Speaker 1: Okay, So I want you to try and imagine something
for me if you can, a physical structure, right, not
a building though, I'm talking about a stack of paper,
you know, just standard a four printer paper.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm with you, and I want you to.
Speaker 1: Just keep stacking it and stacking it until it towers
over you. Then keep going until it's I don't know,
it's rivaling a skyscraper.
Speaker 2: Wow, that's a lot of paper.
Speaker 1: It's an unbelievable amount. We are talking about three million pages.
That is the sheer physical weight of the information that
we are that we're dealing with today.
Speaker 2: It gives you a sense of vertigo just trying to
conceptualize it.
Speaker 1: It does.
Speaker 2: You look at a number like that, three million, and
it stops being dater. It becomes a landscape, a very
dark and i'd say a very treacherous landscape.
Speaker 1: Vertigo is the perfect word. And look buried in that
skyscraper of paper. It's not just you know, dry financial
audits or boring legal stuff. We're talking about one hundred
and eighty thousand.
Speaker 2: Images, one hundred and eighty thousand, two.
Speaker 1: Thousand videos, and the content, my god, it ranges from
the highest most sterilized corridors of global finance, all the
way down to the absolute grimiest, most disturbing depths of
human exploitation.
Speaker 2: And this is what the BBC is calling a seismic
event exactly.
Speaker 1: And I want to be really clear about this right
at the top. This is not just the old news
cycle spinning around again. This is not a rehash of
that Netflix documentary you might have watched a few years ago.
Speaker 2: No, this is new. This is raw.
Speaker 1: This is a data dump of such magnitude that it
has triggered active investigations in at least ten different countries
right now as we speak. This is happening live.
Speaker 2: And I think that's the first thing we really need
to grapple with the scale of it. It creates its
own gravity. This isn't a leak. It's a deluge.
Speaker 1: A deluge I like that.
Speaker 2: And it's washing away a lot of these curated facades
that we've been looking at for well for decades. When
you have three million pages to work with, you just
you can't hide in the margins anymore.
Speaker 1: Welcome to thrilling threads. I'm your host, and I am
ready to pull on some very loose and frankly very
dangerous strings today.
Speaker 2: And I'm here to help you try and untangle them
without getting stuck in the web.
Speaker 1: Because that is exactly what This is a web. And
today our mission is to navigate this massive release of
the Epstein files all through the lens of the BBC's reporting.
We aren't just talking about the crimes of one man,
a man who's no longer with us.
Speaker 2: Yeah, No, that's a critical distinction.
Speaker 1: We are talking about the system, the machine that surrounded him.
Speaker 2: If you view this solely as the story of Jeffrey Epstein,
you miss the point. You missed the entire point. This
is a story about the infrastructure of impunity.
Speaker 1: The infrastructure of impunity. Wow.
Speaker 2: It's about how royalty and government and high finance all
intercepted in this really toxic way that enabled abuse on
an industrial scale. It's about the enablers, not just the predator.
Speaker 1: So let's map out where we're going to go today,
because there's just so much to cover. We are going
to start with the human cost, which unfortunately includes a
truly catastrophic blunder by the Department of Justice that has
left survivors just reeling.
Speaker 2: From there, we have to talk about the royal fallout,
specifically a new and deeply disturbing photo of Prince Andrew
that really changes the whole conversation from you know he said,
she said too too. We can see you exactly too,
we can see you. Then we'll need to cross the
Atlantic back to the UK to discuss what is being
called a political earthquake involving Lord Peter Mandelson.
Speaker 1: And we're going to get into the weeds on that one.
We're talking about the two thousand and eight financial crisis
and some I mean terrifyingly specific leaks that suggest state
secrets were being traded like baseball cards.
Speaker 2: After that, we'll touch on the let's call it the
Billionaire Boys.
Speaker 1: Club, Bill Gates, Elon Musk.
