Starmer steadies Labour as Epstein fallout spreads (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Hello, it's Alex in Westminster.

[00:00:02] Speaker 2: And it's James also in Westminster.

[00:00:04] Speaker 1: So we were talking yesterday just after what this sort of quite crucial moment where we had Keir Starmer addressing his MPs in Parliament. After all, the cabinet had fallen in behind Keir Starmer after this kind of fairly dramatic day when we'd had Scottish Labour leader calling for him to go. Then today, after all of that up and down and whataboutery of yesterday, it feels quite different in Westminster, I would say.

[00:00:30] Speaker 2: It's been a calmer day, hasn't it? Although, I have to say, an extremely wet and cold day. I went to Downing Street to watch the Scottish Labour MPs who were going in there this evening after they'd had their meeting among themselves in the House of Commons. They were going into Downing Street into number 10. And it was so wet. It was so wet when it was like someone was just turning it up, up and up and up. It was raining more and more and more heavily. But in terms of the actual fallout today in political terms, it's been a bit calmer, hasn't it? The prime minister has given a speech. He's tried to steady things. All these MPs, it was like, oh, who are they going to back? Are they going to back the prime minister? These Scottish Labour MPs, are they going to back Anas Sarwar? And they came out with this. I mean, newscasters have their own view about how sustainable or realistic this position is. But they were like, oh, you know, they were like both of them. They're both fine.

[00:01:22] Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, it's definitely calmed down. And some of the heat has gone out of it. And Keir Starmer, I think, trying to really reiterate what he was saying in private behind closed doors to his Labour MPs last night was out and about today, literally with his sleeves rolled up. And you know that it's a sign of politicians wanting to kind of get across that they're relaxed and comfortable and on the front foot when they get out among people and roll their sleeves up. And there was Keir Starmer with his sleeves rolled up at a sort of coffee morning, addressing head on some of the stuff that's happened in the past few days and taking some questions. And he literally, and you can't use that word unless it's accurate, but he literally delivered a bit of fighting talk. Let's have a listen to what he had to say.

[00:02:04] Speaker 3: There are some people in recent days who say the Labour government should have a different fight, a fight with itself, instead of a fight for the millions of people who need us to fight for them. And I say to them, I will never walk away from the mandate I was given to change this country. I will never walk away from the people that I'm charged with fighting for. And I will never walk away from the country that I love.

[00:02:33] Speaker 2: Literally with his sleeves rolled up and literally fighting talk.

[00:02:38] Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, he did. He was. And it was a very similar message because the day started with his cabinet. He had a meeting of his cabinet in Downing Street, which happens every week, of course. But this one was in the wake of everything that had gone before. And during that meeting, he thanked all of those cabinet ministers because, of course, they were the cabinet ministers that did come out one by one and express their support for him during what was quite a sort of potentially perilous moment. And I think now there's this sense. And actually, weirdly, one of those cabinet ministers, Ed Miliband, gave an interview on the Today programme on Radio 4 on Tuesday morning in which he was just he was kind of really blunt about just how perilous the moment had been for Keir Starmer on Monday. You know, he said that the Labour Party had effectively stared over the precipice and then pulled back from it. But he acknowledged that this was a moment of real peril. We can hear him talking about some of that.

[00:03:30] Speaker 4: I think the way I would put it is that Labour MPs looked over the precipice once and as Sarwar made his statement and they didn't like what they saw and they thought the right thing to do was to unite behind Keir to focus on the country, because we didn't want to go down the road of the Tories when they were in power. Chaotic, disorderly leadership contest.

[00:03:52] Speaker 1: The really interesting thing about what Ed Miliband was saying was that this is a point where a moment, I think he said, where things have to change. And I think that is where the questions are now going to come for Keir Starmer. What what is that change? What does it look like? What does it mean?

[00:04:06] Speaker 2: Yeah, because let's be honest, you know, it's been a calmer day today. But I mean, first of all, that's a low bar compared to yesterday. And secondly, none of this means that the prime minister is out of the woods. I mean, these Labour MPs I was looking at today, the Scottish contingent, they were they did not look they were they were flat when they came out of their own group meeting. They didn't come out punching the air and saying, yeah, it's all fine. We're going to fight. They didn't look happy. They were fairly reluctant to talk. Those that did talk were sort of saying, yeah, well, you know, we support both of them. You could tell it's hard for them to really believe that when one person, the Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, has called for the other, the prime minister to resign because he says what's happening in Downing Street is terrible and a disaster and chaotic. I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of what he said. And so none of this has gone away. And so the question, I suppose, then is, is there now a plan in Downing Street for the prime minister for how he? I mean, change has been the word all the way through. Change was what they promised the electorate before the general election nearly two years ago. And now is it change again for Keir Starmer?

