[0:00]Hello, it's Alex in Westminster >> and it's James also in Westminster. >> So, we were talking yesterday just after what this sort of quite crucial moment
[0:10]where we had Karma addressing his MPs in parliament um uh after all the cabinet had fallen in behind Kama after this kind of fairly dramatic day when we'd had Scottish Labour leader calling for
[0:21]him to go. Then today after all of that up and down and watery of yesterday, it feels quite different in Westminster. I would say >> it's been a calmer day, hasn't it?
[0:32]Although I have to say an extremely wet and cold day. I went to Downing Street to watch the the Scottish Labour MPs who were going in there and this evening after they'd had their their meeting among themselves in the House of
[0:44]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
[0:54]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 who was
[1:05]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 and ask?" And they came out with this. I mean, you can newscasters have their own view about how sustainable or um realistic this
[1:17]position is, but they were like, "Oh, you know, we they're both we like both of them. They're both fine." >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's definitely calmed down and and some of the heat has gone out of it.
[1:27]And Karma, I think, trying to um 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.
[1:39]And you know that it's a sign of politicians wanting to kind of, you know, 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 Karma with his sleeves rolled up at a sort of
[1:51]coffee morning um addressing head-on some of the stuff that's happened in the past few days and taking some questions. And he literally, and I've, you know, you can't use that word unless it's accurate, but he literally delivered a
[2:02]bit of fighting talk. Let's have a listen to what he had to say. There are some people in recent days who say the Labor government should have a different fight, a fight with itself instead of a fight for the millions of
[2:13]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
[2:25]away from the people that I'm charged with fighting for. And I will never walk away from the country that I love. literally with his sleeves rolled up and
[2:36]literally fighting talk. >> Yeah. Yeah, he did. He was and 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
[2:48]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 um during what was quite a sort of
[2:59]potentially perilous moment. And I think now there's this sense and actually weirdly one of those cabinet ministers Ed Milliband gave an interview on the Today program on radio 4 on Tuesday
[3:10]morning in which he was just he was kind of really blunt about just how perilous the moment had been for Kharma on Monday. You know he said that the Labour party had effectively stared over the
[3:22]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 it. I think the way I would put it is that Labour MPs
[3:33]looked over the precipice once Anas Sawa made his statement and they didn't like what they saw and they thought the right thing to do was to unite behind Kia uh
[3:44]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. The really interesting thing about what Ed Miban was saying was that this is a
[3:56]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 Kama. What what is that change? What is it like? What does it mean? >> Yeah. Because let's be honest, you know,
[4:07]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,
[4:19]these Labour MPs I was looking at today, the Scottish contingent, um, they were they did not look it was 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
[4:31]fine. We're going to fight." They they didn't look happy. They were very reluctant to talk. Those that did talk um were sort of saying, "Yeah, well, you know, we we support both of them." You
[4:42]could tell it's hard for them to really believe that when one person, the Scottish Labour leader and as Sarawir has called for the other, the prime minister to resign because he says what's happening in Downing Street is
[4:53]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
[5:02]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
[5:13]general election nearly two years ago and now is it change again for Kier Star? Well, that's exactly it because of course the what has really triggered the events of the past few days and the very open questions about Karma's leadership
[5:25]that we have had from some people in the parliamentary Labour party has of course been the decision about Peter Manderson and the decision to appoint him US ambassador but the backdrop to that has
[5:35]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
[5:46]what people would point to as policy and position changes and you can argue whether you want to call them U-turns or not but you know it is this sort of isn't just what happened around Peter Manderson there is a backdrop to all of
[5:57]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 Karma and
[6:09]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 Mweeny there anymore.