Speaker 2: And this whole concept of a corrosive network. And finally
we'll look at the struggle for truth itself and how
BBC Verify is basically fighting a war against fake files
in the age of AI.
Speaker 1: It is a dark road map, but like you said,
unnecessary one, absolutely okay, So let's jump in, and I
want to start where the BBC suggests we should start,
not with the famous men, not with the billionaires or
the princes.
Speaker 2: But with the survivors.
Speaker 1: Yes, with the survivors, because amidst these millions of pages,
the real story is the continued trauma of the women involved.
Speaker 2: You know, there's this phrase we often hear in legal circles.
Justice delayed is justice denied. But I think what we're
seeing here is something even worse. It's it's like justice inverted.
Speaker 1: What do you mean by that?
Speaker 2: Well, these files, they were supposedly released to bring the
truth to light, right, to provide some kind of closure,
But for so many of the survivors, this release has
been an act of violence in itself.
Speaker 1: The BBC featured a statement from a woman named Ashley Rubright.
She was introduced to Epstein shortly after she turned fifteen,
and her words, they just cut right through all the
noise of the scandal.
Speaker 2: I remember reading that. It was powerful.
Speaker 1: She said, we would have much rather have just been mongs,
but we weren't able to heal in peace, and now
we're screaming in public because we don't have a choice anymore.
Speaker 2: That phrase, screaming in public because we don't have a choice.
It's haunting, isn't it. It just highlights this fundamental misunderstanding
the public often has people assume that when a victim
comes forward. They want the spotlight, they want to be famous.
Speaker 1: Right that they're seeking attention exactly.
Speaker 2: And Ashley is telling us the absolute opposite. They didn't
ask for this, They didn't ask to be public figures
or activists. They just wanted to live their lives. And
this release, while necessary for the historical record, it just
forces them right back into the arena.
Speaker 1: And it's made infinitely worse, I mean, just unbelievably worse
by what can only be described as a colossal failure
by the Department of Justice.
Speaker 2: Oh, a total failure. Colossal is the right word.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're talking about the US government here. They
release three and a half million pages, but they accidentally,
and I'm using very heavy air quotes here, they accidentally
released information about survivors who specifically requested not to be identified.
Speaker 2: It is staggering. The level of incompetence is just it's breathtaking.
The BBC spoke to another survivor, Marina Lesera, who met
Epstein when she was fourteen. Unbelievable, and she describes finding
things in her own files, reading these documents and finding
things she didn't even know were there. She said she
was in shock that the experience was draining and heartbreaking.
Speaker 1: I just have to ask, purely from an organizational logistical standpoint,
how does that happen? How you have the Department of Justice,
arguably the most powerful legal body in the world. They
have resources, they have armies of staff. How do they
let names slip through?
Speaker 2: Well, it's the collision of bureaucracy and volume. Though that's
hardly an excuse, it sounds a good excuse, it does.
The DOJ argues they were under a very strict deadline
to comply with the Act. So when you have three
and a half million pages, you're relying on a mix
of automated redaction software and human review. The software it
looks for patterns right name, social security numbers, addresses. But
if a name appears in a handwritten note, or it's
slightly misspelled in some context, the algorithm can just miss it.
Speaker 1: So the machine fails and the human reviewers are what
just overworked and rushing to meet a deadline.
Speaker 2: That's the argument exactly, But that excuse rings so hollow
when you consider the stakes. You know, lawyers for the
survivors are saying this has caused irreparable harm.
Speaker 1: Of course it has. You can't unring that bell.
Speaker 2: You can't. Once a name is out there, once a
sensitive medical detail is published, the internet archives it forever.
It's a second betrayal, first by the abuser and now
by the very institution that was meant to protect them.
It's like the symptom is saying, your privacy matters less
than our paperwork deadline.
Speaker 1: And speaking of tragedy of the human cost, there is
one detail in the source material that just stopped me cold.
It honestly made me put down the report for a
moment and just breathe.
Speaker 2: I think I know what you're going to say.