[00:05:17] Speaker 1: Well, that's exactly it, because, of course, what has really triggered the events of the past few days and the very open questions about Keir Starmer's leadership that we have had from some people in the Parliamentary Labour Party has, of course, been the decision about Peter Mandelson and the decision to appoint him US ambassador. But the backdrop to that has been a sort of bubbling discontent in some quarters of the Labour Party for some time. And it dates right back to decisions like the decision over the winter fuel payment and then what happened with welfare reform. And then what people would point to is the policy and position changes. And you can argue over whether you want to call them U-turns or not. But, you know, it is this sort of it isn't just what happened around Peter Mandelson. There is a backdrop to all of this, which I think Anna Sawa, the Scottish Labour leader, was sort of nodding to when he was making his criticism of Downing Street. So now I think the question for Labour MPs and Labour MPs who are critical of Keir Starmer, and of course, that isn't all of them, is so what does he do now? And I think there are some practical questions. So we know, for example, he's looking for a new permanent chief of staff because he hasn't got Morgan McSweeney there anymore. He's looking for a new director of communications because Tim Allen stepped down. And there's also the role of the really senior civil servant who leads effectively the work of the government. Chris Wormald is heading out. So there's going to have to be a new person in that position. Now, that's the kind of like almost the technical, logistical details. Those positions are really important. But the second question, I think, is where does Keir Starmer go now when he talks about the party and the direction he wants to take it in? And we got a bit of a glimpse, I think, from his speech today when he was really focused on working people. Then he was sort of talking about his own working class roots and his own personal background. And he was saying that has to be the focus of this government. So you wonder how that will translate into policy or decisions that the government might make and whether or not that will convince the critics of Keir Starmer that he's kind of, you know, got a grip and is heading in the right direction.

[00:07:14] Speaker 2: And another thing that he has to do, not to bring it all back to Scotland, but is to decide how he's going to handle Anas Sarwar and how he's going to handle the Scottish election campaign, the campaign for the Scottish parliamentary elections on May the 7th. Obviously, there are elections in Wales and in English local elections as well. And interestingly, today, Secure and newscasters may have their own view about whether or not this was pragmatic or weak or magnanimous or however you describe it. But Secure is basically saying, yep, I'm backing Anas Sarwar. He can be he can be he should be first minister of Scotland. And that's extraordinary, you know, to hear, given what happened yesterday. But there's clearly an attempt from the top down, because we have also heard from the secretary of state for Scotland, Douglas Alexander, who is co-chair of Mr Sarwar's campaign and yet sits in the cabinet supporting the prime minister. And he was saying, oh, they had it, he was on the radio this morning on Radio Scotland Breakfast saying, oh, there was a problem yesterday. They had a bit of a fight. I was thinking yesterday is not your problem. Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow to the last syllable of recorded time is your problem here. So the question he's taken this decision, the prime minister now on how to handle Anas Sarwar, and it's to be magnanimous and to sort of rise above the fray. But I suppose my question is, how sustainable is that?

[00:08:39] Speaker 1: Yeah. And Jenny Chapman, who is a close ally of Keir Starmer, she's international development minister, but she worked on his 2020 leadership campaign. She was asked about this today. And she said that Anas Sarwar and the prime minister need to get in a room and talk this out, was her sort of suggestion, you know, that. Well, please, can we film it? I'm not sure they'd let us in. But, you know, there are genuine questions about kind of personnel and people involved in all of this now, because, of course, the other one is Wes Streeting, because we were talking, James, about how Wes Streeting had chosen unilaterally to release some of his WhatsApp exchanges with Peter Mandelson to try, from his perspective, to show that he didn't have as close a relationship with Peter Mandelson as some people had suggested he might have. Well, then following that, the release of those messages by Wes Streeting, there came this sort of messaging from number 10 to other cabinet ministers. Don't do the same. And also, you know, pointing to the Metropolitan Police who had warned about releasing information into the public domain that might jeopardise their ongoing investigations. So, again, Keir Starmer was asked about that. Chris actually asked Keir Starmer about it when he had a chance to chat to him at this coffee morning. And, you know, Chris said to him sort of, what are you going to do? You know, Wes Streeting has gone out and just released this kind of stuff. And Keir Starmer said, I think that these messages should be released in a managed way. But, you know, there are still this sort of questions about whether he decides to, as you say, be magnanimous or, you know, perhaps not to sort of take a harsh line with people that aren't falling into line with the prime minister's vision right now or not, you know, whether whether he chooses to do something entirely different.

