangement, for example, looking for ‘sugar daddy’s? While any coercion or under age actions must be pursued, this is just not the “sex trafficking ring” it was made out to be. A little hint. The reason the original charges were downplayed is due to the weakness and lack of veracity of the ‘victim’ and witness statements due to this being much more consensual and more like an ‘arrangement’ versus girls being imprisoned and used as sex slaves. Is i really so hard for guys to imagine that some hot young women are impressed by the private island, the huge jet, the ranch, the ‘modal apartment’ etc? Keep in mind that some of the girls were referring their friends into doing this.

    But we live in a world where it’s impossible to say this. Please, don’t take the obvious tack here and white knight for 14yo girls. I’m opposed to what he did with under age girls. But even then, it seems consent was present vs. the image of these girls being taken against their wills and ‘trafficked’ via force. Also, the Right’s belief in “global pedophile rings” is not proved by what Epstein did, yet most don’t seem to understand this. Or even what the term pedophile means.

  7. Until 2003 when changed by the legislature, a general release in my state given without expressly reserving rights to make the claim against others effectively released all tortfeasors responsible for the same injury. Since the release was given in Florida, I would expect the court to apply Florida law. Strangely, neither brief quotes the release itself although it is attached as an exhibit to the motion (not available from the link here). Neither brief cites any Florida case directly addressing whether a release (as opposed to a covenant not to sue) releases all tortfeasors absent an express reservation of rights.

  8. Do memories fade and are false memories created? Oh, yes they do! Bear in mind that the human mind often can’t remember what we did five minutes ago – where did I put my glasses? As webmaster for several Vietnam-related sites, I’ve had veterans contact me who are trying to obtain “proof” of things that couldn’t have possibly happened so they can claim PTSD. It’s happened to me personally. My ex-wife decided to claim I had sexually molested our daughter because of some “confusing memories” she had related to a therapist while in a psychological treatment hospital (that was later found to have been hospitalizing children who didn’t need it because their parents had medical insurance) that were actually of simple things such as me changing her diaper. As for Guiffre, the woman is plainly out for money. She was working as a masseuse at Donald Trump’s Mar Lago where her father was employed when Maxwell recruited her to come to work for Epstein. He sent her to massage schools on scholarship. There is some question of her age – she may have been as old as 22 at the time of the photo of her with Prince Andrew, an innocent photo of her with him and Maxwell. She has no proof that she had sex with him and she’s made claims that Epstein “forced” her to have sex with just about everybody shy of the Pope. She probably believes it but that doesn’t mean it happened.

    1. A rare find – a right winger not rushing to ‘white knight’ for any woman who files a sexual assault complaint. There was a study the Air Force did in the early ’90s that mirrored other honest studies at that time regarding false rape/sexual assault charges. It found that more than 40% of the claims were false. Why do I point this out? Cuz we are shamed into siding with the ‘victim’ by both the right and the left. I thought that women wanted equality under the law? Equality under the law means women’s claims are subjected to the same investigative and critical process as those of men. Sexual assault and rape should not be considered “special” – why? Are we equal under the eyes of the law or not? As for the claims against Prince Andrew they don’t pass the sniff test. Dershowitz was falsely accused by her as well and he’s suing her.

    2. “She has no proof that she had sex with him and she’s made claims that Epstein “forced” her to have sex with just about everybody shy of the Pope. She probably believes it but that doesn’t mean it happened.”

      That did not matter when Thomas and Kavanaugh were being confirmed by the Senate did it?

      Then we can look back at the Clinton Scandal with Monica…..despite a very accurate description of Willy’s Willy it took DNA from a Semen stained Blue Dress before she was believed….and then lots of folks defended Bubba.

      It all matters who it is that is being accused….not the evidence or lack of evidence sadly.

      MeToo caused Democrats to say all Women must be believed….right up and until it was the Cuomo Brothers and half of CNN’s Talking Heads.

  9. My question goes to venue….exactly where was the offense committed….in New York or the Bahamas?

    The Age of Consent would be that in which Venue the alleged crime took place.

    If the sexual acts were committed in-flight on the Lolita Express….that would really complicate the venue question.

    Also…has it been proven Epstein hung himself or not. It is claimed he did….but has it been proven to be the case?

