[0:01]Seven months after Trump's Justice Department said they didn't even have enough evidence to open investigations into anyone else linked to Epstein. And the British think there's enough in those files to warrant literally arresting a member of the royal family.
[0:16]The former prince is being investigated for accusations of misconduct in public office, a specific British legal offense that carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. And according to reports, the former prince has been under scrutiny for allegedly sharing confidential government
[0:32]documents about British trade with Epstein. Now the former prince, now known as Mr. Manman Windsor, has consistently denied any wrongdoing. But as far as we know, no formal investigation has been opened into former Prince Andrew over the most egregious
[0:46]and longstanding allegations against him. The allegations by Virginia Joufray, that she was trafficked to then Prince Andrew by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and forced to have sex with him while she was just 17 years old.
[1:02]That is a picture that was snapped on her camera nearly 25 years ago. Allegations, again, that Andrew has consistently denied. Here's how Virginia Joufray described her first interaction with Andrew at Ghislaine Maxwell's London townhouse in 2001. This is from her memoir, Nobody's Girl.
[1:19]When Prince Andrew arrived at the townhouse that evening, Maxwell was more cook-kettish than usual. Guess her age, Maxwell urged the prince after she introduced Virginia using her nickname. The Duke of York, who was then 41, guessed correctly, 17.
[1:34]That night, Epstein himself allegedly took this now infamous photo. Sorry, Epstein took this photo, but it was on her phone. Andrew denies the authenticity of the photo, but emails in the Epstein files show Epstein discussing the photo as authentic. After taking this photo, going to dinner and drinking at a
[1:50]nightclub, Joufray alleges that on the ride home, Maxwell gave Joufray a directive. When we get home, you were to do for him what you do for Jeffrey. And back at the house, Maxwell and Epstein said good night and headed upstairs signaling it was time that I take care of the prince.
[2:04]He seemed in a rush to have intercourse. Afterward, he said thank you in his clipped British accent. In my memory, the whole thing lasted less than half an hour. The next morning, it was clear that Maxwell had conferred with her royal chum because she told me you did well.
[2:17]The prince had fun. Even Epstein would give me $15,000 for servicing the man. Again, we at MSNOW cannot independently verify any of those allegations, and that may not be why Prince Andrew was arrested today, but he was still arrested and the British government
[2:33]is still investigating his ties to Epstein. That's what accountability at the highest level actually looks like. Meanwhile, here's how our president in this country reacted to today's news. This video here is a little choppy, but I think it's important to see.
[2:50]Do you think people in this country at some point, associates of Jeffrey Epstein, will wind up in handcuffs too? Well, you know, I'm the expert in a way because I've been totally exaggerated. That's very nice. I can actually speak about it very nicely. I think it's a shame.
[3:02]I think it's very sad. I think it's so bad for the royal family. It's a very, very sad to me. It's a very sad thing. It's a shame. I'm not sure that's what the vast majority of other people
[3:15]think about the news today. Joining me now are Skye and Amanda Roberts, the brother and sister-in-law of the late Epstein survivor and incredibly courageous advocate, Virginia Roberts-Giuffre. Skye, your statement was incredibly powerful
[3:30]this morning, and we've talked many times about your fight for justice, both of you, for your sister. But tell me, I mean, I know I woke up this morning and saw the news on my phone and I thought, "Holy cow," but I imagine the reaction was much more dramatic.
[3:47]I said something much harsher than that, or much stronger than that, but I imagine the reaction from both of you was much more emotional. How did you learn? What was your first reaction when you saw the news this morning?
[4:02]Jen, you hit it on the spot. I mean, I think if Virginia would have said anything, it'd probably be something you couldn't say here, too. We got a call from our publicist at three o'clock this morning, so you can only imagine just the adrenaline rush
[4:18]right away from it. It was just a sense of joy and pride of, "Oh my God, it's another vindication for our sister and for survivors out there." We got the call from Dean Yvonne Muffling, who is Virginia's
[4:34]longtime publicist and friend and just an amazing human being. It just felt surreal. I felt like I was in a haze for a moment. Is this real? Then I read through the article, and then we did our interviews throughout the beginning part of the day.
[4:48]We haven't slept since then. Honestly, who could? I can't. At least, we can't. I remember going to breakfast this morning, and I just started crying. Just the emotion of, "We're so proud of her."