[00:10:16] Speaker 2: And there are other problems for him. Among them, the former communications chief, the former director of communications at Number 10, Matthew Doyle, Lord Doyle, as he is now in the Lords, has had the Labour whip suspended in the Lords because of his past association with Sean Morton, who is a former Labour councillor who admitted indecent child image offences in 2017. That is a development, isn't it? He was a significant figure in not just this government, Tony Blair's government as well.

[00:10:51] Speaker 1: Yeah, he was. He's been around the Labour Party for a while. And Keir Starmer brought him back into government in a senior role in communications in Number 10, a role he hasn't been in for a while. But as you say, he was made a Labour peer. And I think for the past couple of weeks, certainly it's sort of this story has been bubbling away that effectively Matthew Doyle campaigned or worked on the campaign of Sean Morton, this former councillor, Scottish Labour councillor, former Scottish Labour councillor, who then went on to be convicted of these offences. And there were questions about sort of was that what was Matthew Doyle's role in all of that? Now, Matthew Doyle has put out a statement about this, and he said he wants to apologise for his past association with Sean Morton. He says his offences were vile. I completely condemn the actions for which he was rightly convicted. My thoughts are with the victims and all those impacted by the crimes. But what he does say is at the point of my campaigning support, Morton repeatedly asserted to all those who knew him his innocence, including initially in court. He later changed his plea in court to guilty. But he acknowledges he made an error of judgment in continuing to support the campaign. And now he's had the Labour whip suspended.

[00:12:00] Speaker 2: That's just another piece of another problem.

[00:12:04] Speaker 1: And of course, well, it's all of this. I mean, this is the thing. Really, since the beginning of this year, Keir Starmer has been attempting to focus on what he thinks has got to be the core message of government, which is about the cost of living. You know, that's what he's been trying to talk about. Now, whether or not you can say it's the government's fault, whether or not it's kind of external events, but there have been a series of things that have happened between the beginning of this year and now, some of it to do with Donald Trump, you know, and he sort of made some pretty big decisions at the beginning of the year, which swept up quite a lot of attention. But, you know, other things like Peter Mandelson and the prime minister's decision to appoint him, which has all now, of course, come to the fore again in the latest release of the Epstein files, have completely knocked what the prime minister wanted to talk about off course. And I think what we are going to see in the next few days and weeks is a sort of concerted effort from Downing Street to start to focus on those key issues again, the things that they think really matter to voters. But there are a couple of key questions about that. The first thing is, how are they going to shape the team in number 10 to sort of do that? You know, they have got these appointments that they have to make, which will be quite crucial in terms of messaging and strategy and all that stuff, which sounds a bit wonky and textbooky, but it's actually quite important how a government functions or doesn't function, as it were. And the second thing is, is that going to be enough to satisfy the people on the Labour benches, who of course are the people that will determine Keir Starmer's sort of immediate future and fate, because they're his MPs and he does need their support, whether or not it's going to be enough to satisfy those critics in the long term, because things have calmed down and the heat of Monday has definitely cooled without a shadow of a doubt. But those bigger issues that people have articulated with the Downing Street operation under Keir Starmer for some time, they haven't gone away. So it's whether or not that Keir Starmer now can find a way to address those satisfactorily to his own MPs.

[00:13:57] Speaker 2: And while we've been talking about all of that here and the fallout affecting the government and how it's playing out here at Westminster, the story's also been rumbling along in the US and also for the Royal family. And we're going to catch up now with Katrina Perry, BBC News Chief Presenter in Washington, and Daniela Relf, our Senior Royal Correspondent who is in Saudi Arabia to talk about all of that. Hi, Katrina.

[00:14:19] Speaker 5: Hi, Alex. Hi, James.

[00:14:21] Speaker 2: Hello. Hi, Daniela.

[00:14:23] Speaker 1: Hi, James. Hi, Alex. So Daniela, you have been following Prince William around on one of these Royal visits, this time to Saudi Arabia. Where are you? Because there's a lot of noise going on in the background. It sounds like there's a bit of an action behind you. Bit of a party.

