[0:00]Breaking news. There is more fallout from the release of millions of files related to convicted sex offender and suspected sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Another bombshell arrest and
[0:10]once again it is happening across the pond. Welcome to Sidebar presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Okay, real quick. If you're into content creation, if you're putting things out
[0:22]on social media, have you ever wondered how we're able to put so many of our clips out there so quickly on all these trending cases? Well, we use something called Opus Clip. Okay, this is an all-in-one AI editor that makes it so
[0:34]easy to cut, create, and upload videos across any platform through AI. OpusClip generates B-roll, refframes footage, and it even cleans up audio. It is so easy. Just visit opus.pro/sidebar.
[0:45]You sign up, you upload, and in minutes, you have perfectly edited clips ready to go. For Tik Tok, shorts, reals, OpusClip is your one-stop shop. And having a tool like OpusClip means that our producers can get you viral courtroom updates
[0:57]instantly. This is the most powerful tool there is to share ideas and edit like a pro. So go to opus.pro/sidebar to get a free week and then 50% off. Well, I will tell you the fallout from
[1:09]the Epstein scandal is just continuing and continuing and continuing. I mean, we did a whole episode on all of the resignations and the investigations. Hey, I mean, we just covered a major
[1:19]arrest of a member of the British royal family and we'll talk about that in a second, but what just happened? This is major. Lord Peter Mandelson, former UK
[1:29]ambassador to the United States, is now under arrest. British police announced Monday that a 72-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Now, this is a little bit
[1:40]different than what we do here in the United States. So, first, sometimes you have an arrest and then charges. We don't see official charges as of yet. And also I will tell you what's different is the UK police, they typically don't name the subjects of
[1:52]investigations, but the subject of this particular case has been previously identified as Mandlesson. And the way they describe it, I think you can put two and two together. However, I will
[2:02]tell you despite the fact that the allegations against him are indeed or seemingly connected to Jeffrey Epstein, he has not been accused of committing
[2:14]any sort of sexual crimes or sex trafficking as far as we know. Okay? The accusations, as far as we can tell, mirror those actually against former
[2:25]Prince Andrew. You see, Mandlesson is accused of passing secret government information along to Jeffrey Epstein more than a decade ago. According to a statement from the Metropolitan Police,
[2:35]Mandlesen was taken to a police station for an interview. There are search warrants that were served at two addresses in connection with this case. So, I said that, you know, he's accused of passing sensitive information to
[2:46]Epstein when he was serving as business secretary uh from 2008 to 2010. There are also allegations, by the way, of financial transfers that we'll talk about. Although, to be clear, we cannot
[2:56]confirm that this is in fact the basis of the arrest at this point. And to be clear, there's no charges that have been filed yet. But this isn't the first time that Mandlesen has been in the hot seat. Not the first time that we've covered
[3:08]him here on Sidebar. He was fired from his diplomatic post by his boss, Prime Minister K Starmer, back in September. That is when the US House Oversight Committee released images of a 50th
[3:19]birthday album that was put together back in 2003 for Jeffrey Epstein's birthday, reportedly by his on-again, off-again girlfriend, associate, now convicted sex trafficker, El Gene
[3:30]Maxwell. And in his part of the birthday book, Mandeln uh apparently included several photos of himself and Epstein, as well as a note that said Jeffrey was
[3:40]his quote best pal. Allegedly signed it, "Happy birthday, Jeffrey. We love you. I mean, that's backed up by this email from seemingly Mandlesson to Epstein.
[3:50]Nat mentioned you at lunch and she erased my comment that you are one of my best friends. Now, I'm sure while those emails are important, I'm not really sure that's why he's getting arrested.