[5:09]Even though he's getting arrested on charges that may not be affiliated directly with the sexual allegations that my sister had brought against him, it's still a form of justice. These are the things that survivors are waiting for. We have to give survivors, my sister, the day here and give
[5:27]them that win because they come so few. They really do. I can tell you, I felt a lot of emotions, Jen. Happy, sad, mad, angry, now motivated. We're going to keep going because there's so much more to do. There's so few moments where I know you and other survivors
[5:45]and families have felt justice. It's incredible, I have to say, to hear that you had that moment this morning, even though it was about something else. Let me ask you, I reread parts of Virginia's book this
[6:00]morning, and we just shared some of it as well because I felt it was important for people to hear how she articulated her accusations against Andrew and how serious they were. We don't know that there's an investigation into that, but she talks about the photo I just showed.
[6:14]It's almost 25 years ago. It was March 25 years ago when that photo was developed. She talked about it in her book. Amanda, let me ask you, I wonder, and we don't know this, but without that photo and without her advocacy, I don't know that they would have looked into
[6:32]Andrew, but what do you think? That photo was such a pivotal moment in this case. Oftentimes when survivors come forward, it's
[6:47]always he said, she said, and society is inclined to believe the he before the she. What she did with that piece of evidence, which was submitted to the FBI, which the original photo is still in their possession, it was verified that it was a real photo.
[7:07]That was such a critical turning point. I mean, we're talking about 25 years ago, it was taken and the way that it just consistently resurfaces over and over and over again, I can imagine it is the biggest thorn in Andrew's
[7:25]side and it gives me some joy to know that they still cannot get away from this photo that they've backtracked and claimed wasn't real. Time and time again, it's been proven that it is real and that Virginia was telling the truth. Yeah. That photo is just lived
[7:42]as evidence or evidence of him being with a 17 year old, standing with a 17 year old and she really outlines it in her book. As you mentioned, Sky, there is no evidence right now of an investigation into the accusations
[7:58]Virginia made, but they seem to be taking, I mean, they did arrest a member of the Royal family this morning who she's made accusations against. Have you heard from the British authorities? Are you hopeful that there could be an investigation into the accusations Virginia made?
[8:17]I really hope so. I think our sister has proven to be a truth teller time and time again. To answer your question, Jen, no, we haven't heard from any British authorities at all. Although we're very open to it, I just want to make that clear
[8:31]that we would again commend the King and commend the UK for actually taking a stand against this when our own government won't. But, yeah, I mean, I believe my sister, Amanda, we say it all the time, the files are exposing
[8:45]this at this point. I mean, there's no gray line here anymore. You can read through them yourself. It's pretty damning when you go through it. I mean, even just the email that Virginia had talked to, even that you talked to briefly here moments ago, is
[9:01]that it proved that not only is the photo real, I mean, Ghislaine sent her own email basically routing out one of her best friends of, yeah, the photo's real, it was taken at my flat, and yeah, it absolutely introduced her to the Prince.
[9:15]So when are we going to start believing survivors is really my question. When are we going to start making the burden of proof on survivors a little bit less than what they are now? Because my sister paved the way, and now we're trailblazing through it. She did it for us first.
[9:31]Now we get to carry on the legacy behind her. You know, Andrew, as you well know, and for viewers, was not the only person that Virginia bravely accused, and she testified against others as well and named other names in testimony.
[9:46]That's openly available in depositions. One of them was Les Wexner, and he had a deposition yesterday that he, the video is now out of that deposition. And I don't know if you've seen this, and it's upsetting,
[10:01]but I want to play it for you because I think it's important for people to hear what he had to say about it given what Virginia has said and what you know she experienced and lived through. But let's play that part of the deposition.
[10:18]Are you aware of who Virginia Jufre is? No. Familiar name, but I've heard it, but I can't don't connect it to anything. Did you ever have any sexual contact of any
[10:32]kind with Miss Jufre? No. Absolutely. I have contacts that I don't even know. Miss Jufre has accused you of performing sexual acts
[10:47]with her multiple times. You dispute these allegations? She must be confused. It never happened. Again, it's really, it's upsetting to watch.
