Transcription
The Mandlesson affair is the most damaging scandal to afflict Kier Starmer's government. Downing Street has scrambled to distance the prime minister from the disgraced peer. But can he get far enough away?
Kier Starmer himself took another step by torching the remains of Mandelson's shredded reputation. "Mandelson betrayed our country, our parliament, and my party. Mr. Speaker, he lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador. I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government."
But there was one thing that the prime minister did know. Did the official security vetting he received mention Mandelson's ongoing relationship with the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein?
"So clear," said the Prime Minister. "Yes, it did."
"Mandelson completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein and lied throughout the process. That is absolutely shocking and that is why later today my party will call on the government to release all documents relating to Mandelson's appointment, not just the..."
"Okay," said the government, "but the Cabinet Secretary must choose what can be safely published." MPs wanted Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee, the ISC, to have independent oversight. And just look who popped up on the rebels' side.
"Given the public disgust and the sickening behaviour of Peter Mandelson and the importance of transparency, should we not have the ISC not have the same role now in keeping public confidence in the process?"
Just 15 minutes later, a phone was passed along the front bench with a message saying the Cabinet Secretary would be subject to "scrutiny of the approach he is taking by the ISC." The phone was returned. The government had caved. The ISC will oversee publication, and the chairman says they won't spare the government's blushes.
"We don't want to put anything in the public domain which harms national security. But if it's embarrassing, for example, that are not grounds for redacting information, but that's down to us, not to the government."
Yet some Labour backbenchers already think the appointment of Peter Mandelson to Washington was a fatal error on the part of the prime minister. Listen to this from the former shadow chancellor.
"I think he really needs to consider his position at the moment about how he goes forward on this because this is one of those issues that can not just bring down a prime minister, it can bring down a government."
"Can we be absolutely clear when you say the prime minister should consider his position? What do you say?"
"I think he should consider his track record. Is he performing the role responsibly? And I think the responsibility on is on his shoulders to think whether he's doing the right thing by staying on."
This evening came a further complication. The Metropolitan Police, who are investigating Lord Mandelson's alleged leaks to Epstein, say they have asked the government not to release some of the documents Number 10 did want to publish. This toxic mess is a very long way from being cleared up. Carl, News at 10, Westminster.
Well, let us talk to Robert on the set of his Peston program. Always required viewing tonight, triply so, I would humbly suggest. Robert, we talk about this so often, don't we? I always operate on the principle that Labour talks about getting rid of its leaders but never really actually does it. They weren't quite Liz Truss level scenes in the Commons today, but it was getting very febrile, and I am starting to wonder whether Keir Starmer survives. What do you think?
Well, I'm actually looking, I'm here in my studio. I'm actually looking at the front page of the Guardian, uh, typically a Labour supporting paper. The headline is: "It's over for Starmer, MPs say amid fury over Mandelson." Which does capture the mood. I've got on my show tonight Becky Long Bailey, who actually was a candidate in the leadership election that Starmer won. She has been trying in recent weeks and months to be loyal to him and his government, but her mood of despair, uh, over the damage uh to the government's reputation from the appointment of Mandelson, uh, was absolutely palpable. And I think, you know, there's just the one simple thing that one has to focus on. Um, these leaks that Mandelson made to Epstein, not alleged leaks, we've seen them in black and white, which is why the prime minister says that he has let down the country and disgraced himself. Um, you know, they would have been obviously toxic history, but they would have been history for the Labour party. What the, the, the problem for Starmer is that he has made this toxic for this government because it was his decision to bring Mandelson into the government, and it was his decision, which he disclosed today, in the knowledge that Mandelson was aware that he would continue his relationship after Epstein was convicted of sex crimes. And, you know, he spends every minute at the moment when he's talking about this, Starmer prefacing it by saying he has enormous sympathy for the abused, the women abused, the children abused by Epstein. Many people would say that should have been reason enough to block the appointment of Mandelson in the first place. Strikingly, they, the government could not put up, could not find a single minister to defend Starmer on the show tonight, which I think tells you pretty much everything you need to know.
Tom: Robert, it sure does. I'll be watching on my way home. Thank you very much indeed.
