New Epstein File Release Puts Spotlight on Europe’s Elite

BIANNA GOLODRYGA: Now to a political crisis unfolding in Britain. After the latest release of the Jeffrey Epstein files revealed new details of former Labour politician, Peter Mandelson’s ties to the convicted sex offender. Embroiled in the scandal, as U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer himself, who admitted to having prior knowledge of Mandelson’s links to Epstein, when appointing him as U.K. ambassador to Washington in 2024. But Starmer claims he had no idea of the, quote, depth and darkness of it. Mandelson was removed from his post last year. Speaking earlier, the British leader apologized to Epstein’s victims as more information comes to light. “The Wall Street Journal’s” U.K. correspondent Max Colchester speaks to Michel Martin about the impact this scandal is having on British politics and beyond.

 

MICHEL MARTIN: Thanks, Bianna. Max Colchester, thank you so much for talking with us.

 

MAX COLCHESTER: Hi. Good to be with you.

 

MARTIN: So you cover British politics and national security. And you’ve been following the, sort of the fallout from the release of these documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who took his own life a couple of years ago. A number of very high profile individuals have been linked to him, although no one has been criminally charged as a result of it. 

 

Now it’s been known that the person, Andrew Mountbatten — formally Prince Andrew. He was stripped of his royal, royal titles. It’s been known that Prince Andrew was connected to Jeffrey Epstein in some way. But in this latest release of documents, there’s been additional fallout. Could you — as briefly as you can, tell us what that is, and why this latest document release has caused a huge reaction in the U.K.?

 

COLCHESTER: Yeah, as you say, this is not a new scandal in the U.K. It’s been rolling for over a decade. But I think what the latest batch of files that the Justice Department released show really is something that was suspected but long denied, which is that Epstein having been released from jail in 2009 for soliciting sex from minors, quickly then managed to get privileged access right to the top of two pillars of the British establishment: Buckingham Palace and Downing Street. And these latest batch of emails show that via Peter Mandelson, who at the time was the U.K. business secretary — and a very famous figure on the left here — was intimately involved with Epstein, was sharing a lot of information with him. And also it shows how the then Prince Andrew was still very much a close friend of Epstein’s at the time.

 

MARTIN: And this all occurred after it had been publicly known that Jeffrey Epstein had this — he was criminally charged. He served time. Many people consider the time that he served to have been very light compared to the gravity of what he was accused of. But nevertheless, it was part of his record at that point. What are the specific allegations connected to Peter Mandelson? And why has this landed with such force in the U.K.?

 

COLCHESTER: Yes. So Peter Mandelson was a senior figure in the then Labour government back in 2009, 2010. And what this cache of email shows, is that Mandelson was forwarding sensitive — market sensitive — information that he was receiving as a senior member of the British cabinet onto Epstein. And that this is information that could have been traded on. And so since these emails have come to light, British police have announced they are investigating Mandelson, and this is turning into an almighty crisis here.

 

MARTIN: Has Mr. Mandelson spoken about why he was forwarding this information to Jeffrey Epstein?

 

COLCHESTER: Mandelson has not addressed that allegation directly. He’s previously expressed regret for being friends with Epstein and has previously said he had nothing to do with any of the sexual acts that Epstein allegedly conducted. But this is nonetheless a very serious allegation for him to face. It really does lay bare something that he long denied, which was that he had largely cut off ties with Epstein. And also it’s caused a lot of anger here amongst the Labour Party, which is now back in power because Mandelson, up until last year, was the ambassador to the U.S. for the U.K. and had been handpicked by the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to take on that role. And Starmer says that before giving him the job Mandelson was very clear that he had — there were no, you know, more skeletons in the cupboard when it came to Epstein.

 

MARTIN: And also the former Prince Andrew and his former wife Sarah Ferguson is also mentioned in the this latest cache of documents. Is there new information about them? And is that also something that’s disturbing to the British public?

 

COLCHESTER: Yeah, this, this very much confirms what many people already suspected about Prince Andrew. Now, again, he’s not been found guilty of any crimes, and he denies all allegations against him. But what these emails, again, show is that he was very close to Epstein. And you can see him corresponding with Epstein organizing visits to Buckingham Palace. There are photographs of him kneeling over a woman presumably in Epstein’s New York apartment or New York House. There are messages where he seems to be welcoming a Russian woman that Epstein suggested he meet in London. So all this just adds to the picture that people already had of him, that he was essentially corrupted by Epstein. That he was getting he was, he, he had essentially been corrupted by the promise of sex and money. And that is something that is very damaging for the Windsor franchise.

 

MARTIN: And what about his former wife, Sarah Ferguson? And recognizing that the communications between them don’t seem to have national security implications or implications around confidential financial information. But her name has also surfaced. And, and in what context?