[6:20]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 Wormold is heading out. So there's
[6:31]going to have to be a new person in that position. Now that's the kind of like almost the the technical logistical details. Those positions are really important. But the second question I think is where does K star go now when
[6:43]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 and he was sort of talking about his own workingass roots
[6:54]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
[7:04]that the government might make and whether or not that will convince the critics of Karmama that he's kind of you know got a grip and is heading in the right direction. And another thing that he has to do, not to bring it all back
[7:16]to Scotland, but is is to decide how he's going to handle an asarwir and how he's going to handle the Scottish election campaign, the campaign for the for the Scottish parliamentary elections on May the 7th. Obviously, there are
[7:28]elections in Wales um and in English local elections as well. And interestingly today, secure and newscasters may have their own view
[7:38]about whether or not this was pragmatic or weak or magnanimous or however you describe it, but Sakira is basically
[7:47]saying um yeah, I'm backing an Asarwire. He can be he can be he should be first minister of Scotland. I mean that's extraordinary, you know, to hear um given what happened yesterday. But
[7:58]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. Sar's campaign and yet sits in the cabinet
[8:10]supporting the prime minister. And he was saying, "Oh, this they had they had he was on the radio this morning on Radio Scotland Breakfast saying, "Oh, they they there was a problem yesterday. They had a bit of a f I was thinking
[8:21]yesterday's not your problem. Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow to the last syllable of recorded time is your problem here." So the question he he's taken a decision the prime minister now
[8:31]on how to handle an asarwir and it's to be magnanimous and to sort of rise above the frey but I suppose my question is how sustainable is that? >> Yeah and Jenny Chapman who is a close
[8:41]ally of karma she's international development minister but she worked on his 2020 leadership campaign she was asked about this today and she said that Annisawa and the prime minister need to get in a room and talk this out was her
[8:52]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
[9:03]other one is where streeting because we were talking James about how Wes Streeting had chosen unilaterally to release some of his WhatsApp exchanges with Peter Mandlesson to try from his perspective to show that he didn't have
[9:15]as close a relationship with Peter Manderson as some people had suggested he might have. Well, then following that the release of those messages by West Streeting, there came this sort of messaging from number 10 to other
[9:26]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 jeopardize their ongoing investigations. So, and again,
[9:37]Karma was asked about that. Chris actually asked Karma 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, Westing has gone out and just released this kind of stuff." And
[9:48]Kama said, "I think that these messages should be released in a managed way." But, you know, there are still those sort of questions about whether he
[9:56]decides to, as you say, be magnanimous or, you know, perhaps not to sort of take a a harsh line with people that
[10:08]aren't falling into line with the prime minister's vision right now or or not, you know, whether whether he chooses to do something entirely different. And
[10:17]there are other problems um 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
[10:28]Lords, has had the labor whip suspended in the Lords because of his past association with Sha Morton, who is a former labor counselor who admitted
[10:38]indecent child image offenses in 2017. Um that that is a development, isn't it? He was a a significant figure in in not
[10:49]just this government, Tony Blair's government as well. >> Yeah. Yeah, he was he's he's been around the Labour party for a while and Kama brought him back into government in a senior role in communications in number 10, a role he hasn't been in for a
[10:59]while, but as you say, he was made a Labour peer and I think for the for the past couple of weeks certainly it's sort of this story has been bubbling away um
[11:09]that effectively Matthew Doyle campaigned or worked on the campaign of Shawn Morton, this former counselor, >> Scottish Labor counselor, >> former Scottish labor counselor um who
[11:20]then went on to be convicted of these offenses and there were questions about sort of was that was that what was Matthew Do's role in all of that. Now Matthew Dors put out a statement about this and he said he wants to apologize
[11:32]for his past association with Shawn Morton. He says his offenses 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
[11:42]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
[11:52]guilty. But he acknowledges he made an error of judgment in continuing to support the campaign. And now he's had the Labour whip. >> There you go. That's just another another piece of another problem.