[11:05]It is because as I just noted, I mean, Virginia accused Les Wexner of forcing her to have sex multiple times with him, of being trafficked to him. Again, he denies those allegations, just said he doesn't know her. But what do you want people to know?
[11:20]I mean, what is your reaction when you watch that video? Yeah, I think the response is very familiar, right? We've seen this response before. We've seen this response from Andrew. He has no recollection. And it's the typical response, right?
[11:40]I think the first attempt at questioning is deny. And so that's the level that he's at right now. It's actually not shocking, to be honest, they've spent a lifetime denying any implications with Epstein, even though there's mountains of proof that
[11:59]potentially Les Wexner may have bankrolled Jeffrey Epstein. So that alone is just, it further proves why, yes, we have these depositions, we have these hearings, but it's the first step. Let's indict, let's actually go after the money trail.
[12:15]Let's really open a serious investigation. And so, you know, it's not shocking to get that response from him. It's irritating, it's angering. You know, this is the same nonsense that survivors
[12:29]have been dealing with for 30 years, right? But it's the typical behavior, it's the deny. And so we're ready to move on for that and keep pushing forward. You have more grace than most. I found watching it to be completely enraging.
[12:47]British authorities arresting Andrew Malbot and Windsor, long known as Prince Andrew. Authorities are probing him for suspicion of misconduct in public office. And he's faced these public accusations as well of sexual misconduct by Epstein. Survivors, you can see the headlines around the world.
[13:02]We know authorities are searching Andrew's residences. He was released after arrest and the legal investigation continues. We can tell you tonight that by far, this is the most senior person to face any legal accountability over Epstein
[13:17]anywhere in the world. It's the first senior British royal arrested in four centuries. Never happened. This accountability for a royal was once practically unthinkable in the UK.
[13:33]And this new image of Andrew in his car, fresh after the arrest with a facial expression that people can interpret for themselves is ricocheting around the world. Our colleague, Nicole Wallace, who of course just passed off to me, made the point in her reporting today.
[13:51]This is indeed a one in 400 year event. Start with breaking news about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. The BBC understands that he has been arrested on suspicion of The fallout from the revelations in the Epstein files has now
[14:07]led to a one in 400 year event. The biggest story in the world right now, that is the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. The former Prince Andrew technically is a member of the royal family. Those links with the convicted pedophile, the late
[14:22]pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. There's a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for Andrew. Searches are currently ongoing at Royal Logic. The first senior royal in modern history to be arrested.
[14:39]Just a seismic development. And you can see different analysts and journalists reaching for ways to put it in context. It's not only the biggest Epstein arrest, it's for the UK, the biggest royal arrest ever.
[14:55]He was only recently stripped of his titles over links to Epstein. This scandal had dogged him for years. And he stayed close with Epstein even as it clearly dragged him down in many public forums. Andrew also gave an infamous interview in 2019 where he
[15:13]struggled to address the serious allegations against him. We can note that he has not been indicted on any sex crime here. He's always denied wrongdoing in connection with Epstein. And as with any legal case we're following, even when charged, the process must play out. In the United States, people are presumed innocent.
[15:29]In the UK, where we've drawn some of our legal traditions, he would await, of course, the rest of the legal process. When you look at this development, what changed all of a sudden in the UK as we see a royal
[15:45]arrested and leaving that process? What changed is what occurred here in the US because Congress forced the release of the Epstein files over Donald Trump's many objections last year. And that's what drove the swift impact and more scrutiny
[16:03]and new evidence and emails on Andrew's long history with Epstein, just as others have found themselves under scrutiny in Europe for their Epstein ties and in countries around the world because he ran a global influence effort. So tonight, now, we can see that aided by the new files, British
[16:22]authorities are investigating Andrew's alleged misconduct in public office, which includes how he dealt with Epstein and how he used his own role. In the UK, a little bit different than here, he's basically released under investigation. To put it in plain English, in the US, we think of arrest
[16:38]as something that happens alongside your indictment and you go forward. There, the probe continues while he has been arrested, which shows his obvious interest to investigators as a subject. Now, even before today's news, we're talking about
[16:56]the gap between what happens with accountability, whether that's legal or in other institutions, and what is alleged or known because other Epstein advisors had previously specifically accused Andrew of abuse, one detailing how Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein allegedly essentially trafficked
[17:13]her to Andrew when she was 17. So one, this new arrest matters for accountability. That's what a legal process is supposed to do. But I want to give it extra context tonight on this story we've all been following for so long, including in
[17:29]Donald Trump's America. Because two, this type of development reignites serious questions about whether the United States DOJ was wrong to close down the Epstein case by only charging Epstein and Maxwell.