Speaker 1: We have to talk about for Gindi Shrich. For so long,
she's been the face of this fight for justice. She's
the one who took on a prince, she took on billionaires,
She refused to be silenced.
Speaker 2: And this is the most devastating part of the entire
BBC report. According to the sort material, Virginia's Rufre died
by suicide in April of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: It just changes everything, doesn't it. I mean, we are
sitting here right now discussing these revelations. We are finally
seeing the proof that she fought for for years and
she isn't here to see it. It completely reframes the
entire narrative of victory.
Speaker 2: There is no victory here. It's a grim reminder of
the toll this takes on a person. It's not just
a legal battle for them, it's a battle for survival
every single day.
Speaker 1: Her sister in law, Amanda Roberts, she spoke to Newsnight
and she called it a bittersweet moment. She said, Virginia
should be here, she should be reveling in this truth
finally coming out, but instead she's gone.
Speaker 2: Amanda said, the world is finally seeing the truth, and
that's the core of the tragedy, isn't it.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 2: The truth is here, It's in these three million pages,
but the person who arguably did more than anyone to
drag it into the light paid the ultimate price for it. It
just it casts this deep shadow over the entire release.
This isn't a victory lap, it's a memorial.
Speaker 1: It reminds us that while we sit here and we
analyze the politics and the money and the power plays,
the foundation of this entire story is she and suffering.
Speaker 2: And that suffering didn't end when Epstein died. It didn't
end when Maxwell went to prison. It continues the trauma.
You know. It doesn't adhere to the court schedule.
Speaker 1: No, it does not. And a huge part of that
suffering comes from the actions of the powerful men who
are part of this orbit, which I think leads us
directly to the next thread we have to pull on
the royals, the royals, specifically Prince Andrew and his ex
wife Sarah.
Speaker 2: Ferguson, a story that just keeps getting worse for the Palace,
it really does.
Speaker 1: The BBC report details a new photo that emerged on
Saturday morning. And if Buckingham Palace was hoping this whole
thing would just be, you know, dense text documents that
people would ignore, they were dead wrong.
Speaker 2: Sus visceral What does it show?
Speaker 1: Describes Prince Andrew crouched on all fours over an unidentified
one on all fours, on all first The visual description
is just incredibly damaging. He's described as barefoot, casually dressed,
and the location is believed to be Epstein's Manhattan mansion.
Speaker 2: It's the all fours detail that's just I mean, it's
so debasing.
Speaker 1: It completely strips away that veneer of royal dignity, doesn't it. Yeah,
you know his Royal highness defense. It's very hard to
maintain an air of regal detachment or you know, claim
you were just there to break off the friendship when
there's photographic evidence of you behaving like well, like that.
Speaker 2: It just connects back to the strategy Prince Andrew has
used for years, which is denial and frankly convenient memory lapses.
Speaker 1: The I don't recall defense, I don't.
Speaker 2: Recall I wasn't there that photo of me might be doctored.
This new release it essentially firebombs that entire defense. When
you have a photo of a royal prince in such
a compromising position inside the home of a known predator.
The I was just shopping buy for tea excuse just evaporates.
Speaker 1: Right, Because it's not just this new photo. There's also
the matter of the infamous photo, the one we've all
seen a thousand.
Speaker 2: Times, the one with Virginia ja Fandra.
Speaker 1: Andrew with his arm around a teenage Virginia Javander with
Gislaine Maxwell smirking in the background, and he is famously
in that disastrous interview, questioned if that photo was even real.
He suggested it was faked, or that his hand didn't
look like that.
Speaker 2: Ah, Yes, the clumsy hand defense. But this data dump
it addresses that directly, doesn't it.
Speaker 1: It does. There are new emails between Epstein and Ghislaine
Maxwell that seemingly confirmed the photo is one hundred percent authentic,
So they talk about it. Yes, Maxwell treats its existence
as a simple matter of fact in their correspondence. So
the fake news defense is just crumbling. The walls are
closing in on that specific narrative he's been pushing for years.