[4:01]Yeah, there's been questionable things, and I'll get into it about the exchanges between him and Epstein. Like for example, Mandlesson had even seemingly or allegedly suggested at one point that
[4:11]Epstein's conviction for solicitation of a minor back in 2008 was wrongful and that it should be challenged. Now, of course, Mandlesson underwent an extensive vetting process before he was
[4:23]selected to be the ambassador to the United States, but it's been reported that his prior ties to Epstein had been known, but apparently significantly downplayed. This is according to
[4:34]reporting like outlets like AP News. Now, like others who had been connected to Epste or affiliated with Epstein, Mandeln said he regretted any interactions that he might have had with
[4:45]Epstein 20 years ago, swore he knew nothing about his criminal activities or his alleged criminal activities. But as more and more documentation was released by the Department of Justice,
[4:56]Mandelson's connection to the convicted sex offender was called into question. I'm going to give you an idea. I want to read you some communication. So, you have this exchange from 2009 and it
[5:07]allegedly surrounds Epstein's release from prison. And this is after he served 13 of his 18-month sentence. And again, it's those Florida state charges. Solicitation of prostitution.
[5:18]Solicitation of prostitution with a minor under 18 as part of that guilty plea. Here's how that went from Jeffrey Epstein seemingly to Mandolen. Free and home. Mandles appears to write back. How
[5:30]should we celebrate? Epstein writes back with grace and modesty. Those are the names of two strippers. Mandlesen allegedly writes back at one point, "How is freedom feeling?" Epstein writes
[5:41]back, "She feels fresh, firm, and creamy." And then Maldesen appears to write back to Jeffrey Epstein. Naughty boy. But again, I don't really think
[5:51]that this is why he's reportedly getting arrested. See, the Metropolitan Police, they launched this investigation uh into Mandlesson for allegedly providing Epstein with information, market
[6:02]sensitive information, government information, when he was acting as business secretary in the British government. For example, you have this email from June 2009 where Mandlesen
[6:12]appears to write to Epstein, interesting note that's gone to the PM, meaning prime minister. So, it appears to be this note that was sent to the prime minister about business issues and a
[6:22]plan of action, including the sale of assets. And this is to which Epstein appears to write back, "What salailable assets?" How about this one where
[6:32]Mandles allegedly gave Epstein a heads up that a 500 billion euro bailout had been agreed to tackle the Eurozone crisis. So, you got this email from Jeffrey Epstein again to Peter
[6:43]Mendelson. Sources tell me 500B euro bailout almost complete and Mandles appears to write back to Epstein. SDB be announced tonight. How about this one?
[6:53]Email exchange in 2009 about Epstein seemingly asking Mandlesen to petition the government to amend the upcoming bank bonus tax. Epstein writes, "Any real chance of making the tax only on
[7:05]the cash portion of the banker's bonus?" And from again who appears to be Peter Mandlesson to Epstein trying hard to amend as I explained to Redacted last night, Treasury digging in, but I am on
[7:16]the case. Last year, Mend Mandelson said to the Financial Times, I regret ever meeting him or being introduced to him by his partner Gla Maxwell. I regret
[7:26]even more the hurt he caused to many young women. Now, according to the outlet, the standard Mandleston stepped down from the House of Lords after the most recent release of Epstein
[7:36]documents, but parliamentary procedure lets him keep his title, at least for now. Now, according to Time, I have to mention this too as we talk about what the investigation could be about. The Epstein files also apparently show these
[7:48]financial transfers from Epstein to Mandlesen affiliated accounts as well. So, we'll see if anything comes from that. But remember, this is all happening in the wake of what I
[7:59]mentioned before, another major arrest in the UK, the arrest of formerly Prince Andrew. Now, to give you a context about that, here's our former sidebar episode,
[8:09]our previous sidebar episode on all of that. Take a look. If you've been watching the news today, you have heard that the Tempame's Valley Police arrested Andrew Mountbatton Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, the
[8:19]Duke of York, on suspicion of misconduct in public office. This carries potentially life in prison. Happened reportedly just after 8 a.m. local time.