[17:44]You've heard me mention this if you watch this program because we documented how the new files reveal things we would have never otherwise known, like how the DOJ previously eyed other-- oh, not this.
[17:58]Let's pull this down. I want to make sure we get this right. If we have the DOJ Epstein inner circle faces, we'll show you that. If not, I'll just describe it. In fairness, we don't want to show the wrong faces. So let me just say this with words.
[18:14]The DOJ has eyed other suspects with Epstein. There were several people identified as potential suspects and others redacted from the new release. We know the DOJ ultimately did not charge most of them. That includes John Luke Brunel, who is named in a new bombshell
[18:32]Wall Street Journal report that looked at how he was an alleged conspirator, how the DOJ sought to flip him against Epstein to take his testimony, but that plan fell apart when he went dark. That's new reporting also based on the files. This relates to the UK for a very clear reason.
[18:50]The United States DOJ treated the Epstein case as essentially, in the end, a narrow enforcement against his sex crimes. That is to say, what he did, and they wanted to prosecute him for what he did, his own physical activities.
[19:09]I say it that way because, as you might remember, the DOJ did not pursue or indict a wider sex trafficking ring that would involve potentially other criminals or other men. And that was the case under Trump's attorney general in 2019. It remained the status quo approach under
[19:24]Attorney General Garland. And yet here we are tonight looking at other countries investigating other men allegedly tied to Epstein. If more investigations and evidence show that the DOJ's approach was incorrect, by which I mean factually and legally,
[19:40]if more dominoes fall on this Epstein scandal, that would vindicate many survivors we've heard from and other legal critics who allege that the US government fell short, failing to hold these other powerful men accountable. That is the context for the mounting outrage over the Trump
[19:58]administration's current stance. The UK was able to come forward, take action. And that is a big thing. Why the DOJ, why the FBI has not yet to take action. The UK drawing quite a contrast with the US this morning.
[20:16]In those words, no one is above the law. It only underscores the lack of any law enforcement activity here in this country. It's happening in Europe, but it's not happening enough in the United States. That's what we're seeing today, which is a
[20:29]very glaring contrast. The voices you heard there are journalists, lawmakers, one survivor who spoke out today. And top lawmakers who led the Epstein Files bill are saying the same thing. Back lawmaker Ro Khanna notes that he and Rep Massey
[20:46]forced the release of an email showing former Prince Andrew allegedly sharing state info with Epstein. He notes that he's being held accountable because of survivors, including Virginia Guthrie, who bravely spoke up. He goes on to note how others have resigned from DP World or
[21:03]the Norwegian prime minister is charged. "There's accountability around the world," Khanna says today. Why isn't more being done here? We should start with Trump official Howard Lutnick resigning. And it's true. Even amidst accountability in the UK, once
[21:19]thought unthinkable, someone as powerful as a royal, someone who once would have been in the line of succession, as that happens over here, Donald Trump is literally standing with an official who lied about visiting Epstein Island. Now, these individuals we showed you on the screen and
[21:36]others have not been accused of criminal wrongdoing in connection with this case. But there is mounting accountability for so many in the US and around the world. This is the chart I was going to show you, which is relevant here. You see Lutnick has had testimony sought.
[21:50]You see others have been ousted or subpoenaed. You have Andrew now not only sanctioned earlier in the UK, but new today arrested. These are people who are tied to Epstein in emails, in communication, in conduct.