Speaker 2: But here's where it gets for me, really weird. The
Sarah Ferguson connection.
Speaker 1: The Duchess of York. Yes, the source material highlights emails
from her Epstein that are well, startling is the word
the BBC used. I'd say that's an understatement.
Speaker 2: It's baffling. It's just baffling. These emails show a profound
closeness between them. But the key is the timeline. This
is after Epstein's two thousand and eight conviction.
Speaker 1: We have to stress that this isn't before in two
thousand and eight. Jeffrey Epstein is a convicted sex offender.
He is on the registry.
Speaker 2: The world knows what he is, and yet, in an
email Sarah Ferguson refers to him as the brother she
always wished for.
Speaker 1: The brothers she always wished for. A convicted predator. I mean, why,
just why? What is the psychology there?
Speaker 2: That is the million dollar question, isn't it? And the
BBC corresponded Danielle Ralph. She analyzed the tone of these
emails and what she found was this very distinct, very telling,
power dynamic.
Speaker 1: It wasn't a friendship of equals.
Speaker 2: Not at all. Epstein's replies to the Royals were described
as a curt and factual, almost like a boss talking
to an employee, really, But the messages from Ferguson and
Andrew they were described as fawning and desperate.
Speaker 1: Fawning and desperate. That completely flips the script, doesn't it.
We usually assumed the Royals are at the very top
of the food chain. We imagine people bowing and scraping
to them, but.
Speaker 2: Here they are the ones begging for approval.
Speaker 1: So what was it? Was it about money? Was it influence?
What did Epstein have that they needed so badly?
Speaker 2: It's likely a mix of both, but I think it's
primarily about money. We know the Yorks have had significant
financial struggles over the years. Epstein was a man who
quote solved financial problems. He was a liquidity provider for.
Speaker 1: The elite, so he held all the cards.
Speaker 2: It suggests that he held the leverage. He didn't need them,
they felt they needed him, and that desperation it makes
you vulnerable to manipulation. In a sense, he owned them.
Speaker 1: And what's the response from the Palace to all of
this new information? The photo, the emails, silence.
Speaker 2: Just deafening, crushing silence to King Charles, nothing, Prince William nothing,
Prince Edward made one brief comment about his thoughts being
with the victims. But officially the strategy is hold your
breath and hope it all goes away.
Speaker 1: But with three million pages, I don't think you can
hold your breath that long.
Speaker 2: No, then never complain, never explain motto the windsor family crest. Essentially,
that works for minor scandals, it works for gossip column stuff.
It does not work when there are three million pages
of evidence systematically dismantling your credibility. You can't just ignore tsunami.
Speaker 1: And speaking of dismantling credibility, let's move from the Palace
to Parliament. Because the BBC is reporting what they're calling
a political earthquake in the UK, and it's centered around
one man, Lord Peter Mandelson, and I.
Speaker 2: Think for some of our international listeners, we really need
to explain just how big of a deal this guy
is in British politics. Absolutely, this is where the story
shifts from assorted tabloid scandal to a potential national security crisis.
Peter Mandelson is a titan. He was the Business Secretary,
a former EU Trade Commissioner, and arguably the architect of
the new Labor movement that dominated British politics for a decade.
Speaker 1: So he's not some backbencher. He's a genuine power broker.
Speaker 2: He's one of the biggest names in modern British political history.
And the files show money, specifically that Epstein paid seventy
five thousand dollars into accounts linked to Mandelssohn between two
thousand and three and two.
Speaker 1: Thousand and four, and Mandelssohn's response, no recollection, of course,
it seems to be the catchphrase of the decade for
anyone linked to Epstein.
Speaker 2: It is. But the police aren't just taking his word
for it. They are currently searching two of his properties. Oh,
that is a massive escalation you don't get a warrant
to search the home of a former cabinet minister without
some very significant probable cause.
