By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The US Congress has requested an interview with Prince Andrew regarding his association with Jeffrey Epstein as part of an investigation into Epstein’s sex trafficking operations. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform cited Andrew’s “long-standing friendship” with Epstein and evidence suggesting he may possess relevant knowledge of Epstein’s activities. The committee’s letter, signed by 16 Democrat members, specifically referenced a 2011 email exchange in which Andrew told Epstein “we are in this together”. This request for cooperation seeks to uncover Epstein’s co-conspirators and the full extent of his criminal activities.
Read the original article here
Andrew Mountbatten Windsor summoned by US Congress, a situation that has stirred up a lot of opinions, to say the least. It’s a formal request from the US House Oversight Committee for a transcribed interview about his connections to Jeffrey Epstein. The letter, sent to his address at Royal Lodge, references financial records suggesting a deeper involvement, specifically citing notes like “massage for Andrew.” This naturally raises serious concerns for the committee, given his long friendship with Epstein and the potential for relevant information. The deadline for his response is November 20, 2025.
The crux of the matter seems to be the lack of a legal obligation for Andrew to respond, being a non-US resident. This brings into question the effectiveness of the summons, with some viewing it as more of a political statement than a genuine attempt at uncovering the truth. The general consensus appears to be a mix of curiosity and cynicism about the potential outcome. People are naturally wondering if he’ll actually attend, considering the potential ramifications, and if his testimony would shed any new light on Epstein’s network.
Many are speculating on his likely response if he does attend, the infamous “I do not recall,” “I do not know,” and “I was not there” responses are mentioned more than once. The potential diplomatic implications are also highlighted. His cooperation could offer valuable insights, while non-compliance might strain relations between the US and the UK. The situation has intensified the scrutiny on Andrew’s past associations and the Royal Family’s handling of the issue.
The focus on Andrew has also brought up the larger picture of who is being investigated and why. Some feel that he’s being singled out while others with more power and influence remain untouched. The suggestion is that there are other individuals, perhaps in the US, who are equally involved and should be held accountable. This raises the question of whether this is simply a show, and if so, for whom? Some even suggest that there may be files, perhaps those currently held by the US government, which could be released to fully expose the extent of Epstein’s criminal activities.
The opinions expressed are pretty clear, ranging from a desire for more serious punishment to accusations of the whole situation being just a political stunt. There’s a certain weariness about the whole affair, with some feeling that Andrew will simply ignore the request and wait for the situation to fade. There is a sense that the rich and powerful are often shielded from accountability, while those who have already faced some form of punishment are used as scapegoats.
The fact that the summons comes from a committee with Democratic members only further reinforces the political element. It’s hard to ignore the potential for this to become a partisan issue, regardless of its importance. There are questions about the validity of the summons itself, given his lack of US ties.
Ultimately, the general sentiment is that he’s unlikely to cooperate. There’s a widespread feeling that the whole situation is a “storm in a teacup” that will eventually blow over, with Andrew continuing his entitled life.