This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.
If there was a big red button that would just demolish the internet, I would smash that button with my forehead.
From the BBC.
This is The Interface, the show that explores how tech is rewiring your week and your world.
This isn't about quarterly earnings or about tech reviews.
It's about what technology is actually doing to your work, your politics, your everyday life and all the bizarre ways people are using the Internet.
Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.
Hey there, I'm Asma Khalid.
And I'm Tristan Redman, and we're here with a bonus episode for you from the Global Story podcast.
The world order is shifting.
Old alliances are fraying and new ones are emerging.
Some of this turbulence can be traced to decisions made in the United States.
But the US isn't just a cause of the upheaval.
Its politics are also a symptom of it.
Every day we focus on one story, looking at how America and the world shape each other.
So we hope you enjoy this episode.
And to find more of our show, just search for The Global Story wherever you get your BBC podcasts.
If you can't keep up with all the Epstein news, fear not.
You're not alone.
This week, we've seen the files nearly but not quite bring down a British prime minister...
A day of extreme jeopardy for Sakhir Starmer over the scandal surrounding Peter Mandelson and his links with Jeffrey Epstein is ending tonight with his cabinet rallying round him and his backbench MPs applauding him.
The US Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and US Congress.
People went at each other like cats and dogs in an Epstein committee hearing.
These are obviously improper actions.
All around the world, surprising countries are being drawn into the scandal.
Norway, Poland, Albania, France, Russia, Israel and the United Arab Emirates.
Multiple royal families even.
And some people are even wondering, was Epstein a spy?
It's a lot.
So today we're here to recap all the main developments this week and to make sense of the sheer scale of it all.
From the BBC, I'm Tristan Redmond in London.
And today, on The Global Story, what we've learned this week from the files about Epstein's global network.
I'm Nomia Iqbal.
I was based in the US for the BBC as a North America correspondent for about five years.
I am now home in the UK, still working as a correspondent, still across the Epstein story.
But this is the first time that I've sort of stepped out of the US and really looked at the whole Epstein saga not just from the American media point of view but also from here as well.
It's really hit home how global the story is, that this man moved in really powerful circles internationally.
Well Nomia, we wanted to talk with you today about what we've learnt internationally about the Epstein files this week.
But before we get to that, we've got a few questions just about the nuts and bolts of working with the files.
What's it been like going through them?
And give us a sense of what's actually in them.
What's the division of emails to videos to photos?
How are they all made up?
It is so overwhelming, Tristan.
Three and a half million pages of documents, then you've got 180,000 images, 2,000 videos.
Now, if I was to go through all those documents, the full three and a half million, I think it would take me years and years to actually get to the point where I had finished all the documents and understand what these documents mean.
Because A lot of the stuff that you look at, there's no context to it.
There aren't even any captions.
There are flight manifests from Epstein's jets.
There are financial records.
There are property bills.
There's emails between him, Maxwell Associates.
There's law enforcement, private correspondence, police reports, grand jury related documents.
FBI interview reports.
It's really hard though, getting a sense of what it all means, because you're trying to work out.
Is there a story here?
Is there actually evidence of anything?
Is this reinterpretation of material that's already out there?
Is any of this legal evidence or anything like that?
So...
There are so many people at the BBC doing that.
We have teams in different areas looking at the political staff, looking at the royal aspect.
We are just going through them all the time, and then there are new lines coming out nearly every day.
We're going to come to all of this in a little bit, but we just wanted to do a few listener questions with you, Namia.
We've had a few questions sent in to us by Global Story listeners, and we have one from Andy.
He mentions the fact that the US Department of Justice was required by law to make the files public.
And he asks at this point what percentage of the files were released and did the Department of Justice actually satisfy the legal requirement, considering how many files were released?
The Department of Justice said it identified six million pages, but so far has released about three and a half million.
So maths wise, I'd say that's about 60 percent.
Now it's important to say that the Department of Justice has said that there's a lot of reasons why they haven't released everything because there are duplicates in that material, this sensitive material, this privileged material.
There was a real rigorous process to redact details to protect victims against invasion of their personal privacy.
Although we now know that they did actually release a lot of survivors names who didn't want to be identified, which has been a bit of a catastrophe for the Department of Justice.
Also, in those pages, the Department of Justice says there's violence.