[00:14:38] Speaker 6: If only I could go to it. Yeah. There's a sort of bar and restaurant in the background from where we are now. And I think perhaps you're picking up some of the music from that. Sadly, we're not quite close enough to go to it, but I'm in Alula, which is this absolutely incredible oasis city in the desert in Northwest Saudi Arabia. I'm standing surrounded by these absolutely monumental sandstone rocks that are all lit up in the night sky here. It is an incredibly dramatic setting and it is where tomorrow, Prince William has a day of engagements based around wildlife and the environment.

[00:15:10] Speaker 2: And he's meeting the Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, a very controversial figure on the world stage as well. Daniela.

[00:15:18] Speaker 6: Yeah, he met him last night, actually. He had a private dinner with the Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, and they spent, we are told, a considerable amount of time talking to one another about bilateral relations, about the general relationship between Saudi Arabia and the UK. And I think there was a hope from the UK government that there would be a personal friendship built up there. He is obviously a controversial figure around the wider picture in Saudi Arabia here over human rights and freedoms. But they're two men of the same age. They are both going to be king of a country one day. And I think the UK government was hoping there might be some kind of personal chemistry between them that could be very useful for the wider picture of UK-Saudi relations.

[00:16:02] Speaker 1: And of course, while all of that's been going on, we've had statements from some of the royal households relating to other matters. But park that thought for a minute, so we'll return to it. Because Katrina, I think you're in less glamorous surroundings than the ones that it sounds like Daniela are in. But the US is effectively where all of this around the Epstein files started. And I know there have been developments today, but parking the latest developments so far, just for the people who perhaps haven't been caught up on the recent developments from the US, because of course, a lot of the focus has been on Peter Mandelson here in the UK. But what else has come out of the Epstein files in the US in the past couple of weeks that sort of got a bit of traction there?

[00:16:41] Speaker 5: Oh my gosh, we'd need several hours for that, I think. Because we're talking about 3 million documents here released by the Department of Justice. And actually that isn't even the full extent of the file. Although we have heard from the Assistant US Attorney Todd Blanche that that is the end of it. They won't be releasing those other few million files that they still have for various reasons, spanning from confidentiality to the actual nature of the files. And also some of them are still subject to live investigations, we're told. And that is an issue that many members of Congress are still raising as to why there are some of those files being withheld. But I would have to say, and we've been debating this on many of our shows here, there is a greater sense of accountability going on in the UK now, compared to what there is in the US. I mean, we've had all of those various documents that our amazing colleagues at the BBC are trawling through, which mention Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, or which mention Peter Mandelson, we should say, of course, that a mention does not equate to wrongdoing, but everything that we've been discussing on the podcast for the last few weeks, there hasn't been that same intense focus here on specific individuals. There are some people who have stepped away from their roles because of an association with Epstein, not to do with wrongdoing, but just judgment that they had in terms of keeping up a relationship with him. We've had a statement from Noam Chomsky, who is 97 now, from his wife, saying that he regrets the acquaintance that he had with Jeffrey Epstein, said he was completely unaware of what Epstein was involved with, and his relationship was around research and actually around financial transactions, but nevertheless expressing extreme regret over his judgment in keeping that friendship up and expressing support with the victims as well. Just today, we've had an exchange, actually, on Capitol Hill involving Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary, a very close friend, as we know, of President Trump and a key member of his administration. He was appearing before a committee on Capitol Hill. Nothing got to do with Jeffrey Epstein whatsoever, but he was asked questions because he's in some of these documents. Now, he said previously on a podcast that he'd cut all ties with Jeffrey Epstein back in 2005, but when he was questioned at that committee today, he said that he had seen him in 2012 when he went for lunch on his island, and I'll just find the exact quote for you here just so I'm not misquoting anyone, but he said today, I did have lunch with him as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation. My wife was with me, as were my four children and nannies. We had lunch on the island, that is true, for an hour. We then left with all of my children, which is the quote that he said this morning, having said back last year that he cut all ties with him in 2005 because he was so troubled by him that he and his wife had agreed to never be in a room with him again, socially for business or even philanthropy, he said last year, but again, today he's just confirming some of what's in those documents that he did see him after that point. So there's lots of that information that we're tying all the threads together.