[8:29]Six unmarked police vehicles show up at Andrew's place. Oh, and he was taken into custody on his 66th birthday. Now, he remains in custody. At the time of this recording this point, it doesn't
[8:40]appear he's officially been indicted. So, just arrested on suspicion of this charge. But I will tell you, if the charges follow, okay, this would mark, it's already been marked, a historic
[8:50]moment. you have a senior member of the British royal family arrested in connection with actions tied to official government duties. Now, the Temps Valley Police issued a statement early on that read, "As part of the investigation, we
[9:01]have today arrested a man in his 60s from Norfolk on suspicion of misconduct in public office and are carrying out searches at addresses in Burkshshire and Norfolk. The man remains in police custody at this time." Now, that's
[9:13]standard for authorities over there to not identify the person that they arrested, but King Charles III. So, we're talking about Andrew's brother later released the statement. Okay. And this is what it said. I have learned
[9:25]with the deepest concern the news about Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and suspicion of misconduct in public office. What now follows is the full fair and proper process by which this issue is
[9:35]investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities. In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and cooperation. Let me state clearly, the law must take its course. As this
[9:47]process continues, it would not be right for me to comment further on this matter. My family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all. So basically, in my view, that's the king
[9:58]saying, "Andrew, you're on your own. We cannot even have the appearance of being involved in this. We cannot have even the appearance that we're affecting this investigation or tainting this
[10:09]investigation or getting involved in this investigation." And I would say this is not surprising considering what Andrew's already been stripped of his royal titles. He was already ostracized by the family by all accounts. And I
[10:20]want to back up on that for a second because if you're just hearing this now, you might be probably thinking, "Wait a sec. Wait a second. Andrew was arrested. Is this about Jeffrey Epste? Is this about allegations of sex crimes?" No.
[10:31]This is about Epstein. There is an arrest, but it's not in the way that you think. Okay. So, it starts off just to give you some background. Jeffrey Epstein. In the late 1990s, early 2000s, Epstein, as we know, cultivated
[10:42]relationships with politicians, billionaires, celebrities, and royalty. One of those relationships was with Andrew, formerly Prince Andrew, the second son of Queen Elizabeth II. They were photographed together. Andrew
[10:54]stayed at Epstein's homes. Apparently, they moved in overlapping circles through Epstein's then girlfriend, Glain Maxwell, or associate Gla Maxwell. And for years, it was framed as very
[11:04]controversial and as bad judgment. embarrassing, maybe not criminal. Then in 2015, Virginia Duprey filed a civil lawsuit alleging that Jeffrey Epstein
[11:14]and Galain Maxwell trafficked her and that she was forced to have sex with Andrew, including when she was just 17 years old. Andrew denied the allegations, denied meeting her, questioned the authenticity of a photo
[11:25]showing them or seemingly showing them together. In 2019, he attempted to repair the PR damage with that now infamous BBC Newsight interview. You know, the pizza alibi, the claim that he couldn't sweat, it collapsed almost
[11:37]immediately. And within days, Queen Elizabeth removed him from public duties. In 2022, he settled your Frey's civil lawsuit for an undisclosed amount, admitted no liability. And after that,
[11:47]it seemed like the story might be over. Andrew kind of retreated from public life. But here's the thing, the Epstein story didn't die. Andrew was actually stripped of his royal titles. And then
[11:59]in January of 2026, the US Department of Justice released another massive dump of Epstein files. And buried in those documents was something that shifted the focus entirely. This brings us to what
[12:09]we're talking about today. It was about Andrew's official government role. Between 2001 and 2011, Andrew served as the United Kingdom Special Representative for International Trade and Investment. This is a formal
[12:20]government position. It's a trade envoy, a crown servant. And in the release communications, the emails, it seems that investigators found messages
[12:30]suggesting that Andrew allegedly shared official trip reports and what appeared to be a confidential investment brief. So, sensitive information with Jeffrey