[12:04]>> And of well, it's all of this. I mean this is this is the thing really since the beginning of this year Karma has been attempting to focus on what he thinks is has got to be the core message of government which is about the cost of
[12:15]living you know that's where 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
[12:26]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
[12:38]Peter Manderson and the prime minister's decision to appoint him which has all now of course come to the four again in the latest release of the Epstein files have completely knocked what the prime minister wanted to talk about off course
[12:48]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 sort key issues again the things that they think really
[12:59]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 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
[13:10]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
[13:21]enough to satisfy the people on the Labor benches who of course are the people that will determine Karma's sort of immediate future and fate because they're his MPs and he does need their
[13:31]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 you know cooled without a
[13:41]shadow of a doubt but those bigger issues that people have articulated with the Downing Street operation under Kia Starmer for some time they haven't gone away so it's whether or not that Kia
[13:51]Starama now can find a way to address those satisfactorily to his own MPs >> and while we've been talking all about all of that here and the fallout affecting the government and how it's
[14:03]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 Ralph, our
[14:15]senior royal correspondent who is in Saudi Arabia to talk about all of that. Hi Katrina. >> Hi Alex. Hi James. >> Hello. Hi Daniela. >> Hi James. Hi Alex. So Daniela, you have
[14:26]been following Prince William around on one of these royal visits. this time to Saudi Arabia. Where are you? Cuz there's a lot of noise going on in the background. It sounds like there's a bit of a action behind you.
[14:37]>> Bit of a party. >> If only I could go to it. Yeah, it's 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 um music from that. Sadly, we're not quite close enough to go to
[14:47]it. But I'm in Alula, which is this absolutely incredible um oasis city in the desert in northwest Saudi Arabia. I'm standing surrounded by these absolutely monumental sandstone rocks
[14:59]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
[15:10]>> and he's meeting the crown prince Muhammad bin Salman, a a very controversial figure on the world stage as well. Daniela, >> yeah, he met him last night actually. um
[15:20]he had uh a private dinner with um the crown prince Muhammad bin Salman and uh they spent we are told a considerable amount of time talking to one another about bilateral relations about the
[15:31]general relationship between Saudi Arabia and and the UK and I think there was a hope from uh the UK government that there would be a personal friendship built up there. He is
[15:41]obviously a controversial figure around the wider picture in Saudi Arabia here over human rights rights and freedoms. But they're two men of the same age. They are both going to be king of a
[15:52]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. And of course, while all of that's been
[16:04]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
[16:14]sounds like Daniela are in. But you know the US is effectively where all of this around the Epstein files started and I know there have been developments today
[16:24]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 Mandlesen here in the UK but what
[16:36]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? >> Oh my gosh, we'd need several hours for that I think. um because we're talking
[16:45]about three million documents here released by the Department of Justice and actually that isn't even the full extent of the file. Although we have
[16:55]heard from the assistant US attorney Todd Blanch 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
[17:07]confidentiality to the actual nature of the files and also some of them are still subject to live investigations we're told and and that is an issue that
[17:18]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 you know we've been debating this on many of our shows here
[17:29]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
[17:41]the BBC are trolling through which mention Andrew Mountbatten Windsor or which mention Peter Mandolson. And we should say say of course that a mention does not equate to wrongdoing but
[17:52]everything that we've been discussing on the podcast for the last few weeks there there hasn't been that same intense focus here on specific individuals.
[18:02]There are some people who have stepped away from their roles because of an association with Epstein not to do with wrongdoing but just you know um judgment that they had in terms of keeping up a
[18:14]relationship with him. Um, we've had a statement from Nam Chosky who is 97 now from his wife saying that he regrets the acquaintance that he had with Jeffrey
[18:25]Epstein said he was completely unaware of what Epstein was involved with and his relationship was around research and actually around financial transactions
[18:35]but nevertheless expressing extreme regret over um his judgment and keeping that friendship up and expressing support with the victims as Well, um,
[18:46]just today we've had an exchange actually on Capitol Hill involving Howard Lutnik, the commerce secretary, a very close friend, as we know, of President Trump and a key member of his
[18:58]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
[19:10]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
[19:20]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
[19:30]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
[19:39]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 in 200 uh back
[19:51]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
[20:02]philanthropy, he said last year. But again, today he's just confirming some of what's in that doc those documents that he did see him after that point. >> Right.
