In his autobiography, Colin Powell said that he regularly played racket ball with a Saudi prince and the prince would always just drop his bag off his shoulder expecting someone to catch it.
When I went to Armor Officers Basic Course they always have several foreign officers in the classes. Most often they are Saudi or Kuwaiti from wealthy families or minor royalty. They are always in for a rude awakening when they find out there are no servants and lieutenants are expected to do things like carry their own bags and help work on the tank.
I know that US ambassadors and embassy staff do have two passports. They are to use the official passport only if they are travelling on US government business. They are advised to always carry both passports for security reasons.
I’m no expert on the ins and outs of diplomatic travel. It seems to me that advocating for a charity is not diplomatic work. I would think that would only cover things done on behalf of the country. He had the official title of Trade Envoy until 2011 when the pictures of him with Epstein and other controversies surfaced.
My stepmother grew up in the days of butlers and maids when the upper crust would wear a different outfit for dinner parties, etc. One of her acquaintances went to boarding school in Switzerland before WWII and relates the story of sharing a room with an Iranian “princess”. Early on, the Iranian girl accidentally knocked her ruler off the desk - she looks at her roommate, points and says “my ruler”.
Similar rude awakening.
(I’m reminded of the line by Raj in Big Bang Theory: “We’re not rich! We only had five servants, and three were children.”)
And so were “panick” and “frolick”.
All of the verb gerund/progressive tense forms were built from the original mostly archaic spellings.
Now you’re just being didactick. 
Many US military also have official passports if their duties involve a lot of international travel. I did and I was nobody special as officers go. Certainly I was not high ranking. And yes, we were expected to carry our blue civilian passport as well as the maroon official one even when we were on official business and using the maroon one for international entry.
I’m imagining a true “diplomatic” passport is yet a different thing from the “official” government one.
I was in university with a couple of guys who were at that school with Andy. They told a slightly different story …
But goes to my point - he attracted groupies like flies, I assume - no need to actually pay for the night’s entertainment. Either they fell all over him, or obsequious hangers on (like Epstein) made the arrangements. I’m sure he realized some were professionals, so to speak, but not details on how they were recruited.
There is no reason why Andrew or Gates, Clinton etc would have known that the girls were being trafficked, especially back then when public awareness about the trade was much less than today. Indeed chances are that Epstein and Maxwell made sure that their extremely influential and connected guests did not ever have reason to believe that the girls were not there of their own accord.
Back in 2012/2013 I advised an NGO which helped rescued trafficked women,
You would be amazed (I know I was) at the amount of autonomy many of the victims had in their day to day affairs. Had access to money, could come and go as they pleased and could turn down specific “gigs”. Often lived on their own off site.
To an outsider observer they would absolutely not look to be forced.
Diplomatic courtesies and procedures are all based on a broad set of agreed upon international rules, agreements, and specific treaties. Generally speaking no host country is required to accept anyone as a diplomat. If another country sought to credential someone with diplomatic privileges and the host country objected, that’s the end of the matter. Now, in the ordinary course of business, doing so might strain diplomatic relations between the two countries–but the host country ultimately can refuse to accept a diplomat. However once you have accepted a person into your country with diplomatic privileges, it is against those rules, agreements and treaties to alter that status while they are resident in the country. That doesn’t mean they can stay there and do whatever they wish. If the person behaves objectionably enough, or even just if the host country gets mad at the other country for other reasons, the host country has the innate right to “expel diplomats.” They give the person a notice that they have x number of hours to leave the country, after which they will no longer be afford diplomatic privileges and could be subject to arrest for illegal presence in the country or even other crimes.
I don’t know a ton about the two incidents you mention, but in general if someone enters the country without having been given diplomatic status, the host country is under no formal obligation to accept them as a diplomat post-fact; but foreign relations isn’t just the exercise of formal obligations. I imagine for important countries where the crime isn’t something really crazy (like say, being caught plotting terrorist attacks), the State Department and the executive branch would likely usually be inclined to accede to the wishes of the foreign power. Like even a decently serious domestic criminal law breach, as a one off offense, isn’t as important as our relationship with a country like Saudi Arabia or India.
I wasn’t taking a position on whether or not immunity should have been granted in those situations. I’m simply observing that it appears to be the case, under US law, that a subsequent grant of diplomatic immunity can serve to immunize a person from prosecution for crimes committed before they had immunity.
The Khobragade case does strike me as odd, because it led to a situation where two departments of the federal executive were at odds (the State Department immunized this woman while the Justice Department was pushing to continue the prosecution). The Abdulaziz case had the federal government impeding a state action, which seems more logical to me.
What I wonder about - even if someone commits a crime in the USA (or wherever) before they have diplomatic immunity in the country, I assume once they are granted diplomatic immunity then any previous criminal processing cannot proceed, because - if they have diplomatic immunity now what are you going to do now to someone who is now immune? I presume they cannot be arrested or held.
The fault obviously is that the state department certified immunity for someone who had (allegedly) already committed an offense. The inference is they bent over backward to protect a Saudi citizen despite malfeasance, not something we expect from the State department, yes? (/s) I presume if the perp showed up back in the USA without benefit of immunity and statute of limitations had not expired, they could still be prosecuted?
Yes. That’s the idea. The immunity serves to block any action that is commenced after you obtain immunity or any action that is pending at the time you obtain immunity (regardless of when the crime took place).
I think that’s right. There is residual immunity that protects the diplomat even after her immunity has expired, but only for certain actions and nothing relevant here. In the Indian case, the DOJ argued that the defendant didn’t have immunity at the time of the crime or at the time of the decision, but the case got dismissed because she had immunity at some point while the case was pending. So I would think that you could prosecute someone (who did not have immunity at any time during the proceedings) for something he did when he did not have immunity, regardless of whether he had immunity between the crime and the commencement of proceedings. But I really don’t know. Retroactive immunity is rare.
Diplomatic immunity is something foreign countries claim. The state department isn’t in charge of what the Saudis claim. Certification by the state department is something the state department does to make it easier for the police, the courts, the state department and the rest of the government know who has had that claim made by a foreign country.
Why should the courts have to ask the Saudis every time some random claims they are protected by diplomatic immunity? They don’t: they just check with the state department.
Diplomatic immunity can be requested by a foreign state for its diplomats, but only the receiving state can grant it. And the receiving state can strip a foreign diplomat of immunity by declaring them persona non grata and giving them 48 hours to get out of Dodge.
A foreign state has no power to eliminate the operation of the domestic law.
In what way were they?
They used a combination of things. My senior counsel had a great description for it, she said they used a "carrot, stick and sweet talk approach. The threat of violence was present, and violence was indeed occasionally administered, but it was mostly implicit. They preferred emotional pressure and “assisting” the victim in their daily life often in ways that looked on the face of it to be benevolent*.
Basically, they made it so that for a victim, escaping was scarier then staying. If they left they had no guarantee of escape, but they did have a guarantee of a massive drop in their living standards and the risk of severe punishment if caught.
People, (especially here) get angry when you say that, they start accusing you of victim-blaming, It’s not. If anything its much more insidious what the these traffickers do. Preying on the vulnerable and using their needs to further their own sordid agendas.
*For instance the erstwhile Virginia Roberts got to travel a lot was able to learn how to become a masseuse, and she eventually used this to exit. Which bring up another thing, the traffickers often don’t chase or even happily allow those who leave to do so as long as they keep quiet. Which she did, refusing to talk when contacted by the FBI for years.
Interesting, thanks. About what I expected. Must be hard things to prosecute when it’s such an insidious pressure, rather than straight brute force.