Is it because he doesn't know who they are? Or maybe he knows but he can't say, because they've never been charged? How does Raskin know there are "at least 20" co-conspirators? I'm sure he didn't make that number up, he must know something.

Also I don't believe he includes Prince Andrew in that list, since Andrew isn't going to be charged in the US courts AFAIK.

Inquiring minds need to know ....

Maybe he has other "inside knowledge" but she is a known source for a number that's around that magnitude.

I don't know where Jamie got his numbers, but I think Andrew could certainly be on the list of co-conspirators. He was a frequent, repeat visitor to Epstein's Manhattan digs for years and could be charged for any crimes committed while he was there. I'm not sure about any of Epstein's other residences in the US, like Palm Beach, but crimes done anywhere in the US could certainly be prosecuted in US courts.

How likely any of that is to happen is another matter, which is why I said "in theory." But he certainly seems more vulnerable now that the royal family has kicked him and his ex wife all the way to the curb.

But he did settle the lawsuit with Giuffre several years ago for an undisclosed amount. And I'm guessing she dropped charges once it was settled. Isn't that something the lawyers would have required? Unless there are other women filing charges against Andrew, I'd expect that he's done and out of it now.

Whether he's ever charged criminally would be up to prosecutors and probably a grand jury in the jurisdiction where the alleged crimes were committed, based on whatever evidence exists (including witnesses willing to testify).

I don't know what Giuffre agreed to as part of the settlement, but she's out of the picture anyway, because she's deceased and therefore not capable of testifying. However, she's far from the only potential witness to anything Andrew did in Epstein's company. Willingness to testify is a separate matter, but not necessarily an insurmountable one, imo.

I kind of feel like anything could happen, considering how the whole Epstein matter has stubbornly refused to go away and how many people in both parties are clamoring for the files to be released. It feels like a powder keg just waiting to explode.

However, unless it's regarding Grijalva, I don't think think Epstein is a wise matter for Dem leadership to appear focused on during a literal government shutdown, when SNAP is being halved, and delayed in delivery, and millions of people, including children, are either going hungry or are about to. You know what would be GREAT time for this instead? Is January 2027, when Dems have won back the House (in part, by making "finally making Trump release the Epstein files" part of their campaigns) and thus can actually do a little more than just write sternly-worded letters that can be ignored by Bondi without consequence.

Rs are pedophile protectors, but there's a lot of "bipartisan interest" among voters.

That's what they count as "bipartisan".