[00:20:16] Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's interesting because quite a few newscasters have been in touch with us about this. We've had quite a number of messages asking similar questions. Ollie got in touch on WhatsApp, for example, and this is typical of some of the messages we've been receiving. Thanks, Ollie, for the message. It says, clearly the main impact of the Epstein files from the UK perspective is Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, but are there similar scandals from the release of the documents in other countries, particularly the US? And I suppose what you're saying out there is there's little hints of things here and there and bits and pieces, but perhaps not quite the same level. And I wonder if some of that comes back to the debate about the suspicion that we've not been given the full picture here and that some things that might have been damaging to some people, and I know lots of people have put the name of President Trump into that frame, haven't been released. I mean, how can we be confident that President Trump's Justice Department hasn't covered up for him?

[00:21:15] Speaker 5: Well, they are the questions that Democrats in particular are raising. And we should say that President Trump says, you know, he never was engaged in anything. He didn't see anything untoward going on. He cut ties with Jeffrey Epstein a long time ago, he says. Just he's described him as a creep, a bad dude, all of this kind of thing. But that is the main point from Democrats and some Republicans as well, because of course, Congressman Thomas Massey, a Republican, has been leading the charge on this with Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, that until every single file is released, and not just released, but released in an unredacted way, because of course, lots of those files that we're looking at now have big black stripes through them, emails that seem a bit odd. The sender's name is blacked out, so you don't know whether, you know, who's sending that email, what their intention was. And that's when we had some congressmen go to the Department of Justice yesterday, actually, to view the unredacted files, or what they thought were going to be the unredacted files, because they said afterwards that still large portions of those files were redacted. And they said, in fact, some of the originals the Department of Justice told them arrived redacted. So they don't know how they could possibly get to the bottom of some of this, if the originals that the Department of Justice have are redacted as well. But they also said, and in particular, Congressman Thomas Massey, the Republican's very strong on this, that he said there are six men named in the files that they looked at yesterday, and they didn't look at all three million. You couldn't do that possibly in the couple of hours that they were there. But they feel that there are six men's names that they saw who should be subject to criminal investigation. Now, we don't know who those six men are, but interesting that when they saw what they did see with the black lines removed, that they thought immediately there are others involved here.

[00:23:09] Speaker 1: It's so interesting you talk about the redactions, because of course, the other bit of that is actually some of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein have raised concerns about stuff not being redacted and some of their details being published. But I just wanted to ask you about what has happened today, because some of the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and some democratic lawmakers have been in Washington, and they're calling for something called Virginia's Law. Can you just talk us through exactly what that is, what it would do, and if it's gonna happen?

[00:23:34] Speaker 5: Well, if it's gonna happen, who knows? Like anything in this town, it's gonna take a lot of agreement from Republicans and Democrats to get a law through the various houses and then signed by President Trump. But in short, Virginia's Law is about removing the statute of limitations on alleged crimes that were carried out by some of Jeffrey Epstein's associates. So under law, you have to raise the alarm, you have to try and press charges within a set period of time. If you don't do that, the statute of limitations passes, and you can't bring the charges again. Now, what the survivors are saying is that for many people who are victims of abuse, especially when they're children, that it could take decades before they feel able or brave enough to actually talk about those crimes, at which point the statute of limitations has run out, and it's too late, and nobody can be held accountable. So the most senior Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, has brought this bill to be known as Virginia's Law in honor of Virginia Dufresne, published it today, surrounded by survivors, as you say. There's much support from Democrats from this, and I suspect we probably will see a lot of support from Republicans as well, because in the end, the bill that was passed that has led to the publication of all these files, every single Senator, Republican and Democrat, voted in favor of it, and all bar one in the House voted in favor of it as well. And of course, we know President Trump signed that into law. So quite possibly, this will become law as well. But the problem is, okay, the timer will have no end point on it, but you still need the evidence, and you still need the files, and you still need those named individuals. So there would still be another step that they would all need in terms of, again, removing those redactions.

[00:25:24] Speaker 2: Yeah, and talking of Virginia Dufresne, we want to ask Daniela about this in a second, but just quickly, Katrina, just briefly before we do, because obviously this has followed Prince William to Riyadh, essentially. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's name has been coming up, hasn't it, in Congress. Can you just bring us up to date on what's been happening with the Virginia Dufresne case there today before we hear from, you know, what the Royals are saying about it?

[00:25:47] Speaker 5: Yeah, we've heard from many members of Congress that they want Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to come over here and appear before them and tell them what he knows, what he saw, anything that he might be able to add to this sort of sphere of information there. He isn't a US citizen, so they can't compel him to come here. They can kind of ask him nicely. They could issue a subpoena for him, but again, they couldn't enforce that in the UK. If he arrived into the US, in theory, they could bring him to the Congress and, you know, make him give information, but they are all hoping that he does that voluntarily, but we have heard that reiterated by survivors and also by many ranking members of Congress.