[22:05]And this is the mounting and relatively quick accountability since the files dropped. It's a gap between Trump protecting his Epstein associate and how accountability is working everywhere else. And Donald Trump spent much of the last year fighting against
[22:20]the release of these very files, a battle that he ultimately lost badly, humiliatingly, say some, in public, which is how we got to here. We don't know. He may yet lose this next round as he stands by the lying Epstein associate and his candidate
[22:37]and drags out an Epstein scandal in his cabinet. Because apparently Donald Trump fears that for him, more Epstein transparency would be even worse than this. Another year where the Trump White House, the Trump administration, the Trump DOJ, and
[22:52]Trump's handpicked cabinet members are under the Epstein scandal of their own making while his approval sinks to record lows. In 2024, a lot of the narrative that we were all worried about was election subversion, the idea that we'd have an
[23:10]election and then if Donald Trump lost, his supporters would prevent there from being either an accurate count or a certification, essentially, of the results. And ground zero for that was Georgia. And remember, Donald Trump at a political rally actually
[23:25]called out by name members of the Georgia state election board. And it's not like Donald Trump is really good with names. It's that he understood the political importance of this group of people to be able to try to take over the voting process in Georgia.
[23:43]And so as we head towards 2026, that concern hasn't gone away. The only thing that happened in 2024 was that Donald Trump won. But the underlying problem, the underlying election denialism is still present. If anything, it's much worse now because Donald Trump is in office. He's lying from the Oval Office.
[23:59]He's got his Department of Justice raiding Fulton County. And so we all need to sit back and be ready for what is going to be a bumpy ride this November. Friends, we're all always looking for our glimmers of hope. And I think too often we ask Mark Elias to be the
[24:12]provider of such hope. But today I am finding my hope in the voters of Georgia, one of whom confronted the election board today and had this to say.
[24:28]The SCB already investigated these same Fulton County claims in 2024 and found no fraud, no malfeasance, nothing. But now there are new members. So we're doing it again and again. That is not oversight. That is a vendetta. And this board is still leaving the door open to take over
[24:43]Fulton County elections. They are banking on people not being that smart and not paying that close of attention. I think is absolutely critical that you have voters who know exactly what's happening. Yeah, they're also counting on voters not being that brave.
[24:59]They counted on people not being brave in Minneapolis and they were wrong. They're counting on people not being willing to stand up like that woman did and just speak the truth. Like, yes, she remembers. Yes, she is able to offer the context, but she's also willing
[25:13]to stand up and look them in straight in the eye and say the truth. Mark, as I noted coming in, over my years of service in politics, you learn a lot and you learn a lot about ground
[25:30]game and how to execute ground game and how important that is. And a big part of the ground game is, guess what? Turning out your voters. And how does a party do that? Party does that in a number of ways. They send out flyers and all those types of things, but they
[25:45]also want to get the ballot in the hands of their seniors who are unable to get to a voting location, to the handicapped. Oh, they're veterans who are serving overseas, to expats who are working abroad, but still want to execute on the
[26:04]promise of the franchise by voting in presidential elections, et cetera. The fact that we still have these numb nut Republicans running around, lying to the American people, lying to their constituents about how mail-in
[26:21]ballots are bad, mail-in ballots are fraudulent. It astounds me. How did your behind get elected? Representative Republican, state Senator Republican, US Senator Republican. It's because your party organization from the county
[26:37]level to the state level to the national level ran mail-in ballot programs. So can you help people? Because those folks, they're lost and gone. If you want to believe that's stupid, don't mail your ballot in. Don't just go wait in the long line, do whatever
[26:52]you think you need to do. But for everybody else, take advantage of early voting. Take advantage of the mail-in ballot opportunity. Explain and clarify just a little bit more.
[27:06]I know you've done it before, but I think at this stage it's important as we see, as Simone has noted, this storyline unfold that people understand, don't believe the BS about mail-in ballots. Overwhelm the process with your vote.
[27:22]Trust the system because everybody in the system knows it works. Yeah, there's nothing wrong with mail-in voting. The fact is, as you point out, people like to vote by mail. In fact, when you were the RNC chair, you kicked my butt in my candidate's butt because you understood the value of
[27:43]driving up turnout by making people who want to vote by mail giving them that opportunity. And there's absolutely nothing suspicious about mail-in voting. There's nothing inherently problematic about mail-in voting. There are people who like to vote in person, but if you prefer to vote by mail, it's very
[27:57]convenient. And what's really shameful about what Donald Trump is doing, what's really shameful about what the Republicans are doing here, is that mail-in voting also has the benefits of saving states money, allowing states to not have to close as many public buildings because you
[28:14]don't need as many in-person polling locations. It solved a lot of problems, which is why it became very popular, not just in blue states, but in red states. And now you have Donald Trump tearing this down. And yes, it has bad consequences for the 2026 election, it has
[28:28]bad consequences for individual groups of voters. But what he's really doing is he's undermining confidence in our democracy itself, in our voting systems itself. And that will be the enduring legacy, not just of him, but all the election deniers who enable him.