 

COLCHESTER: So Sarah Ferguson — who is Andrew’s ex-wife — her name has surfaced because she pretty much, pretty much weeks after Epstein came out of jail, started emailing him saying, Hey can I come and see you? I need some advice on this and that, mentioning that she was struggling to pay her rent, suggesting she brings her two daughters to meet him. So it seems like there was a very close relationship, or nearly a needy relationship really, between Ferguson and Epstein, where she was constantly badgering him to work out how best to launch a foundation or, you know, who she should meet. And it really sort of laid bare this weird access that Epstein had to the top of the British royal family.

 

MARTIN: People are accustomed to scandals, unsavory things, just not attractive things being attached to the royal family and other members of sort of the sort of the, the British sort of social and political hierarchy. But there seems to be a real reaction this time that just seems kind of sharper and more intense. And there’s also the prospect of a criminal investigation. Why do you think the reaction is, is as it is this time?

 

COLCHESTER: ‘Cause I think it really lays bare the extent of Epstein’s grip on these two people within — at the top of the British establishment. And it also lays bare something else, which is that for a long time this was denied. And you have to remember — as often is the case in the U.S. — the way that scandals play out in the U.K. is that at first the institution denies there’s a problem. And then it seeks to discredit those who are trying to say there’s a problem. And then you get a weasily-worded apology and someone steps back. And then there’s a final act, in which the establishment turns on the individual and devours them. And this is the act we’re now seeing play out when it comes to Epstein. Andrew and Mandelson are both being denounced by the establishment, and as the establishment looks to close ranks and protects its own.

 

MARTIN: In your reporting, you describe Epstein’s relationship with Peter Mandelson in unusually intimate terms, including an email where Mandelson writes, quote, You are the only person who knows everything about me, don’t go away. What, what does that tell us? 

 

COLCHESTER: Well, I think it says that Mandelson trusted Epstein implicitly. And we don’t know why he trusted him so much or, and the full extent of what Epstein did for Mandelson. We can see from the Epstein files that Epstein appears to have given money to Mandelson. There are bank transfers showing that around $75,000 was wired to Mandelson in the early two thousands. Mandelson does — says he doesn’t remember that wire transfer. There’s evidence that Epstein paid for Mandelson’s partner to go on osteopathy course. So there is some financial, some financial gain to be had there, but it doesn’t seem to explain that, that the extent of the trust that Mandels showed Epstein. 

 

And when you read the emails between the two men, it’s very, it’s a very odd relationship. It’s, it’s like a sort of godfather talking to his godson, Epstein saying, Yes, I think you should do this next in your career. And, Oh, you know, I think you need to deal with the Prime Minister like this, and why don’t you pursue this business interest? It’s a very lopsided relationship. And it really shows the power that Epstein must have had over this group of people. Because obviously he was offering access to a very rarefied world. He was offering money, and in some instances sex as well. And that seems to have been a very, very potent mix of people. And seems to have won a lot of very powerful people over.

 

MARTIN: So just to, just to clarify, you’re saying Mandelson has said he has no recollection of receiving these funds. 

 

COLCHESTER: Correct. He says he needs to investigate it further himself. So we’ll see what he comes back with that.

 

MARTIN: So in this country, one of the reasons that this story has such power — I mean, it has, it has power for a number of reasons. One is the fact of these young women, in some cases, girls being sort of traded around like, you know, toys among these powerful men is disgusting. It’s also illegal, and it speaks to a sense that what happens to women and girls, especially vulnerable women and girls, has just not been taken as seriously as it should have been. 

 

But the other reason that this story has forced is that it sort of speaks to this kind of the interconnectedness of this global elite where apparently the rules don’t apply. And I’m wondering if those through lines of the story are also resonating in the U.K.

 

COLCHESTER: Yes, they absolutely are. I think what you see throughout the emails when you read them, especially as they pertain to the U.K., is that Epstein’s essentially leveraging each of the people he has access to gain access to more people. So for, in the instance of Prince Andrew, you can see he befriends Andrew. And it’s actually Andrew, interestingly, it’s Andrew who reaches out to Epstein after he’s released from jail, not the other way around. It’s Andrew reaching out, saying, Hey I’d like to come to Paris on a private trip. Could I have access to your flat there? And Epstein says Yes. And then Epstein turns around to other people and says, I know Andrew, would you like to visit Buckingham Palace? And he uses that as a sort of networking effect. 

 

Now, why Andrew felt it was okay to reach out to Epstein after he’d just been released from jail, I don’t know. And it’s a question that he hasn’t addressed. He denies that, you know, he did anything wrong but it’s still a question of judgment. 