Now, none of you will have forgotten this infamous photo of Andrew with his arm around Virginia Giuffre, next to a grinning Ghislaine Maxwell on the night Virginia claimed she was asked to sleep with the former Prince Andrew. Andrew denied any wrongdoing, said he could not recall meeting her, and he, or at least his allies, implied that the photo might well be a fake. But according to yet another newly released email, it wasn't. Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former partner, wrote about their 2001 meeting later in 2015.
It is the photograph just about everyone has seen: the then Prince Andrew with an arm around the waist of his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, who said it was taken in 2001 at the London home of Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's associate. Remind yourself first what Andrew said about this meeting in that Newsnight interview of 2019.
Prince Andrew: "I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady."
Emily Maitlis: "None whatsoever?"
Prince Andrew: "No."
We now have an email exchange. It's from 2015 between Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. They are writing a draft statement to the media. A name has been redacted many times, but there is a reference to Virginia's mother, and also the words, "I know knowledge of VR having sexual activity Prince Andrew." VR could be Virginia Roberts, the maiden name of Virginia Giuffre. The draft statement to the media includes this line: "In 2001, I was in London when [redacted name] met a number of friends of mine, including Prince Andrew. A photograph was taken, as I imagine she wanted to show it to friends and family."
That photo, and many other things besides, was the reason King Charles ordered his brother out of his Windsor home. Andrew has now left Royal Lodge. There were just removal vans parked outside this morning. But this estate will still be part of a police inquiry following claims from a woman that she was trafficked here for sex with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in 2010.
There wasn't just one new document today, but two concerning Andrew's friendship with Epstein. It is a letter dated 2011 from a lawyer representing a woman who claimed she was invited to perform an exotic dance at Epstein's house. The lawyer writes, "At his home, Mr. Epstein introduced my client to his guest, Prince Andrew. My client then danced for the men." The letter alleges Epstein and Andrew asked her for a threesome. "She was working as an exotic dancer, but she was treated like a prostitute," the lawyer writes. And he adds, "His client will keep quiet about what happened in exchange for a payment of $250,000." "Naturally, this confidentiality agreement would extend to my client's interactions with Prince Andrew as well."
We can only imagine what Queen Camilla thinks about the damage her brother-in-law is doing to the monarchy.
Reporter: "Morning. Will the Royal Family help the Epstein investigation?"
Reporter: "Do you have a message for Epstein's victims, Your Majesty?"
She kept her views to herself today, but it should be pointed out the Queen has done a lot over many years to highlight the abuse women face, particularly domestic abuse.
Chris: The Queen ignoring questions there, but this is a big problem for the Royal Family, isn't it?
Chris: I mean, it is. Yes. I, I think the school of thought was before Christmas when the King took away the Prince title and the Dukedom and the house, and we now know that he's left Windsor and he's living, Andrew is living somewhere in Sandringham. It would be less of a problem when weeks like this came up. But, you know, Prince Edward was asked about it yesterday. Arguably, he didn't do a particularly good job of responding to it. You could see Queen Camilla there keeping her eyes straight ahead as those questions came in. And I should point out she does do a lot for those who have suffered from domestic abuse and other things. But, yeah, it just means the questions are coming and coming and coming. Uh, you know, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, of course, has previously denied all these allegations, everything, uh, all these claims of wrongdoing. But, you know, we've still got tomorrow to go. We had two new documents today. Who knows what we might get tomorrow and more questions?
Reporter: Yes, yes, indeed. Thank you very much indeed.
Now, in the United States, another high-profile name was added to the list of Epstein acquaintances in the bulk release of files last Friday: that of the former Microsoft boss Bill Gates. He's described as false the claim in an unsent Epstein email that Mr. Gates had picked up a sexually transmitted disease which he had allegedly passed to his then wife, Melinda. She also spoke out today, saying it was for her ex-husband and people like him to answer the difficult questions, not her.
The millions of new Epstein documents released by the US Department of Justice give a glimpse into the disgraced financier's private world, showing the public figures with whom he mixed. Among them, Bill Gates. There aren't just photos of the Microsoft founder and the pedophile together. There were also emails alluding to sexual activity. This message Epstein sent to himself addressed Gates, referring to a sexually transmitted disease or STD, and Gates's alleged request that Epstein provide antibiotics so he can surreptitiously give them to Melinda, his then wife. Today, Bill Gates rebuffed the allegations as "absolutely absurd," giving this interview to Australian TV.