[20:12]>> Um so there's lots of that information that we're tying all the threads together. >> Yeah. And it's interesting because quite a few newscasters have been in touch with us about this. We've had quite a
[20:22]number of messages asking similar questions. Oie 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
[20:34]files from the UK perspective is Mandelson and Andrew Mcmbat and Windsor but are there similar scandals from the re release of the documents in other countries particularly the US and I suppose what you're saying out there is
[20:44]there's little hints of things here and there and bits and pieces but perhaps not not quite the same level and I wonder if some of that comes back to the
[20:54]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
[21:05]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?
[21:15]>> 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 un toward going on. He cut ties with
[21:27]Jeffrey Epste a long time ago. He says just he's described him as a creep, a bad dude, all of this kind of thing. Um, but that is the main point from Democrats and some Republicans as well
[21:38]because of course Congressman Thomas Massie, a Republican, has been leading the charge on this with Democratic Congressman Roana. um that until every single file is released and not just
[21:50]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
[21:58]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
[22:09]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
[22:21]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
[22:31]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 Massie the
[22:41]Republicans 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
[22:52]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
[23:04]did see with the black lines removed that they thought immediately there are others involved here. >> 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
[23:14]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
[23:26]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 going to happen? >> Well, if it's going to happen, who
[23:36]knows? Like anything in this town, it's going to 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,
[23:47]Virginia's law is about removing the statute of limitations on alleged crimes that were uh carried out by some of Jeffrey Epstein's associates. So under
[23:57]law, you have to raise uh the alarm. You have to try and press charges within a set period of time. If you don't have do that, the statute of limitations passes and you can't bring the charges again.
[24:08]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
[24:19]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,
[24:30]has brought this bill to be known as Virginia's Law in honor of Virginia Duprey. published it today surrounded by survivors as you say. Um there's much
[24:40]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
[24:51]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
[25:01]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
[25:11]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
[25:23]redactions. >> Yeah. And we and talking of Virginia Giuffre, we want to ask Daniela about this in a second, but just just quickly Katrina just briefly before we do because obviously this has followed
[25:33]Prince William to Riad essentially. Andrew Mbat and 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 Du case
[25:43]there today before we hear from, you know, what the royals are saying about it? Yeah, we've heard from many members of Congress that they want Andrew Mountbatton Windsor to come over here and appear before them and tell them
[25:54]what he knows, what he saw, anything that he might be able to add to the sort of sphere of information there. He isn't a US citizen, so they can't compel him
[26:05]to come here. They can kind of ask him nicely. They could issue a subpoena for him, but again, that's they couldn't enforce that in the UK. if he arrived into the US in theory they could bring
[26:16]him to the Congress and 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
[26:26]members of Congress. Mhm. 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
[26:38]between uh 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 four actually in recent days because of the statements we've had from the
[26:50]royal households is still what has been going on with Andrew Mountbat and Windsor. Yeah, today really has been the perfect example of why this is such a difficult situation for the royal family
[27:01]as they try to go about their regular duties. Um, 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 Riad
[27:13]today and he doing lots of things around trade and commerce. He's he's taken part in some esports and he went to a really good engagement with young women with
[27:22]girls who are taking part in football teams here in Saudi Arabia and lots of the young women talked about uh the increased freedoms they've had in recent years the changing role of women in
[27:32]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 uh about what
[27:43]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
[27:55]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
[28:04]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 Riad or a a heckle at
[28:14]the king in Clethero in Lancasher. Uh 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 is that background of uh
[28:24]pressure on Andrew Mountbat and 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
[28:35]to really manage them in any way. >> Well, we heard um yesterday this um shout as you say in Lancaster this shout at the K. In fact, let's have a quick listen to that now. Just the the the
[28:46]sound of King Charles being being um heckled. >> Charles, how long have you known about Andrew and [cheering] [cheering]
[29:07]>> 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
[29:17]have the royal family done enough? What did he say? >> He didn't say anything at all. Um, it was hard to tell whether he had heard the detail entirely of the question, but he definitely knew he was being shouted
[29:29]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
[29:39]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 is doing here on behalf of the UK
[29:50]government. They had issued this statement yesterday morning uh talking about uh 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