    For the record….Andrew is a Helicopter Pilot….in every essence of the term…..that makes a circumstantial case much more easily proved.

    This contradiction in ages thing works both ways…..Rittenhouse and Crumbley Cases prove that.

    1. There was no “Lolita Express,” that was a term a journalist claimed he heard one of Epstein’s employees use then the media picked up on it.

  10. Randy Newman came down from heaven and his voice could be heard singing this song with new lyrics to the tune of Short People. He sang:
    Dumb smokers got no reason.
    Dumb smokers got no reason.
    Dumb smokers got no reason to live!

    They got little bitty lungs and dirt in their brains
    Little bitty voiced going beep beep beep!

    Don’t want no dumb smokers!
    Don’t want no dumb smoker!
    Don’t want no dickhead smokers round here!

    1. No, not really. First, diplomats don’t cause wars, heads of government do. No, soldiers don’t “stop” them. Wars end whenever diplomats negotiate terms. Japan didn’t surrender because of the atomic bomb, they surrendered because Truman agreed that Hirohito could remain on the throne and he ordered his diplomats to accept the terms. I’ve fought in a war, have you?

    1. We wouldn’t have a “problem” with Russia now if politicians and the media hadn’t created one. As for Patton, his troops might have found themselves up against a wall they couldn’t penetrate. After all, it was the Soviets who defeated Germany, not the US and Great Britain.

      1. A. Hitler is who defeated Germany….the Allies just played a supporting role.

        As to the Soviets beating Germany…..please do explain what the rest of the Allies were doing by fighting all of the Axis forces while the Russians stayed out of the Pacific War until Victory was assured and then only did so to take new territories as part of their expansion plans.

      2. “After all, it was the Soviets who defeated Germany, not the US and Great Britain.”


        Not true.

    2. And God undoubtedly commanded it.

      Joshua 6 – NIV

      Now the gates of Jericho were securely barred because of the Israelites. No one went out and no one came in.

      2 Then the Lord said to Joshua, “See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men. 3 March around the city once with all the armed men. Do this for six days. 4 Have seven priests carry trumpets of rams’ horns in front of the ark. On the seventh day, march around the city seven times, with the priests blowing the trumpets. 5 When you hear them sound a long blast on the trumpets, have the whole army give a loud shout; then the wall of the city will collapse and the army will go up, everyone straight in.”

      20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

  11. [OT] The bombshell scandal at Fox gives Turley another black eye regrettably; first it was the billion dollar defamation lawsuits against Fox for its airing and promoting Trump’s Big Lie, and now the embarrassing exposure of the two-facedness of Hannity and Ingraham.

    Chris Wallace made a propitious decision jumping ship when he did, I’ll tell you what. When Turley’s reputation can’t bear any longer the humiliation of being associated with Fox, his departure unfortunately will be too little too late.

    Let’s examine just Ingraham’s message to Meadows:

    “Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy.”

    On her show the night of the attack, Ingraham suggested that it wasn’t actually Trump’s supporters who were responsible for the violence! She told her audience that there were “reports” that “antifa sympathizers” might have “been sprinkled throughout the crowd.” Her reference to unnamed “reports” sounds not unlike Trump’s go-to BS, “people are saying…”

    First, it’s noteworthy that Ingraham felt the need to implore Meadows to tell Trump to do the right thing as if she knew instinctively that Trump alone could not be counted on to do it unless cajoled by his closest advisers. Second, her statement that the MAGA riot is hurting “all of us.” To whom is she referring? Americans, Trumpists, his partisans at Fox? I think it’s fair to say that Ingraham was looking out for her own skin and those of her colleagues. Turley owes her a debt of gratitude for trying to protect Fox from its accountability in fomenting- dare I say it- the *RAGE* that incited the mob to violence thanks to a month’s long campaign spreading the “Stop the Steal” false narrative. Third, she claims that the riot is destroying his legacy. Why such a concern if “reports” were that Antifa instigated the melee? She added that night on her show, “I have never seen Trump rally attendees wearing helmets, black helmets, brown helmets, black backpacks — the uniforms you saw in some of these crowd shots.” Who is jumping now to a premature conclusion? She is insinuating that the rioters could not be peaceful Trump rally attendees, but rather, outside agitators. Haven’t we heard that before?

