Suhas Subramanyam is one of the Democratic members of the House of Representatives' oversight committee, which earlier this month requested that Mountbatten-Windsor appear for a deposition as part of its inquiry into the government's handling of the case against Epstein, who passed away in 2019 while awaiting trial.
Subramanyam told the Guardian on Monday that Mountbatten-Windsor has not responded to the request. Mountbatten-Windsor was stripped of his royal title by King Charles due to concerns about his association with Epstein and a sexual assault allegation made by Virginia Giuffre, who claimed she was trafficked by the late financier.
Windsor-Mountbatten Subramanyam continued, "has been hiding from us, and I think he will continue to try to hide from people doing meaningful investigations of this matter."
The Democratic minority on the committee made the request after UK Trade Minister Chris Bryant stated that Mountbatten-Windsor should grant requests for testimony from US politicians "just as with any ordinary member of the public."
The congressman commented just days after the Republican head of the oversight committee made public over 20,000 emails that were taken from Epstein's estate and revealed his relationships with Donald Trump and other influential people across the globe. The documents revealed, among other things, that Mountbatten-Windsor maintained contact with the late financier for a longer period of time than previously thought.
“It seems like every time we find more evidence, Prince Andrew seems to be in the documents. And so I think if he is hoping that the story will just go away by ignoring us and being silent, he will be sorely disappointed as we continue to pursue this over the next year and beyond,”
said Subramanyam, who has represented a northern Virginia district since the start of this year.
He said that there were not numerous ways he could convert Mountbatten- Windsor to swear. None of the Republicans who control the maturity in the House inked the letter requesting that Mountbatten- Windsor swear. Because he's a foreign public, Mountbatten- Windsor can not be subpoenaed, indeed if the Egalitarians regain the chamber following the quiz choices coming time, according to Subramanyam.
The oversight commission's inquiry, which was sparked by the roar among Trump's sympathizers in July when the justice department declared that the Epstein case was closed, does n't center on Mountbatten- Windsor. Still, Subramanyam claimed that Mountbatten- Windsor's name keeps popping up, indicating that he's still under pressure to speak with the disquisition panel.
On Tuesday, the House is listed to bounce on a bill that would bear the release of US government documents pertaining to Epstein. Trump had opposed the offer, but Egalitarians and four iconoclastic Republicans collected enough autographs on a solicitation to impel the vote despite the chairman's chum speaker Mike Johnson's expostulations.
Trump changed his mind on Sunday night and urged the lower house to pass the legislation. Although its chances in the Senate are uncertain, Subramanyam projected that it may pass with a "close to unanimous vote."
The Democrat stated that he anticipated the president would "put a lot of pressure on" the Republican majority to abandon the bill, which would need to be signed into law.
“The victims have been so strong and outspoken and courageous about this, and the general public is fed up with the Trump administration about this,”
Subramanyam said.
“And so I think the more public pressure there is, the more of a chance we could see this happen in the Senate.”
What evidence supports the lawmaker's claim about Andrew evading investigation?
The crucial substantiation supporting the legislator's claim that Prince Andrew finessed the Epstein disquisition includes blurted emails and fiscal records showing his uninterrupted contact and collaboration with Jeffrey Epstein well beyond the date Andrew intimately claimed their association ended.
Lawmakers on a House investigative commission cited fiscal records bearing notes similar as" massage for Andrew," raising serious questions about Andrew's involvement and knowledge of Epstein- related conditioning. These lawgivers have requested that Andrew share in a formal interview to clarify his part and knowledge of crimes related to Epstein and his associates.
Scrutiny arises from reports that Andrew tried to use his taxpayer- funded police protection officer to gather particular information about one of Epstein's victims, Virginia Giuffre, over a decade ago.