Speaker 1: But it's not just the money from the early two thousands,
is it. It's the emails from two thousand and eight.
This is the part that to me reads like a
spy thriller.
Speaker 2: Let's set the scene. It's the fall of two thousand
and eight.
Speaker 1: Right, Leanden Brothers has just collapsed. The entire global financial
system is in complete meltdown. Banks are faltering, Governments are
panicking everywhere. It's arguable the most dangerous financial moments since
the Great Depression.
Speaker 2: And in the UK, Peter Mandelsson is the Business Secretary
in Gordon Brown's government. He is in the room where
the life, where death, decisions are being made about which
banks survive.
Speaker 1: He is at the absolute heart of the crisis response.
And according to these new documents, he wasn't just in
the room, he was leaking from.
Speaker 2: It in real time. The BBC Business editor Simon Jack
notes that information was being relayed from Mandelson to Epstein
within minutes of these highly sensitive meetings, concluding within.
Speaker 1: Minutes and what kind of information are we talking about?
Speaker 2: We are talking about asset sales. We are talking about
the breakdown of the Royal Bank of Scotland RBS. We're
even talking about potential Eurozone bailouts, top level state secret
kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: Let's just pause on that phrase within minutes. Why does
that timing matter so much? Why is it so critical?
Speaker 2: Because in financial markets, information is currency. If you know
that RBS is going to be bailed out or allowed
to fail, five minutes before the rest of the market knows,
you possess what traders call alpha, an edge, a massive ed.
You can shorten the stock, you can move assets, you
can bet against the currency. If Mandelson text Epstein RBS
is done, Epstein can execute trades instantly before that news
ever hits the wire. He can make a fortune.
Speaker 1: So this is market sensitive information. This is basically insider trading,
but on a sovereign national level.
Speaker 2: That's exactly what it is. This isn't just gossip about
who's up or down in the government. This is actionable
financial intelligence. Epstein was a financier. He traded on information,
and if a city UK government minister was feeding him
inside info on the collapse of the entire British banking sector,
well that is potentially a criminal misconduct in public office.
It's corruption. It suggests Epstein had a direct wire tap
into the British cabinet during a national emergency.
Speaker 1: And the political fallout from this is happening right now,
isn't it. Mandelson isn't just some historical figure.
Speaker 2: No, the shockwaves are hitting today. Mandelson has now been
removed from the House of Law, he's out of the
Labor Party. But it's hitting the current leadership hard too.
Speaker 1: How So, the.
Speaker 2: BBC correspondent Nick Urdley is calling it a political earthquake
that he thinks could actually bring down the current Prime minister.
Speaker 1: Bring down the PM.
Speaker 2: Why because the current Prime Minister appointed Mandelson as the
US ambassador.
Speaker 1: Oh wow, so he gave him one of the most
prestigious diplomatic posts in the world, after all these rumors
had been swirling for years.
Speaker 2: Precisely, it calls the Prime Minister's judgment into serious question.
It looked like he was protecting one of the boys.
And at the same time it puts immense pressure on
Keir Starmer, the Labor leader, because Mandelson was such a
central figure in his party's machinery.
Speaker 1: So it stains the entire political establishment it.
Speaker 2: Does with the brush of we all knew something was
wrong and we look the other way. It just reinforces
that idea of the web. Epstein wasn't just you know,
hanging out with celebrities and royals. He was deeply embedded
in the actual machinery of govern.
Speaker 1: Which brings us to the other titans in this web,
the billionaire boys club. He got names like Bill Gates,
Elon Musk, Richard Branton.
Speaker 2: The list is a who's who of global capital.
Speaker 1: Really, let's start with Bill Gates. He's gone on record
many times saying he regretted every minute he spent with Epstein.
He's tried to frame it as an error in judgment,
that he thought it was about philanthropy. But these new
files reveal something, well, something bizarre and frankly nasty.