    On their shows last night, Carlson had a chyron which read:


    whereas Hannity for his part called the 1/6 committee- wait for it- a “witch-hunt.”

    Turley, apart from commenting weeks ago about the initial wave of subpoenas issued by this committee, for reasons of your own, you have said very little since. Not one word about ANY of the myriad legal issues currently swirling around this investigation. Why the silence?

    Three years ago, you called out Hannity for his appearing on stage with Trump at a political rally and, in so doing, crossing the line between honest reporting and political advocacy:

    Shouldn’t you again call him out for his biased dismissing out-of-hand a duly appointed bi-partisan Congressional Committee as a “witch-hunt”? Especially an investigation into the cause of a riot which you yourself described as a “desecration”?

    I know you would NEVER dismiss an investigation as a “witch-hunt.” That’s completely unlike you thankfully. But isn’t it time you said something about this scandal at your network; to go on the record to distance yourself from your partisan Fox colleagues? For the sake of your own legacy?

    1. what has this to do with Randy Andy?
      As to the Jan 6 committee, its members were not chosen to apply objectivity, that’s for sure, as all of them are fiercely anti-Trump. Moreover, what is the legislative purpose of the commoittee?

      1. Does a criminal defendant get to complain that his prosecutor is anti-crime? As long as the committee follows the law, it does not matter if they love or hate Trump. They are uncovering evidence. They are not determining if Trump is guilty of a crime. That is the up to the DOJ and an eventual jury to decide.

    2. And this relates to Prince Andrew in what way?

      You will read what YOU want to read; believe what YOU want to believe; hear what YOU want to hear; see what YOU want to see and speak what YOU want to say.

      Some still believe that the Steele Dossier is true; that the Russians interfered with the 2016 Election; that the Capitol Riots were an insurrection against the government (with out weapons) and that Mrs. Clinton “cleaned” her hard drive because of her daughters wedding plans and grandmothers cooking recipes; that Mr. Trump was a good human being and the thefts and riots going on in this country are “peaceful” and with good intentions.

      Get a grip on reality.

      Mr. Trump was not a good human being, a decent President yes, but not a good human being. Mrs. Clinton is a crook, President Biden is a crook ans is Prince Andrew and President Donald Trump too. Until we can all agree that these should all be in jail, we can agree that the country will continue to deteriorate,

      1. Special+K,
        Well said.

        “You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you.”
        – H. Clinton, 5MAY2029

      2. Special+K,

        Very good comments on all points with some very apt and rational observations.

        And as long as we’ve strayed from the original topic: I would like to add Dr Fauci to your list of people who should be in jail. Everyone should read Robert F. Kennedy’s book “The Real Anthony Fauci”. The book lays out a detailed, utterly convincing and damning case of Fauci’s long time, total sell-out to big pharma, and how that has resulted in the unnecessary deaths and suffering of hundreds of thousands of people.

      3. Special K
        Dont read the lies under that name.

        He has no interest in good faith, debate. Paid troll or mentally challenged. Makes no difference. Just don’t read.

      4. Let’s start with proving Trump is a crook, and move on from there. All crooks should be prosecuted, Democratic or Republican, I agree.

      1. I indicated it was [OT]. I’m not alone in posting off-topic contributions when I believe Turley is deliberately evading an important topic. This is a free speech forum. There is no rule against speaking your mind.

        1. Whoopie Cushion: ” There is no rule against speaking your mind.”


          But you need a mind to do it.

    3. Uh, the “scandal” is at CNN, not FOX. Chris Wallace, who hates Trump, left FOX for CNN to give them some kind of credibility. The so-called “scandal” at FOX came from two right-wing progressives who should have never been on FOX in the first place.

      1. Well, I suppose that’s one way to look at it. Good luck with at. It’d be nice, though, if we knew where Turley stood.


      The Obama Coup D’etat in America continues below.

      Ray Epps et al. were inciting to riot on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6:

    1. “He who has a technical defense to claim of child rape has sh*tty case.”


      Probably, but it is still a case and it might be enough.

        1. And Andrew has a defense case to make.

          So far it is good enough to give me pause and think that it might succeed. It may prove to be a losing argument but it is not a frivolous argument.

    2. Is that what O.J. Simpson had, a “technical defense” against a claim of obvious, blatant, evidenced, aggravated butchery and disarticulation?

Comments are closed.