 

Equally with Peter Mandelson. When Epstein is released from jail, he sends an email calling it “Liberation Day,” which is really quite astounding. So it seems as if they just didn’t take this very seriously and they didn’t give it the weight that perhaps it should have been. Well, which it should definitely have been given. And it speaks — it does speak to this idea that there are different sets of rules for different sets of people. And that because Epstein was well connected and wealthy, you know, the allegations against him weren’t so serious in their minds and therefore could be ignored. 

 

MARTIN: Is the, is the, is the sort of the transcontinental aspect of this interesting, or does that stand out to 

your…

 

COLCHESTER: Yeah.

 

MARTIN: …to your office in England?

 

COLCHESTER: I think so. I mean, what’s interesting here is we’re really seeing a degree of po — I mean, no one’s been punished in court, right? But they are being punished in the court of public opinion. And that’s what’s happening here in the U.K. now. Those who were involved are being outed and named and shamed, and the institutions they were part of are turning on them and isolating them. So in Andrew’s case, for instance, he was officially kicked out of his stately residence in Windsor and varied to a farm in East England where he will now live. And that was the royal family’s way of saying, This guy is no longer a public member of our clan. And you won’t be seeing him very much anymore.

 

MARTIN: Is the royal family making a statement by letting it be known that he has been unceremoniously evicted from his lavish quarters and sent someplace else?

 

COLCHESTER: Completely. That’s the whole choreography here of what we saw. As you mentioned, he was stripped of his titles last year when the first batch of Epstein files was released. And the, the palace said that he could no longer be called Prince. He’s no longer allowed to use the title Duke of York. And he was asked to leave this huge 30 room mansion that he inhabits on the Windsor estate, but he was still living in that mansion while they were doing up some…a farm ostensibly in East England where he would live. But it seems that they’ve expedited that house move in the wake of this latest revelation, because what came out was so damning which were these pictures of him kneeling over an unidentified woman and a batch of emails, which seemed to show that he was really up to no good with the — well, it seemed to suggest that he was up to no good with Epstein.

 

MARTIN: So in the United States, the Deputy Attorney General is a former personal lawyer of President Trump. The Attorney General previously defended the president in an impeachment proceeding. Okay. They, these people who have strong personal professional ties to President Trump are now in position to oversee any further investigation that may take place. The Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has said that there are no more documents to be released, that they’re done. Members of Congress who have been pushing for this, disagree with that. But that issue, you know, remains sort of unresolved. So my question is, in the UK is there more to come, are there further investigations taking place? Is there a further effort to investigate what these ties may have been between these individuals and Epstein?  

 

COLCHESTER: Yeah, I think that’s one of the key differences between the U.S. and the U.K. now, is that in the UK we’re starting to see deeper police involvement. There’s an investigation into Mandelson over his disclosure of sensitive market, sensitive government information to Epstein, which potentially could have allowed Epstein to engage in insider trading. Police are also looking at evidence that Prince Andrew welcomed a 20-year-old to the U.K. and that may have been involved with sexual activities at Windsor. So that the police are looking at preliminary evidence there. An investigation has not been launched, but that’s something they’re looking at. 

 

So this isn’t over here. And also there is potentially a huge political aftershock rumbling here, which is to look at, there’s a lot of questions now about the Prime Minister Keir Starmer about why he appointed Mandelson to be the U.S. Ambassador, how much he knew about Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein before making that appointment, whether he was ill-advised and whether he should take some form of responsibility for that appointment. So now it’s ricocheting off into very modern day politics here, which is, you know, this could potentially really damage the incumbent Prime Minister. So it is a very much alive issue in this country.

 

MARTIN:  But the question, I think, going forward, is there any move to think about…you know, in the wake of sometimes of political scandals, people say, you know what? We need a system change. We need some guardrails here. We need to establish clear rules about conduct that everybody can agree to, and that we are going to then hold accountability for, right? And I’m just wondering is, is that a conversation that’s happening or is it just too soon?

 

COLCHESTER: I think there’s the beginnings of that conversation. I think, as we’ve discussed, one of the issues here is that no one has gone to jail. You know, even Epstein never really paid for his crimes. He died in mysterious circumstances by suicide while in jail. You know, it’s, it’s of the, of the people involved, very few have actually ended up behind bars. And so there’s a big question about that. And then there is the question of what do you do for people who have engaged in non-criminal but morally reprehensible behavior? And for instance, in the U.K., one of the focuses has been whether Mandelson is — who is a member — who’s a Lord, he’s a Lord Mandelson — whether the rules should be changed to make it easier to strip lords of their titles, for instance, if they are shown to behave badly. So we’re starting to see changes in that sort of direction to try and hold people who have power to account.

 

MARTIN: Max Colchester, thanks so much for talking with us.

 

COLCHESTER: Thank you so much for your time.