[12:40]Epstein and that this was in 2010. So, this was 2 years after Epstein's 2008 conviction in Florida. Remember, solicitation of prostitution, remember of a minor, too. And that detail matters
[12:51]because in 2010, Andrew wasn't just a royal family member. He was serving in an official government capacity. And under UK law, crowned servants are bound by duties relating to the handling of sensitive government information. The
[13:03]official Secrets Act of 1989, which is the relevant version here, specifically protects information relating to international relations. That's the key. That seems to be what investigators are
[13:14]now examining. Now, this arrest itself, it isn't under the Official Secrets Act, at least not yet. But it has been reported that Andrew has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. That is a separate common law
[13:25]offense. Carries its own legal threshold. The Crown Prosecution Service, so the main prosecutorial arm out in the UK, defines it this way. A public officer acting as such commits
[13:36]the offense if they willfully neglect their duty or willfully misconduct themselves to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse
[13:47]or justification. And the court of appeal has described the threshold as a high one that you're talking about conduct that is quote so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an
[13:57]abuse of the public's trust. And I'm going to get into that a little bit more about what that means. But in Andrew's case, the alleged misconduct is the sharing of sensitive government information with a private citizen,
[14:09]Jeffrey Epstein, who should not have received this, right? That seems to be what the main argument would be. And I want to walk you through how we got to this arrest because after the January 2026 document dump, there were emails that surfaced from 2010. So again, 2
[14:20]years after Epstein's conviction, and they showed what appeared to be ongoing communication between Epstein and someone identified in the files as the Duke. Now, the Duke, presumably Andrew,
[14:31]the Duke of York. And here's what those emails purportedly contain. November 30th, 2010, Andrew special adviser, Ahmed Patel, sends him an email, and it reads, "Sir, please find attached the
[14:41]visit reports for Vietnam, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Shenzen in relation to your recent visit to Southeast Asia. And attached are official documents, government records generated seemingly
[14:52]during Andrew's work as the UK's trade envoy." According to the files, Andrew appears to have forwarded those reports, the email, their contents to Jeffrey Epstein. And there's no forwarding
[15:04]message, no context given. There's another email from December 24th, 2010, so Christmas Eve. Andrew appears to write to Epstein and includes what he describes as a confidential brief on
[15:16]investment opportunities in Afghanistan's Helmland Province. And here's what the email says. So first of all it says to J and then it ends from a attached is a confidential brief produced by the provincial
[15:27]reconstruction team in Helman province for international investment opportunities. These are not exclusive to Helman province but principally focused on that province. I'm going to offer this elsewhere in my network
[15:38]including Abu Dhabi but would be very interested in your comments, views or ideas as to whom I could also usefully show this to attract some interest. I have sadly already found out that Gates Foundation doesn't do anything in
[15:50]Afghanistan. So at this time, Helman Province in 2010, this is our understanding, this was at the height of the war in Afghanistan and there were British troops that were on the ground there. And Andrew is allegedly sending
[16:02]information about this to Jeffrey Epstein. So it kind of gives you an idea of what we're talking about. You have a former prince, the king's brother arrested on his birthday, police searching royal properties, too, by the way. We'll talk about that. and a
[16:13]criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was improperly shared with, you know, a convicted sex offender. Now, the late Virginia Duy, her family released a
[16:24]statement today, and you'll remember I mentioned this, Juy was the woman who alleged that Epstein traffked her to Andrew. And by the way, herostumous memoir kept this story alive. Her family said, "At last, today our broken hearts
[16:35]have been lifted at the news that no one is above the law, not even royalty. He was never a prince. for survivors everywhere. Virginia did this for you. I want to talk about this. Okay, let me