There's things that they do not believe are appropriate to show.
They said that they were continuing to review the material.
I think there is this view by some, especially lawmakers and survivors, that the Department of Justice is sitting on a lot of explosive material and it just doesn't want to release them.
And they're saying, well, hang on, just release it.
That was the whole point of being transparent.
Let us make our minds up.
Well, Nomia, I have a second question for you from Andy.
He also asks us what is the likelihood that that they, the DOJ, may have weaponized the release of the files by protecting some Trump allies and Trump himself, while exposing adversaries.
Is there anything we can say about this?
There are lawmakers who think that that the files have been treated in such a way that it protects Donald Trump and his allies.
Certainly the Republican Representative Thomas Massey.
You've got the Democratic Representative Ro Khanna.
They co-sponsor the transparency law.
They were really angry that there were lots of prominent individuals whose names had been redacted without any legal justification.
Our bigger concern is that there's still a lot that's redacted.
Even in what we're seeing, we're seeing redacted versions.
I thought we were supposed to see the unredacted versions.
That's the other point to mention.
If there are redactions, the Department of Justice has to explain why they redacted them.
And that's not been as forthcoming as they had promised.
Some of these files have been taken down, like the DOJ produced them and for some reason they took them down.
Maybe they decided that victims' names were in there and that they needed further redactions.
But those documents not only haven't been put back up on the site with the appropriate redactions, they were not available to us to search.
And now the Justice Department has moved to unredact more than a dozen additional names in those records.
And yes, you do get those who feel that, is this some sort of protection of Donald Trump?
But the Department of Justice says if we are redacting anything it's for legal reasons, not political reasons.
There's this mantra out there that, oh you know, the Department of Justice is supposed to protect Donald J Trump.
And that's what we were telling.
That's not true.
That was never the case.
And we are always concerned about the victims.
When we said that we were not legally allowed to release documents, That's a fact.
You know I can tell you, going through the files so far, Donald Trump's name is mentioned multiple times.
There were serious, shocking allegations against the US president.
Now, many of these appear to be based on unverified tips received by the FBI.
They were made without any supporting evidence.
President Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein's.
He himself has not been accused of any crimes at all by Epstein's victims.
He said that he cut contact with Epstein many, many years ago.
And when we asked the Justice Department about Donald Trump's name being in these files, they said that the claims are unfounded and false.
And if they have a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.
And what they mean by that is remember these files have been in possession of by the Department of Justice for a long time.
That was under President Biden's presidency as well.
But I think what I would just maybe conclude to Andy's question is I don't think that Donald Trump has been uniquely erased from the records.
There isn't any clear evidence of a sort of coordinated partisan protection of Donald Trump.
What I think there's more of a strong evidence of is just this bureaucratic chaos by the Department of Justice in releasing these files.
Nomi, you mentioned there that there are tips in the files.
Now, what is the actual tip line and how does it fit into the Epstein files exactly?
Yeah.
When Jeffrey Epstein was arrested in 2019, the FBI and the US Attorney's Office set up this dedicated tip line.
And that was an opportunity for people to come forward with any information regarding him.
And so lots of people sent in tips doesn't mean that they are true.
It's anyone can ring a tip line.
Anyone can offer information.
And you do see in the files Tristan, you do see tips that were sent, the accusations that were made, the allegations that were made, as I mentioned, against President Trump.
But the Department of Justice said that, you know, they were without evidence.
The claims are unfounded and false.
But what survivors are saying, did you follow any of it up?
Did you investigate any of it?
And there's no evidence that I've seen so far, at the time of talking to you right now, that any of that was followed up.
And I think that's what lawmakers, this congressional committee and, as I say, survivors and victims want.
They want to know, did you follow up on any of these tips?
Mm hmm.
The Deputy US Attorney General, Todd Blanche, said that they aren't carrying out any investigations at all.
The only institution that's doing any kind of investigating is Congress, is the Congressional Committee.
But of course, they don't have any charging powers.
Well, let's move on Nomia, to drilling down into a few of the big things that have happened this week.
One of the things that really struck me was the testimony that Ghislaine Maxwell gave to the House Oversight Committee by Videolink.
I would like to answer your question but, on the advice of council, I respectfully decline to answer this question and any related questions.