Speaker 2: It is bizarre, and it's a very specific kind of nasty.
New documents show that Epstein kept a file in which
he accused Bill Gates of contracting a sexually transmitted infection
from Russian girls.
Speaker 1: Just hearing the words Bill Gates, STI and Russian girls
in the same sentence is incredibly jarring. It sounds like
something out of a bad spy movie. Why would Epstein
even have a file on something like that.
Speaker 2: This is where we have to understand the concept of compromat.
Speaker 1: Right, the Russian intelligence term.
Speaker 2: It's Russian for compromising material. And we have to be
crystal clear here. Gates completely denies this medical claim. It's
almost certainly a fabrication. But the fact that this accusation
exists in Epstein's files tells us everything about Epstein's tactics.
Speaker 1: So it doesn't even matter if it's true. It only
matters that Epstein had the file. It's leverage.
Speaker 2: It is pure leverage. That's all it is. I know
your secrets or I can create secrets about you. That
is an incredibly powerful currency. If Epstein calls Bill Gates
and asks for a meeting, and Gates knows Epstein has
a dossier on his private life, whether it's true or false,
Gates is more likely to take that meeting. It's a
mechanism of control.
Speaker 1: And then we have Elon Musk. The files mentioned inqureasing
about him intending a.
Speaker 2: Party, right though it appears he never actually went, but
his name is still there in the mix circling the drain,
and you see Richard Branson admitting he visited Epstein's island
now saying he regrets the relationship. You see the Crown
Princess Metmerit of Norway, she features hundreds of times in.
Speaker 1: These files, hundreds of times.
Speaker 2: Hundreds She's also expressed deep regret. But again, it all
begs the same question, why why did all these incredibly powerful,
wealthy people stay in his orbit? Why do they keep
coming back to the townhouse, to the island.
Speaker 1: That's what I can't wrap my head around. The BBC
uses this term a corrosive network. They say it was
designed to confer advantage. You know, scratch my back, I'll
scratch yours. But looking at it now with hindsight, it
seems like it just destroyed everyone. It touched people like
Jess Staley, Leon Black, Ben Wegg Prosser. Their careers are torched.
Speaker 2: It was a gamble, a very high spake scamble. At
the time, Epstein was seen as a gatekeeper. If you
wanted funding for your tech startup, if you wanted introductions
to the global elite, you went through Jeffrey. He was
the tollbooth operator on the road to power.
Speaker 1: That's what Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of
England said, I saw his reaction to this, and he
seemed genuinely shaken.
Speaker 2: He did. He asked, how is it that we live
in a society in which this happened and the cover
up happened.
Speaker 1: That's the provocative thought of the century right there. It's
not just Epstein was a bad man, it's our society
allowed this to happen.
Speaker 2: It's a damning indictment of the culture of the elite,
a culture where moral red flags are completely ignored as
long as the financial green lights are bright enough. They
ignored the rumors, they ignored the conviction, and let's say
it again, he was a convicted offender in two thousand
and eight. They ignored all of it because he was
useful to them.
Speaker 1: And now that usefulness is turned into a radioactive cloud
that's poisoning everyone precisely now. Actually wading through this radioactive
cloud is a massive logistical challenge. We keep saying, three
million pages, how do you even begin to process that
amount of information?
Speaker 2: Well, this is where the work of BBC Verify comes in,
and it's actually fascinating for anyone interested in tech. They're
using data scientists and they're writing custom code just to
sift through all of this unstructured data.
Speaker 1: It's not like a need Excel spreadsheet then.
Speaker 2: Not at all. It's a complete mess of emails, scan
handwritten notes, PDFs, loose files. They are essentially having to
build a search engine for hell.
Speaker 1: And the video problem seems particularly haunting. Two thousand videos
with no metadata.
Speaker 2: Think about that, no dates, no locations, just two thousand
video files, and the ethical nightmare of trying to report
on them is immense. The BBC notes they have to
use the careful term young females because in many cases
they genuinely cannot tell if the person on screen is
a woman or an underage girl. The resolution, the context,
it's all missing.