[16:46]bring in my friend Richard Shoenstein, litigator, trial attorney. Uh, okay. Your reaction to what? The first senior royal to ever be arrested. This is a big
[16:58]development in the Epstein saga. So, first, your reaction to this news. So, my reaction to the news is really th this guy's been under
[17:10]suspicion of sex trafficking and sexual abuse for years and years and years, but the thing that's made the British government angry is he maybe gave away
[17:22]some money secrets and that's what they're going to prosecute him for. The argument would be, isn't this probably the more straightforward path to prosecution than sexreated crimes? If
[17:33]you just look at the emails, it is probably more straightforward and there may be a higher degree of proof. I give you that. But, you know, no one is facing consequences for what went on on
[17:44]that island. And so, now this guy's going to be prosecuted because he sent an email with some trade secrets. >> Well, I want to get into that. Um, but I guess the question is in the overall
[17:56]scheme and look, you're right, he hasn't been uh officially charged with respect to any sex related crimes, I hear you. But in the idea of releasing the Epstein
[18:06]files, transparency, accountability, talked earlier about the statement from Virginia Drew Freys family, there are those who say, "Okay, this is a measure of some sort of
[18:17]accountability for someone having a connection to Jeffrey Epstein." And again, look, he hasn't been officially indicted, at least in time, at the time of this recording. He hasn't been
[18:27]officially uh charged or found guilty. But obviously, people are looking this and I did a full episode about what's accountability, people resigning, information coming out, ridicule, investigations.
[18:38]This is something. This is something against the former prince. I mean, it wasn't just that he was stripped of his titles and was essentially banished. Now he's there's a there's an investigation.
[18:48]>> Yeah. Well, it's something. potentially something. And I and I think that the being stripped of his title and his royal duties was somewhat significant
[18:59]and probably a more significant step than anything we've seen in the United States where we refuse to release the full files. We refuse to do anything
[19:08]about it. We just ignore it or downplay it. So, there's something being done. And if it makes some of the survivors or
[19:16]their families, if it alleviates some of what they've had to suffer over the years, then I'm happy for it. I just think it's a little it's a little offtarget. I
[19:28]>> I mean, he could be looking at life in prison. I'm I'm not sure that's exactly what would happen, but there is a possibility. >> Well, that's the other thing, Jesse. We have to see how it plays out. I mean,
[19:38]bringing, as you know, I mean, you follow more of these cases than anybody. bringing charges and getting a conviction and putting someone in jail. Those two points are far removed and we
[19:50]have to see what happens with this process going forward. It was interesting. It was a surprise. It's a surprise. Well, here's the thing. We did an episode on Epstein's connection to the Royals. We knew there was some sort
[20:01]of investigation. I was not expecting a full-blown arrest and now potential charges. I did look up what the Crown Prosecution Service says about misconduct in public office. and the
[20:11]Crown Prosecution Service is, you know, the main prosecuting arm in uh in Britain. So, to be clear, we're talking about arrest under suspicion. There hasn't been a formal charge yet. We'll see if that actually develops. They have
[20:22]to gather and assess evidence, which let's talk about what they might be searching at the properties. But first, if you talk about a charge, it is a public officer. So, here I think they'd be able to say that, right? You he was
[20:33]acting as a official government envoy. this public officer willfully neglects to perform their duty and or willfully misconducts themselves that this amounts
[20:43]to an abuse of public trust and there is no reasonable excuse or justification. Now, what is some of the evidence that may be used here? Well, there's an
[20:52]alleged email where Andrew uh allegedly shares files that are marked as confidential brief with Epstein on potential investments in southern
[21:02]Afghanistan. By the way, British forces were based there. Now, Andrew allegedly said at the time that, "Look, I was just seeing comments or views or ideas that maybe Epstein might have had to attract interest." I think that's what it was
[21:13]reported. There's also this allegation that Andrew forwarded his official reports on his visits to Asia that was sent to him by his special adviser to Epstein just minutes after he got them.