[00:26:28] Speaker 1: Daniela, it's interesting, isn't it, because, like, you are, there you are in Saudi for a trip with Prince William, which is obviously about the kind of diplomatic push or whatever else it might be, relations between UK and Saudi and that kind of soft power of the Royals, but the backdrop to all of this and the thing that has come to the surface, come to the fore, actually, in recent days because of the statements we've had from the Royal households is still what has been going on with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

[00:26:55] Speaker 6: Yeah, today really has been the perfect example of why this is such a difficult situation for the Royal family as they try to go about their regular duties. It is played out in a very, very difficult way for them. You know, we've got this day tomorrow where Prince William will be on a series of engagements here, but he's been in Riyadh today and doing lots of things around trade and commerce. He's taken part in some e-sports and he went to a really good engagement with young women, with girls who are taking part in football teams here in Saudi Arabia. And lots of the young women talked about the increased freedoms they've had in recent years, the changing role of women in Saudi society. So really important issues, a really important engagement in terms of what he was trying to do here. But during that engagement, a question was shouted at William about whether enough had been done by the Royal family around the Andrew Epstein situation. And, you know, that has become the story. That is the problem. That is where the focus has gone. William is here trying to develop his role as this global statesman and future king, but we've not been talking about global stages and public duty because the Epstein story is consuming so much of what the Royal family are doing at the moment, whether it is a shout at Prince William here in Riyadh or a heckle at the King in Clitheroe in Lancashire. All of that stuff is happening on repeat every time they go out and about. Against that, as we've just been hearing from Katrina, there's that background of pressure on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to now start talking. And it just means that I think there are so many strands emerging in the Epstein story now. It's just not possible for the Royal family to really manage them in any way.

[00:28:37] Speaker 2: Well, we heard yesterday this shout, as you say, in Lancashire, this shout at the King. In fact, let's have a quick listen to that now, just the sound of King Charles being heckled.

[00:28:56] Speaker 7: King Charles, how long have you known about Andrew and Epstein?

[00:28:58] Speaker 1: Andrew, King Charles, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

[00:29:06] Speaker 2: Sort of a mixed reaction there, a lot of booing. But the question was, how long have you known about Andrew and Epstein? And then today, Daniela, you were saying Prince William was asked to what extent have the Royal family done enough. What did he say?

[00:29:20] Speaker 6: He didn't say anything at all. It was hard to tell whether he had heard the detail entirely of the question, but he definitely knew he was being shouted at. You could hear the word Epstein. So he might not have known exactly what was being asked, but he got a sense of what was going on, that he was being shouted a question. He didn't respond at all. He didn't say anything. And afterwards, his team just reiterated the importance of this trip and how their focus, they felt, just had to be on the work William was doing here on behalf of the UK government. They had issued this statement yesterday morning, talking about their concerns on behalf of the Prince and Princess of Wales and saying that all their thoughts and sympathies were with the victims. I think perhaps Kensington Palace hoped that that would deal with the situation for now and perhaps shift the focus to this trip to Saudi Arabia. But there is such a swirl now. There are so many elements to the Epstein story that you can't really just shut it down with a statement.

[00:30:15] Speaker 1: And of course, we had the Buckingham Palace statement as well, Daniela. And I was thinking back to when you and I were chatting on Newscast last week, and it's like you sort of predicted this because you said, you know, you raised the question about how long can the silence hold. And now we've had these two statements from Kensington Palace and Buckingham Palace. And the Buckingham Palace statement says, the King's made it clear in words and through unprecedented action, his profound concern, allegations, which continue to come to light in respect of Mr. Mountbatten and Winder's conduct. If we are approached by Thames Valley police, we stand ready to support them as you would expect. I mean, do you think, I know it's impossible to predict what's going to happen now, but if police do launch an investigation, what kind of territory do the Royals find themselves in at that point? And do you think what they've said so far will be enough?