Speaker 1: That just makes your skin crawl, the ambiguity of it.
It means there are potentially crimes being captured on video
that we can't even properly name because we don't know
the age of the victim.
Speaker 2: And in this vacuum of clear information, we are seeing
a disinformation war erupt. This is the other side of
the tech one, right.
Speaker 1: The fake files. I've seen some of these circulating online,
fake emails that are attributed to Elon Musk, fake AI
photos of the NYC mayor at parties.
Speaker 2: This is the danger of the modern age. You have
this massive, chaotic release of real horrifying documents, and then
bad actors, whether it's for political gain or just to
so chaos, are slipping fake documents into the stream.
Speaker 1: It's so easy to do now.
Speaker 2: It is. They use AI to generate a fake email,
stamp it with the right kind of date, and just
drop it into a forum. BBC verifies working overtime to
debunk them, but some of these fakes get millions of
views before they're ever caught.
Speaker 1: It's the perfect storm, isn't it. You have these real
horrific truths mixed in with AI generated lies. It makes
finding the actual truth so much harder for the average person.
It creates a.
Speaker 2: Fog of war, and it allows the guilty to hide.
If everything is questionable, then nothing is proven. Someone can say, oh,
that damning email about me, that's probably one of the fakes.
It muddies the waters intentionally. It's a tactic called censorship
through noise.
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, back in the US, the political standoff is just
getting uglier. You have Trump, who resisted the release at first,
now just saying everyone should move on. Then you have
the Clintons scrambling they're due to give evidence to Congress
to avoid being held than contempt.
Speaker 2: It's a complete circus. But notice who is conspicuously missing
from that list of people taking action. The Department of Justice,
the very people who botched the redaction of the survivor names.
They're saying they're done. The DOJ says the case is
closed regarding any new prosecutions.
Speaker 1: And that is baffling to me. How can they say that.
The DOJ says we're done. But Congress is the only
government body still investigating this and there are still missing
files right.
Speaker 2: Yes, the BBC mentions that some material was held back,
specifically child pornography and images of death, which is understandable
and necessary, of course, but they also mentioned that files
of a medical nature and a personal nature remain a
question mark. What is in those files? Who is being
protected by those reactions? Are those the files that would
bring down even more titans?
Speaker 1: We just don't know, And that really brings us to
the end of our threads for today. We've looked at
the victims crying out for peace. We've looked at the
royals stripping away their own dignity. We've looked at the
politicians trading state secrets, and the billionaires, all caught in
this web of their own making.
Speaker 2: And the common thread, the single strm that ties every
single one of them together, is impunity. For decades, there
were simply no consequence for any of us.
Speaker 1: Until now, or I mean not even now.
Speaker 2: That's the deep worry, isn't it. Jeffrey Epstein didn't build
this network alone. It required the complicity, the silence, and
in some cases the active participation of some of the
most powerful people in the United States and the United Kingdom.
And yet who is actually in handcuffs today?
Speaker 1: That is the question I want to leave all of
you with. The Department of Justice says the case is
closed for new prosecutions. But given everything we've just discussed,
Lord Mandelssohn allegedly leaking market data during a global crisis,
the royal involvement, the sheer, undeniable scale of the abuse,
does that sound like justice to you?
Speaker 2: Does a closed case really look like three million pages
of unanswered.
Speaker 1: Questions we want to hear from you with a DOJ
stepping back, but Congress and the UK parliaments digging in,
do you believe we will ever see another powerful person
in handcuffs for this, or has the statute of limitations
on rich and powerful people simply run out.
Speaker 2: It's a question that really defines our era.
Speaker 1: I think tell us your stance in the comments. We
read all of them. This has been thrilling threads. I'm
your hosts.
Speaker 2: I know I'm the expert.
Speaker 1: Signing off.