[21:25]No forwarding message, no context. So when we go back to what the law, I looked this up. It says that this public officer had to have been acting as such. So it needs to be distinguished from
[21:35]somebody who was merely acting while a public officer but more acting as a public officer. So in that context is where they allegedly engaged in misconduct. There has to be a nexus
[21:47]between the willful neglect, the breach of duty, the willful misconduct and that power, that authority, those responsibilities. What does willful mean? According to the Crown Prosecution
[21:57]Service, willful means deliberately doing something which is wrong, knowing it to be wrong or with reckless indifference as to whether it is wrong or not. That this person was aware of
[22:08]the duty and knew that the way in which they carried out or neglected that duty was capable of reaching the seriousness threshold that amounts to misconduct. So, you don't have to prove that the
[22:19]defendant themselves came to that view. All you have to show is that they had the means available to them to make such an assessment or that the defendant was reckless. And in order to establish this
[22:29]is a serious issue, the seriousness of the effect, it's whether the conduct amounted to a serious abuse of the public's trust. And that not every willful neglect of duty or misconduct is
[22:40]going to reach that bar. It is a high bar of seriousness. But you have to basically say, and this is I'm reading a quote, an affront to the standing of the public office held. The threshold is a
[22:51]high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder. And this is going to be
[23:01]determined by a jury. So Rich, I I threw a lot at you. I guess the question is I what are some things you're going to be looking out for to determine is this a
[23:11]serious breach of trust misconduct in public office based on what we're seeing right now? >> Well, that was a great summary and good research of what it would require to
[23:21]prove these charges. So, I think this is an interesting case because to me willfulness seems kind of obvious. If he was giving away information that he had
[23:32]no right to give away to Jeffrey Epstein, that seems fundamentally willful. But the big question here that the courts will have to ponder before it even gets to a jury is was this really
[23:44]in furtherance of his official duties? And I don't know enough about what his official duties were at the time as a prince and whatever other offices he
[23:55]held to know if passing on this information could have arguably been part of the duty. He's going to say, I think this really had nothing to do with
[24:04]my official duties. I was providing some information to a friend on his request that I had access to. I wasn't trying to negotiate with Epstein on behalf of the
[24:15]United Kingdom. I wasn't trying to transact business. I wasn't representing the crown. I was just passing on some data the guy asked for. I did not have
[24:25]any ill intent, etc. And even though a jury might conclude, you had no business passing on that confidential governmental information to this maniac.
[24:36]Was it part of his official duty? I think that that to me is the toughest part of the case. >> So, I think that's the easiest part. I think he's he's in a position where he gets this information, he's handing it
[24:47]over. Um and and I or allegedly handing it over. I guess the question is what was he gaining out of this? Like whether even it rises to the seriousness or whether it rises to the level of what he would be punished. I looked up the Crown
[24:59]Prosecution Service. They said some of the things to factor in is did the conduct involve the exploitation or attempted exploitation of vulnerable people? Did the conduct have an operational impact that harmed the
[25:10]public interest or undermined public trust either in the role held by the suspect or the relevant public service or institution? What was the suspect's motive? Was it personal gain? What was
[25:21]the severity of the actual or likely consequences? Was there a risk of death or serious injury? How egregious was the abuse of power? Did the willful misconduct or breach of a duty have the effect of benefiting the wider public
[25:32]interest rather than being injurious to it? So, I guess if you look at a textbook example, if he gave up like the location of British forces and he did it for money and they got killed, that's
[25:44]like textbook throw the book at him. Right. This one I'm curious like what did he have to gain by it? Who was harmed by it? I think those are the things that I'm looking out for.