[00:31:04] Speaker 6: It's interesting, Alice, isn't it? You know, to have yesterday, two statements from two separate Royal households, Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace, from official spokespeople, talking personally really about how the King and how the Prince and Princess of Wales feel, really is extraordinary. I know that's an easy word to use, but it just doesn't happen very often at all. We hadn't actually heard from the King around the Epstein story since back in October on the day that he stripped his younger brother of his Royal titles and his status. So there'd been silence for quite a few months. And as we were talking about last week, my sense is this story just continued to build and the interest on it just increased, that it was gonna be really hard for the Royal family to stay silent. In a world where there is so much accountability and transparency and people want to know what people think and feel, I just couldn't see how they couldn't say something in some way, which I think is why we had those two statements yesterday to kind of show, I think on the King's part, leadership, that he understood it, that he got the anguish of victims, that he knew just how this story was playing and how difficult it was for the Royal family. But I'm not sure that that will deal with it or shut it down. We've seen today, even though we had the statement from William yesterday, that he was still being asked about it today in Riyadh. And I just think it is very hard to try and quell this now because there is such a storm of questions and inquiries around it. Buckingham Palace, I think, wouldn't have said that they would help the police, Thames Valley police, in this case, with any inquiries if they didn't mean it. So if the police do come to them, if they decide after assessing the complaint about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and his work as a trade envoy, if they decide that there is an investigation that needs to be launched, Buckingham Palace has said very clearly they will help. They will have to stand by that now, I'm sure. What that help looks like is not clear, but it may be around documents, paperwork, timings, things that happened around the time that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was working as a trade envoy. But these are really charged, difficult times that we're in for the Royal Family at the moment, in terms particularly of how they publicly respond to this drip feed of allegations that are coming out of this latest tranche of the Epstein files.

[00:33:17] Speaker 1: And just briefly, Daniela, I presume it's still silence from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor because I know he's been approached by the BBC and he's now facing these calls, including from the US, for him to appear before Congress and say what he knew, but I presume at the moment there's been no response?

[00:33:30] Speaker 6: Yeah, no response at all. We are going again and again, as each allegation arises, out of the files. We are trying to contact him with the contacts that we have, representing him, to ask if he has any comment or anything to say, putting the allegations to him. He has, of course, in the past said he regrets his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, but also said he denies any wrongdoing. But at this stage, we haven't had any response at all from him to any of the fresh allegations.

[00:33:56] Speaker 2: I was really struck by that statement being so specific about Thames Valley Police. Not just, in general, we, Buckingham Palace, would obviously support any inquiries. It's very specific. If we are approached by Thames Valley Police, we stand ready to support them. But perhaps it's not a good idea to speculate on what might happen next.

[00:34:17] Speaker 6: I did ask Buckingham Palace about that specifically, because I'd noticed that as well. They said they had used Thames Valley Police because that is where the complaint sits at the moment about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. It is with that force. It may ultimately, perhaps, move to the Metropolitan Police instead. And wherever it goes now, that statement from the King last night did say is that they will support the police. Buckingham Palace will support the police wherever that investigation is. So although it was Thames Valley last night, it could be somewhere else. And I think they have now pledged their support to help, which they're gonna have to do wherever that may be ultimately.

[00:34:52] Speaker 2: Yeah, Daniela, that's good context, isn't it? Thank you. That's good to know. Katrina, I have a question for you. Because there is always a degree of fascination with the royals in the United States. Is this a big thing there? Are people focused on the impact on the British royal family or specifically on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor or neither?

[00:35:17] Speaker 5: There is definitely not as much interest over here as there obviously is in the UK in all of this because there are so many files and there are so many individuals named, some of whom completely innocently, others who have a question mark over them. The attention is kind of spread between a whole pile of people, if that makes sense. There is a fascination, I suppose, with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor over Peter Mandelson just because he'd be far better known in this country. Although Lord Mandelson obviously was the ambassador here. He'd be very well known here in Washington, DC, but less so among the American people. Whereas, as you say, there is that fascination with the royal family and all the machinations of it. There have been calls for the king to compel Andrew to come and give evidence and appear before some of these committees here as well, that he should get involved, not just in terms of cooperating with Thames Valley police, but with the US authorities as well. So that's quite interesting. But I would say there are probably other stories in the US that are kind of occupying people's minds at the moment, which is really interesting because these Epstein files were so front and centre for months and months and months before they were actually released. And then because we've seen such a data dump, I think it's a bit overwhelming for people trying to pull all the threads together, read through, as we were saying, the redacted and unredacted bits and see what actually is connected to what and where to take things from here, considering there aren't investigations at this point into these people, which is the real problem for the victims and the survivors that they feel they haven't had that justice they're seeking.

[00:37:05] Speaker 1: And all of these questions about people giving answers or people that might be able to shed some light on some more detail or lead to more information for the victims, we of course saw Galaine Maxwell refusing to answer questions.