Bill Gates: "The email is, uh, you know, false. Uh, so I don't know what his thinking was there. It just reminds me, you know, every minute I spent with him, I, I regret and I, you know, apologize that I did that."
But speaking on a podcast, his ex-wife is blunt in her assessment.
Melinda French Gates: "How did that happen to those girls, right? And so for me, it's just sadness. Sadness for, you know, I, I've left, I had to leave my marriage. I wanted to leave my marriage. I had to leave the, I felt I needed to eventually leave the foundation. And so it's just sad."
Survivors were promised their anonymity would be protected. Yet repeatedly, names, numbers, and emails have not been redacted, leaving the women at the heart of this scandal exposed.
Survivor Advocate: "They are mortified, they're angry, they're scared. One of the girls, and I, I'm so, so sorry for her, um, she has gone into hiding. Um, she's in fear for her life."
At the same time, alleged perpetrators are protected. The author of this email to Epstein, thanking him for a fun night, adding, "Your littlest girl was a little naughty," is not revealed. Part of a pattern, according to the Democrats investigating Epstein.
Congressman: "They have been picking and choosing which files to release. And so I think it was, uh, very carefully curated to protect certain people and to continue the cover-up, which is what something we have a problem with."
There are still more than two and a half million files which remain undisclosed. The US government says it's not planning further releases, despite growing political pressure and a law compelling them to do so. Dan Rivers, News at 10, Washington.
And Dan spoke to one congressman who wants Andrew to testify before Congress.
Congressman: "Certainly, it seems like they have been picking and choosing which files to release. Uh, things that we were looking for, like draft indictments, uh, witness statements, uh, statements of survivors and names. Uh, those things were not included in their release. And so I think it was, uh, very carefully curated to protect certain people and to continue the cover-up, which is what something we have a problem with. Even the files that slipped through, uh, that people who are curating these files missed, like call logs making accusations against President Trump, those were then removed from the online portal. Um, and so, uh, clearly they were trying to remove anything that made the president look bad. In contrast, uh, when we got documents from the estate, we didn't do anything of that sort. We released everything. The only thing we did was protect victims. And in those cases, we saw a lot of revealing information about the president's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. And certainly, I, I'm also curious about whether the president's friends are also being protected in this process, too. And so that's why we're going to continue this investigation and continue to ask for the rest of the files to be released. Uh, again, this, this entire investigation is not supposed to be about the president. He's made himself central to it by withholding the files and telling his deputies, some of whom, uh, you know, were promising from the very beginning they wanted to release all the files, they wanted transparency. You know, he's told them to withhold the files, and so that's why we have our suspicions because his actions are louder than his words. I've invited Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as well to come. We want to hear from everyone that had knowledge of Epstein and his crimes. We are open to a multitude of options for him. He doesn't have to come to the United States if he doesn't want to. He can do it remotely. He can do it online. He can do it and limit the time frame. We're open to negotiating those things. But, you know, reality is he is hidden from us. He's not coming forward, and this is an opportunity for him to clear his name. And so, you know, the public, I think, wants to hear him or see him at least try to cooperate with our investigation. But we're going to continue asking the questions and continue to look for the evidence. And if he keeps showing up like he has, then, you know, that's going to tell its own story. And so if anyone's trying to hide something, we're going to be dogged in our pursuit and we're going to find the facts regardless of whether you're trying to hide it. This isn't just about the crimes Epstein committed. It was the cover-up. And part of the reason he was able to cover up some of these crimes is because he had these deep relationships with some of these high-level government people and these powerful people. And part of that is he used some of his crimes as sex trafficking to sort of get dirt on them and have dirt on them, and then he would hang that over them, or he'd hang money over them, financial support over them. There's a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that he was running some form of a blackmail operation. And so the question though is, uh, you know, who was involved in that and to what extent. Certainly, you know, I think this is something that, you know, folks in the UK should look into if that is true. And certainly, you know, whatever evidence we find, you know, we're going to make public, and they can use that for any investigation they do."