[25:53]>> So, right. So, so this is a financial crime, right? Because it's trade information. It's information about transactions on behalf of the United Kingdom. And that's how is that the way
[26:04]you understand it? That's the way I understand. >> That's the way I understand it. I mean, if you're in a position where you're getting this material and you're sharing it and you could say just in and of itself that's breaching his
[26:14]responsibilities, his duties, this is confidential information or sensitive information that I think is is is a level. I just don't know. >> It's like an insider it's like an
[26:25]insider trading case. >> Who are you harming? When you give away secrets of a company so that someone can make decisions about buying and selling stock with more information than others,
[26:36]you're harming the other stockholders or in this case, you're potentially harming the United Kingdom itself because you're providing somebody with secret
[26:46]information that they can enact trades on. Now, a question I would have on either side of this case is, did Jeffrey Epstein use this information? What did
[26:56]he do with it? Did he pass it on? Did he trade on it? If he traded on it and made some financial gain, then that's to the financial detriment of somebody else
[27:06]potentially of the United Kingdom or of others who were involved in the trading. So there could be or the public. So there very well could be victims just as
[27:18]there are in insider trading and other kinds of financial fraud cases. I guess the other thing is too is whether or not he had authorization to share this allegedly sensitive government material.
[27:29]And I wonder if you'd say, "Look, there was nothing so confidential about it I couldn't share it or maybe it was public knowledge or was about to be." That might be tough. But I think that does go into whether or not this is a deliberate
[27:40]breach of official duty. >> Yeah. In a case involving disclosure of confidential information, you're always going to look at is that information truly confidential? Does it exist
[27:50]somewhere else in the public form? Was it obtainable by Jeffrey Epstein from somebody else or was it stale at the time it was released? What measures did
[28:01]the government take to protect the confidentiality of that information? That goes to both whether it was confidential and the level of Andrew's misconduct in Fetty. If he didn't know
[28:12]it was a secret, I mean, I don't know how he would know, but if he >> especially if it's labeled confidential or something like that. Yeah. >> Well, right. You always look, you know, where is the information kept? How is it
[28:23]marked? How is it stored? You always look at stuff like this. So, it's an interesting case. I I mean, I was a little hard on it on the outset because I think there are more important issues
[28:34]here arising from these Epstein files, but the case itself is interesting from the perspective of of just a business fraud case and how you would prosecute
[28:45]something like that. >> What I'm about to say, I want to be clear. I am not making this comparison on its face, but I guarantee you as this comes up today, you are going to hurt
[28:55]hear the term alapone. Alapone >> I thought of the same thing. You're absolutely going to hear >> Alapone. I mean I mean seriously it's like you couldn't get him on the other stuff. It was tax related crimes, right? So again I'm sure you're going to hear
[29:07]that today. Not making the comparison that Prince Andrew is anywhere in the realm of Al Capone, but whatever. Anyway, look, the there were two addresses that were reportedly searched by authorities. You have one in
[29:17]Birkshshire, uh, one in Norfol. He had lived in Windsor Royal Lodge in Birkshshire earlier this month. Now he has this new home in Sandringham, this estate in Norfolk. Two parts to that is,
[29:29]what do you think they're looking for in connection with this alleged crime? and B, I don't know the whole rules of UK law, but assuming it's similar to what we have here in the United States, what
[29:39]happens if they find something else during the course of their search that's not related to the current breach, the alleged breach of trust?
[29:50]>> You asked the best question, so I'll take the easier one. The first question is easier. What they're looking for is anything with a plug or anything that can plug plug into something, right? any
[30:00]computer, any tablet, any phone, any external media, any device that might have data on it or might have evidence of things that were sent to or received
[30:11]from Jeffrey Epstein or anybody else or might show where he kept this kind of data or if he was harvesting it and maintaining it in some form. So, they're looking for all of that. I mean, I doubt
[30:23]they're looking for physical printouts of confidential information. That doesn't seem very likely, but usually these days when you bust into a home in a case like this, you're going to carry
[30:34]out every computer you can find and hand it over to people who know how to search them. Your second question is much harder. What happens if they carry out a
[30:43]computer and they find, you know, 10 metric tons of pornography? I don't know the answer to that. that doesn't seem to fit the crime and the elements that you
[30:55]outlined, which is probably part of the British government's answer to why are you prosecuting this potentially, but you didn't prosecute the other stuff. That's because this particular crime, if
[31:06]it was committed, is actually a crime if it's carried out by a public official. And that's why they feel they can go after it plus the evidence. So, if other
[31:16]stuff comes out, I don't know. I mean, I I I think we know everything we need to know about Andrew uh already in that
[31:25]regard, but we'll see. >> Gets complicated because here in the United States when you have a search warrant that is very specific for what you're looking for, but you discover evidence of other criminality. It's not
[31:36]like it can just be ignored. So, I'm curious. I don't know what else you might find, but something I had to address. Okay. By the way, >> if you go in with a search warrant, if you go in with a search warrant and you find like bodies in that [laughter] house.