[00:37:17] Speaker 5: Indeed, and we saw that quite unbelievable little clip released by the Republicans on the Oversight Committee on the House of that appearance that she made virtually from jail, where she was asked those questions about what she knew, what she would be prepared to share. And she just kept saying, I take the Fifth Amendment, I'm exercising my right to take the Fifth Amendment, which under the US Constitution is a right everyone has not to self-incriminate. But there's a very specific formula of words that you have to say. So it was quite stark just watching that video and listening to that clip where she just repeated that sentence over and over again. Ms.

[00:37:55] Speaker 7: Maxwell, were you a close friend and confidant of Jeffrey Epstein?

[00:38:01] Speaker 8: I would like to answer your question, but on the advice of council, I respectfully declined to answer this question and any related questions. My habeas petition is pending in the Southern District of New York. I therefore invoke my right to silence under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.

[00:38:24] Speaker 7: Let the record reflect that Ms. Maxwell has invoked the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. Ms. Maxwell, please be very clear. Are you declining to answer the question put to you solely on the ground that you believe the answer will incriminate you? I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to silence.

[00:38:43] Speaker 5: But speaking to people from the Republican and the Democratic Party, they're kind of questioning the value of her giving evidence anyway, because she is a convicted criminal. She's serving a 20-year jail term for sex trafficking. They're unsure, they've told me, as to the veracity of what she might say anyway. But her lawyer did say she wasn't going to talk unless President Trump offered her clemency and pardoned her, which he has not ruled out. And that is what members of his own party and, of course, the Democrats and many others are calling on him to do, to take that option off the table. So Ghislaine Maxwell then is given a very stark choice of cooperating or not. But there isn't this potential deal that she and her lawyer seem to think exist at this point.

[00:39:29] Speaker 1: Catriona, I don't know if you've managed to see this, but as we've been talking, actually the people that you were referencing that were in the unredacted files have been named. Is that right?

[00:39:41] Speaker 5: They have, yeah. As I was mentioning earlier, Representative Ro Khanna and Thomas Massey, they've been speaking on the floor of the House and Representative Ro Khanna has named those six men that I mentioned earlier as people that they feel have questions to answer and should be open to potentially a criminal investigation. Now, he was using privilege that he has as an elected member of Congress speaking on the floor. So he can name those names without being subject to risk of libel or defamation.

[00:40:14] Speaker 2: Yeah, we're not suggesting, we're not, just to be clear.

[00:40:17] Speaker 5: I'm not supposed to do that.

[00:40:19] Speaker 2: I think before we do that, we probably need to speak to the lawyers.

[00:40:22] Speaker 5: Exactly. He can do that.

[00:40:25] Speaker 2: Although Ro Khanna, who's a Democrat, isn't he? From California. Also, I thought another thing very interesting just to have happened was this statement about the King, or comment rather, of the King. I think this is the most vulnerable the British monarchy has ever been, Congressman Khanna is saying as well. So yeah, clearly everything colliding there, really.

[00:40:47] Speaker 5: Yeah, exactly. And also, I interviewed him myself last week and I'll have him again on my show later on, but he's kind of been amazed that all of the wobbling we saw around the prime minister yesterday, that this, he was saying to me, this has the potential to bring down the prime minister in the UK, yet here we don't have any investigations and we're being told there will be no more. So it kind of just highlights that stark view, even for the lawmakers here about how different the system is in the US compared to the UK.

[00:41:21] Speaker 2: Yeah, and echoing a point lots of newscasters have made. Daniela, just finally, what's next on the tour, the royal tour for you?

[00:41:30] Speaker 6: Tomorrow here in Saudi Arabia, it's Prince William's final day in the country. And as I was saying earlier, I'm here in Alula, this amazing oasis city in the desert. And the focus is going to be a bit further away from the politics tomorrow. It's going to be on wildlife, on the environment, on culture, on the next generation as well. And he's going to do a number of engagements in this really beautiful part of the country. And that will wrap up the final day of his trip. He's also interested just on a little quirky interest, he's going to look at the work being done to repatriate the Arabian leopard, something perhaps that he is particularly interested in. So a real switch in mood and focus tomorrow, but the Epstein story still does hang over everything.

[00:42:13] Speaker 1: Yeah, enjoy it while you can and if you can, because I know you've been working flat out, but thank you for sparing us some time to talk us through it all, Daniela.

[00:42:18] Speaker 6: Thanks everyone, bye.

[00:42:20] Speaker 1: And thanks very much, Katrina.

[00:42:21] Speaker 5: Thanks, talk soon.