[30:01]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
[30:11]Epstein story that you can't really just shut it down with the statement. 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
[30:23]like you sort of predicted this cuz you said you know you 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
[30:34]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. Mountbat and Windsor's conduct. If we are approached by
[30:45]Tempame's 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
[30:56]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? >> Um, it's interesting, Alex, isn't it? to
[31:05]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
[31:16]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
[31:26]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
[31:36]last week, my sense is this story just continued to build and the interest on on it just increased, but it was going to be really hard for the royal family to stay silent in a world where there is
[31:48]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
[31:58]statements yesterday to kind of show I think on the king's part um leadership that he understood it that he got the anguish of victims that he knew just how this story was playing and how difficult
[32:10]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
[32:20]today in Riad and I just think you know it it is very hard to try and quell this now because there is such a storm of questions and inquiries around it. Um Buckingham Palace I think wouldn't have
[32:30]said that they would help the police temps 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 um about Andrew Mount Bat and
[32:42]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
[32:52]looks like is not clear, but it may be around documents, paperwork, timings, things that happened around the time that Andrew Mountbaten Windsor was working as a trade envoy. These are
[33:03]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
[33:14]latest branch of the epi epstein files. And just briefly, Daniela, I presume it's still silence from Andrew Mountbat and Windsor because I know he's been approached by the BBC and he's now facing these calls including from the US
[33:25]for him to appear before Congress and say what he knew, but I presume at the moment there's been no response. >> Yeah, no response at all. We are going again and again as each allegation arises out of the files. We are trying
[33:36]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 uh with Jeffrey Epstein,
[33:48]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. I was really struck by that statement being so specific
[33:59]about Temp's Valley Police. Not just in general, we Buckingham Palace would obviously support any inquiries. It's very specific. If we're approached by
[34:10]Temp's Valley Police, we stand ready to support them. But perhaps it's not a good idea to speculate on what might happen next. >> I did ask Buckingham Palace about that specifically because I'd noticed that as well. They said they had used Hens
[34:22]Valley Police because that is where the complaint sits at the moment about Andrew Mountbat and Windsor. It is with that force. It may ultimately perhaps move to the Metropolitan Police instead.
[34:33]And wherever it goes now, I think what that statement from the king last night did say is that he they will support the police. Buckingham Palace will support the police wherever that investigation is. So although it was Temp's Valley
[34:44]last night, it could be somewhere else. And I think they have now pledged their support to help which they're going to have to do wherever that may be ultimately. >> Yeah, Daniela, that's good context, isn't it? Thank you. That's good to
[34:55]know. I Katrina, I have a question for you. What how is because there is always a degree of fascination with the royals in the United States. Um, is this a big
[35:06]thing there? Are people focused on the impact on the British royal family or specifically on Andrew Mountbat and Windsor or or neither?
[35:16]>> Um there is definitely not as much interest over here as there obviously is in the UK in all of this. Um because there are so many files and there are so
[35:28]many individuals named some of whom completely innocently others who have a question mark over them. um that the attention is kind of spread between a whole pile of people if that makes
[35:39]sense. Um there is a fascination I suppose with Andrew Mountbatten Windsor over Peter Mandolson just because he'd be far better known in this country although Lord Mandlesson obviously was
[35:50]the ambassador here you know 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
[36:01]all the machinations of it. Um there have been calls for the king to compel Andrew to come and give evidence and and appear before some of these committees
[36:11]here as well. Uh that he should get involved not just in terms of cooperating with Hems Valley police but with the US authorities as well. So that's quite interesting. But I would
[36:21]say there are you know probably other stories in the US that are oper kind of um occupying people's minds at the moment which is really interesting because these Epstein files were so
[36:32]front and center 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
[36:42]all the threads together um you know read through as we were saying the redacted and unredacted bits and see what actually is connected
[36:51]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
[37:02]they haven't had that justice they're seeking >> and [snorts] all of these questions about you know people giving answers or people that might be able to shed some light on some more detail or lead you know to more information for the victims
[37:13]we of course saw Gain Maxwell refusing to answer questions >> indeed and we saw that quite an unbelievable little clip released by the Republicans on the oversight committee
[37:24]on the house of that appearance that she made virtually from jail where she was asked those questions about, you know, what she knew, what she would be prepared to share. And she just keeps
[37:34]kept saying, you know, 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-inccrimcriminate, but
[37:45]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.