[31:48]>> Yeah. I mean, it's not >> prosecute that. >> Yeah. It's not like you're like, "Well, it wasn't in the search warrant. Uh, we're just going to ignore it." Um, let me ask you this. You saw the statement from the king. Okay. Basically, it's
[31:58]like Andrew, you're on your own, right? >> Yeah. And I think people are going to think about this king and the way he's handled relations now with one of his
[32:09]sons and one of his brothers. and that's going to be part of his legacy. But I actually thought this particular statement by the king was appropriate. He should stay out of it. Government
[32:21]officials should stay out of it. I've been critical in the United States about government officials piping up too much during prosecution. So I think the king saying this is going to be carried out
[32:31]like any other criminal matter and I'm not going to say anything more about it and my family is going to go about doing our royal duties. I actually think that's probably exactly right.
[32:41]>> Before I let you go, this is the big part. Is this going to spark the United States Department of Justice or any, you know, US attorney's office to do
[32:52]something? Right? Because people will say, "Look at the UK. They're going after the highest of the high. How come we're not seeing an investigation or criminal charges against anybody here in
[33:02]the United States?" Now, on one hand, I've talked about this before, based on case summaries and internal memos in the Epstein files, they have said there was no videos or photographs of other people
[33:12]abusing young girls other than Epstein and Maxwell, but could there be an investigation into something else that's not related to sex crimes? And the problem I see is I wonder if this will
[33:23]spark the DOJ basically on public pressure to do something more. I don't know if there's anything more. But also, we can't forget that it was last summer when the DOJ and the FBI released a memo
[33:33]saying, quote, "We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties." So essentially, they'd have to go back on that statement unless they
[33:44]say, "Hey, that was with respect to sex crimes. There might be something else to look at here." I don't know. Got to ask you. >> Yeah. I I think that
[33:55]the fact that this is happening in the UK, well, first of all, he's not a public official anymore. He's an ex- former uh official. So, this would be to me more like if they went ahead and
[34:07]prosecuted Bill Clinton. He's an ex-president. He's not in power. I mean, he holds some influence, but he's not in power. And so, that would be the analogy to me, not going after people who are
[34:18]currently in power. I think there's very little chance that DOJ, which is the legal department now of the people in power, would go after the people in
[34:29]power. That's just not the way it's set up. That's not what DOJ has become. I don't see any way that changes unless down the road there's a change in who's
[34:39]in charge of DOJ. The only way to change what DOJ does is to change who's in charge. And you know you people will have a chance to do that at the ballot
[34:50]box in some manner this year and then they'll have another chance in a couple of years and that's the only thing I don't think what happens in England is going to I mean it'll be the subject for
[35:01]a lot of discussion like the one we're having but it's not going to amount to a change in the way business is done here. >> Rich Shoenstein, thanks so much for coming on and jumping on so quickly to do this breaking news. Really appreciate
[35:12]it. >> My pleasure. We'll keep an eye on this one. Yeah, absolutely. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast.
[35:24]You can also follow us on NBC's Peacock. We have Sidebar episodes up there, too. If you want to follow me, X [music] Instagram, my NewsNation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 11:00 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you next time,
[35:35]everybody.