She pointedly refused repeatedly to answer questions from lawmakers.
I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to silence.
What's been the blowback from that appearance in front of Congress?
We knew that Ghislaine Maxwell would not say anything, and that's because she's trying to appeal her conviction ever since it happened.
She has always argued that...
She's a scapegoat that because the government couldn't get Jeffrey Epstein due to him dying in 2019, they went after her.
So no new charges or releases are happening.
But the interesting thing about Ghislaine Maxwell is that she seems to now be suggesting that she has information that could exonerate President Trump and President Clinton, whose names are in the files.
But, as we know, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, but she's clearly seeking some sort of pardon.
Her lawyer, David Oscar Marcus.
He said if this committee and the American public truly want to hear the unfiltered truth about what happened, there is a straightforward path.
Ms.
Maxwell is prepared to speak fully and honestly if granted clemency by President Trump.
Only she can provide... the complete account.
Some may not like what they hear, but the truth matters.
For example, both President Trump and President Clinton are innocent of any wrongdoing.
Ms.
Maxwell alone can explain why, and the public is entitled to that explanation.
So she's very much focused on getting her freedom back.
And she is not willing to talk unless she gets something in return for it.
I want to ask you about some of the victims Namia, because we learned some information, some new information about some of the victims this week.
Can you tell us a little bit about that, please, Namia?
I think we really learned how truly global this was, the global dimension in regards to the victims and survivors.
We knew there were many American girls and women involved, primarily from Florida and New York.
There were women recruited through international travel, many recruited in Europe, South America.
And the documents do confirm that there was a lot of transporting of victims between US properties, the US Virgin Islands.
But I think also what we learn is that victims, and many of them have not been identified.
They don't want to be identified.
But there are many who... are already known out there.
For example, Marina Lacerda, she has been very outspoken.
She met Jeffrey Epstein when she was 14, exploited by him for years.
She talked about how she was re-traumatized.
It's definitely re-traumatizing when I have to go through my files and find out things that I did not know.
For survivors, yes, the file release is about transparency, but it's about reopening wounds.
I was in shock.
Because there are things in there that I did not know and I had to find out on that Friday when it was released.
You see your abuse reduced to an FBI summary.
You realize that there were many people that knew parts of your story.
And it has drained me because I cannot stop thinking about it.
I'm just, I'm heartbroken about this.
You discover how long the system actually failed to intervene.
And so that gives them a renewed sense of violation.
I've spent the last three decades trying to better understand money across the boardroom, the newsroom and the trading floor.
That's longer than most podcast hosts have been alive.
But even I've got questions.
Join me Maren's Hubset Web every week for my show Maren Talks Money from Bloomberg Podcasts, where I have in-depth conversations with fund managers, strategists and experts about how markets really work.
And join me for a separate episode where I answer listener questions on how to make those markets work for you.
Follow Maren Talks Money on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.
One of the major international figures who's been in the news this week is Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew.
What's the latest with him?
Well, we already knew about his involvement in Epstein because of that social association with Epstein.
There was that civil settlement in the US with Virginia Giuffre of her abuse claims.
And we all we know about his reputational fallout, having had his title stripped away from him.
What I would say is that there's a few things that we have learned with the files.
So we knew there was a connection, but there's a stronger confirmation of that and it worsens the optics for him.
We've seen new photos of him with young women in the files.
Mm-hmm.
Also, there was this latest revelation that he was helping Epstein make investments.
There was a document apparently sent by Mountbatten-Windsor to Jeffrey Epstein, which included information on investment opportunities in gold and uranium in Afghanistan.
The BBC has seen a briefing prepared for Andrew by UK officials saying when he was a trade envoy, which he then forwarded to Epstein in December 2010.
And that included a list of very high value commercial opportunities in Helmand province.
Andrew has been approached for comment, but has yet to respond.
He has strongly denied any wrongdoing in his associations with Epstein.
He's rejected any suggestion that he used his time as trade envoy to further his own interests.
Police are now looking into it.
He has moved out of the royal residences and the palace did break their silence.
They said that the specific claims in question are for Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor to address.
If we are approached by Thames Valley Police, we stand ready to support them as you would expect.
And the King has expressed his profound concern.
So we already knew there was this connection, but I think the files strongly confirmed that.