[37:54]>> Miss Maxwell, were you a close friend and confidant of Jeffrey Epstein? >> I would like to answer your question, but on the advice of council, I
[38:05]respectfully decline to answer this question and any related questions. My habius petition is pending in the southern district of New York. I
[38:16]therefore invoke my right to silence under the fifth amendment to the US Constitution. >> Let the record reflect that Miss Maxwell has invoked the fifth amendment against
[38:27]selfinccrimination. Miss Miss Maxwell, please be very clear. Are you declining to answer the question put you solely on the ground that you believe the answer will incriminate you?
[38:39]>> I invoke my fifth amendment right to silence. But speaking to people from the Republican and the Democratic party, they're kind of questioning the value of her giving evidence anyway because, you
[38:51]know, 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
[39:00]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
[39:12]party and of course the Democrats and many others are calling on him to do to take that option off the table. So Galileain Maxwell then is given a very
[39:21]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. >> Katrina, I don't know if you've managed to see this um but as you we've been
[39:33]talking actually the people that you were referencing that were in the unredacted files have been named. Is that right? >> They have. Yeah. Um, as I was mentioning
[39:43]earlier, Representative Roana and Thomas Massie, they've been speaking on the floor of the House and Representative Roana has named those six men that I mentioned earlier as uh people that they
[39:55]feel have questions to answer and should be uh open to potentially a criminal investigation. Now, he was using privilege that he has as an elected
[40:05]member of Congress speaking on the floor. So he can name those names without being subject to risk of liel or defamation. >> Yeah, we're not suggesting we're
[40:16][laughter] not just to be clear. >> Exactly. >> I think before we do that, we probably need to speak to the lawyers. >> Exactly. [laughter] Um he can do that. >> Although Roana, who who's a Democrat,
[40:27]isn't he from California? Also, I I thought another thing very interesting just to have happened was this um statement about the king or comment rather about the king. I think this is
[40:37]the most vulnerable the British monarchy has ever been. Um, Congressman Cana is saying as well. So, yeah, clearly everything colliding there really.
[40:47]>> Yeah, exactly. Um, and and also, you know, I I interviewed him myself last week and I'll have him again on my show later on, but he's kind of been amazed
[40:56]that all of the wobbling we saw around the prime minister yesterday. um that you know this you know he was saying to me this has the potential to bring down
[41:06]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
[41:18]different the system is in the US compared to the UK. Yeah. And and echoing a point lots of newscasters have made, Daniela, just finally, um what's what's next on your on the tour, the
[41:29]royal tour for you >> tomorrow? Um here in Saudi Arabia, it's Prince William's final day in the country. And as I I was saying earlier, I'm here in Alula, this amazing um oasis city in the desert. And the focus is
[41:41]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
[41:51]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
[42:03]leopard, something that perhaps uh that he is particularly interested in. So, a a real switch in mood and focus tomorrow, but the Epstein story still does hang over everything. Yeah. Enjoy it while you can and if you can cuz I
[42:15]know you've been working flat out. But thank you for sparing us some time to talk us through it all, Daniela. >> Thanks everyone. Bye. >> And thanks very much, Katrina. >> Thanks. Talk soon.