When it comes to Andrew,
I also want to mention something else that came out of the files regarding Prince Andrew.
So we remember that picture of Andrew Mountbass in Windsor with his arm around Virginia Dufresne with Ghislaine Maxwell in the background.
Now, he denied ever meeting her and he even questioned whether that picture had been doctored.
But there was a message in the Epstein files.
It was headed draft statement and it was sent by G. Maxwell to Jeffrey Epstein in 2015.
And she wrote.
I'll quote to you in 2001, I was in London when redacted 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.
And the family of Virginia Dufresne told the BBC that that email from Ghislaine Maxwell appears to confirm that the photo of Mountbatten-Windsor with his arm around Dufresne is real.
All right.
We have another question from a listener, Nomia.
James is British.
He lives in France.
And he has asked are European politicians and business leaders mentioned in the files or implicated in the abuse and corruption?
Well, firstly, I'd say, what does being mentioned in the files mean?
So that means that there's email correspondence.
You were referenced in an interview.
You're on a flight log.
You appear to be in a contact list.
So that's association, not proof of crime.
And just to step back a little bit more, 2008 was when Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of a state charge of procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18, and he was sentenced to 18 months in prison.
And so I think 2008 is the red line.
If there was any association with Jeffrey Epstein after that point, when he is serving time in prison.
That is reputational damage.
That to many people is immoral.
It cannot be justified.
Doesn't mean any criminal association, but it does mean that people are thinking what are you doing being associated with this man?
And so that brings us to the question that James is asking about European politicians and business leaders.
Yes.
I mean, look at France.
You've got a preliminary inquiry now to the former culture minister, Jack Lang.
That's over his links to Jeffrey Epstein.
He's a major figure in French socialist governments between the 1980s and 2000s.
So now he's being investigated for suspected laundering of tax fraud proceeds.
Now he denies any wrongdoing and he has described the allegations against him as baseless allegations.
In Norway.
You have police there who've opened this corruption investigation into the former Prime Minister, Torbjörn Jaklund.
And this is over his alleged links to Jeffrey Epstein.
He's a former head of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
He spent also 10 years as Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
His lawyer said that they would fully cooperate with the investigation.
Now, he has acknowledged that maintaining ties with Epstein after 2008 was poor judgment.
He denied any criminal wrongdoing, saying that he never engaged with Epstein regarding his private life or any trafficking dealings.
Looking at the Norwegian royals, you have Norway's crown princess, Mette Merritt.
She's given a profound apology.
And it turns out that she was exchanging hundreds of messages for at least three years after his conviction.
So this goes back to what we were talking about in terms of the global network.
He obviously cultivated this sort of transnational elite network.
I should emphasize there is no proven correlation. coordination of any kind of abuse ring going on in Europe or that European governments were formally complicit.
There's nothing like that.
But I think what it does show is that again, Jeffrey Epstein had these huge connections, was hugely influential, not just in the US but outside.
I want to ask you a little bit about Poland and Russia Nomia, because there's a lot of speculation on the Internet about whether Epstein may have been gathering compromat.
Now, compromat is a Russian term used to describe compromising information and evidence.
Now the accusation is that Epstein may have been gathering this compromise to blackmail powerful people in his network, or even sharing it with intelligence services.
There are people reading the files and coming to the conclusion that Epstein was connected somehow with Russia maybe, or Israeli intelligence services perhaps,
Let's start with Russia.
What do we actually know about that?
Well, the Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, thinks that Jeffrey Epstein was a Russian asset.
And he announced recently an investigation into whether Epstein was spying for Russia.
I just want to quote you what Donald Tusk said.
He says, Going through the files, yes, Russia is mentioned many times.
Vladimir Putin's name is mentioned multiple times.
We know that Jeffrey Epstein had close relationships with many powerful people in Russia Russian politicians, intelligence figures.
He tried to meet with Vladimir Putin.
There is an attempt to try and meet up with him.
That never happens.
Now, that doesn't mean that this proves that he was a Russian spy.
There's no evidence so far in any of the files that suggests any of that.
But as I say, Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, is investigating.
He's got a task force ready to go to look into that possibility.
Russia has responded to these suggestions that Epstein was a spy for Russia.
I just want to read to you what a spokesman for the Kremlin said.
It reads.
The theory that Epstein was controlled by Russian intelligence services can be taken in any way, but not seriously.
The Kremlin went on to say that reporters shouldn't waste time looking into allegations that Epstein had links to Russian intelligence.
Can I just say as a side note Nomia, that I do enjoy the fact that Donald Tusk's task force has become known as the Tusk force.
We enjoyed that yesterday on the Global Story team.
What about these allegations that Epstein may have been linked somehow to Israeli intelligence services or important Israeli figures?
In the files there are claims from a confidential informant to the FBI that Epstein was employed by Mossad.
There's an FBI report from the Los Angeles field office.
This was back in 2020 that the bureau source had become convinced that Epstein was a co-opted Mossad agent.
That's about it.
That's about as much as we know.
There's no evidence of that whatsoever.
And the connection also that I think where this comes from is that Jeffrey Epstein did have this very close relationship with the former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak.
They were close in 2018.
He asked him in an email to make clear that I don't work for Mossad.
The former Israeli prime minister has acknowledged his regular interactions with Epstein, but said that he never observed or participated in any inappropriate behavior or parties.
But it doesn't suggest that Epstein worked for Israel.
And that is what Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has written on X, formerly known as Twitter.
He said it doesn't suggest that Epstein worked for Israel.
It just proves the opposite.
Now I should also mention, in reference to what you said there Tristan, about how influential Jeffrey Epstein was, how powerful he was.
I think it naturally makes people think well, how?
How was he so powerful?
Where did he get his money from?
And that does lend itself to lots of conspiracy theories.
And I think, given that there's still not a lot of transparency, certainly people feel like that with these files.
It does open up all these suggestions that there's something more to this.
And I think for conspiracy theorists, the ingredients are all there.
His inexplicable access to powerful people, his unclear source of wealth.
We know intelligence agencies historically use blackmail operations.
But what I'd say is that if he was somehow working for these spy agencies, something would have to come out to prove that.
And we're talking about whistleblowers, talking about declassified intelligence material, even investigative journalism that has proven that.
And as we speak right now, none of that has come out.
That doesn't mean that it's not possible.
I think it's possible that intelligence agencies were very aware of him, of course, but is there evidence so far, any proven supported evidence, that he was an operative for Russia or for Israel?
No.
I mean, there's just so much information all the time coming from the Epstein Files.
It can be rather overwhelming.
What are your kind of overall feelings on the way this is going?
How does it make you all feel you know several years down the line into your reporting of the Epstein Files?
It is really overwhelming. we're seeing new revelations with these files.
And I'm not quite sure if I thought that was going to happen.
Like when the files were released in December.
I think there was a sense that we're not going to learn anything brand new, but we are.
We are learning more new things all the time.
I think Epstein feels to a lot of people, ordinary people, that this is proof that rich and powerful people protect each other, avoid consequences for a long time.
And we're still going to see revelations every day, I think, especially now we know that the Clintons President Clinton and his wife, the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton are going to give evidence at some point to that congressional committee.
This is a story that is not going to go away.
It's not a completed story and it won't be for some time.
Thank you so much, Nomia.
Thank you, Tristan.
That was Nomia Iqbal, the BBC's world affairs correspondent.
And a big thank you to everyone who wrote in with questions.
Sorry we didn't have time to ask them all, but we do read everything and we love hearing from you.
Our email address is theglobalstoryatbbc.com.
And if you want to catch up on the latest news from around the world, then look for our sister show, The Global News Podcast, wherever you listen.
Today's episode was produced by Viv Jones, Valerio Esposito and Zandra Ellen.
It was edited by James Shield and mixed by Travis Evans.
Our senior news editor is China Collins and I'm Tristan Redman.
Have a good weekend.
See you on Monday.
Cheerio.
I've spent the last three decades trying to better understand money across the boardroom, the newsroom and the trading floor.
That's longer than most podcast hosts have been alive.
But even I've got questions.
Join me, Maren Subset-Webb, every week for my show Maren Talks Money from Bloomberg Podcasts, where I have in-depth conversations with fund managers, strategists and experts about how markets really work.
And join me for a separate episode where I answer listener questions on how to make those markets work for you.
Follow Merrin Talks Money on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.