[28:46]I am actually a little perplexed about something the president said today. He said that the Republicans won't lose for 50 years. Take a listen.
[29:03]I'll tell you what, Republicans have to win this one. We'll never lose a race. For 50 years we won't lose a race. We want voter ID. We want proof of citizenship. And we don't want mail-in ballots except for the military
[29:20]far away, except for people that are ill, disabled, or people that are away. Even for a vacation, we'll be generous, okay? Mark, Elijah, 50 years seems oddly specific. The White House, the federal government doesn't get
[29:35]to decide who can vote. They don't get to decide who can vote, but they are actively trying to pull us to a place where that is in fact the case. They are, and they want to not only take over how we vote, but who counts the votes. I mean, remember, the seizing of ballots in Fulton County
[29:50]is not about how we vote. It is because they want to contest how ballots are counted. So if you're Donald Trump, you start by trying to rig the lines for House races. When that fails, you try to exclude who can vote. And when that fails, you just take over the
[30:03]vote counting entirely. But Donald Trump thinks that Republicans will win for 50 years. Well, I suppose if you put in place a proof of citizenship law that disenfranchises tens of millions of women, that will
[30:17]help Republicans win elections. If you put in place a rule of proof of citizenship that basically says that Donald Trump gets to decide whether you're a citizen or not, because after all, he's deciding that birthright
[30:32]citizenship that being born in this country even isn't enough, he's deciding who is and is not out. Well, of course, Republicans will win elections. And finally, if anyone thinks that they can prove citizenship, here's the deal. In Donald Trump's world, in the Republican world, having a
[30:47]driver's license doesn't prove citizenship, number one. Number two, I guess if you have a passport, they'd say that's proof of citizenship. But number three, a birth certificate. Well, how did Donald Trump come to everyone's attention as a candidate? He came to everyone's attention as a candidate because he said
[31:00]Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States. And when Barack Obama produced a proof of citizenship in a birth certificate, what did Donald Trump say? He said that was a lie. So any of you out there who think you're a Democrat are just going to show up with your birth certificate, you don't understand Donald Trump's history.
[31:13]Donald Trump thinks he's going to win for 50 years because he's not going to let Democrats prove that they're citizens. He's not going to let them prove that they have ID. He doesn't want them to vote. And if that fails, he wants to have Republicans in charge of the vote counting. That's not me saying it. That's what Donald Trump said.
[31:29]It's very, very sad to me. When I see that, it's a very sad thing to see it and to see what's going on with his brother, who's obviously coming to our country very soon. And he's a fantastic man. The king. I think he's a fantastic man. And I think he's a fantastic man. He's a fantastic man. So I think it's a very sad thing.
[31:51]It's really interesting because nobody used to speak about Epstein when he was alive, but now they speak. But I'm the one that can talk about it because I've been totally exonerated. I did nothing. Not for nothing. Nobody asked him, but okay.
[32:07]Terry, he did do something, though. He called, as Chrissy just reminded us, the Palm Beach sheriff, described Ghislaine Maxwell as totally evil. He also, in his own telling, was mad that Jeffrey Epstein
[32:25]took someone from him and that someone stole someone from him was Virginia. Yeah. Yeah. It's interesting, right? And now the Epstein files are all about exonerating him, not what they're revealing to the public about a story that has been obviously not a story, but a
[32:44]case that has been pushed aside for so long. It's a sad day. I mean, a lot of people feel vindicated. I think most people feel that way. I think a lot of people feel like finally power is no longer protecting itself anymore, that even elites have to
[32:59]face the music sometimes. But perhaps in the president's world, that's not the case. People are kings and they don't have to deal with this. So I don't think the rest of America, especially
[33:14]not the people that voted for him, the populist base would think it was so sad that someone who committed a crime didn't have to pay for it. Yeah. I mean, to that point, 86% of all Americans strongly or somewhat disagree with the statement that the Epstein files show
[33:32]that powerful people agree with the fact that the Epstein files show that powerful people are rarely held accountable. Only 11% of people disagree with them, which is probably the membership at Mar-a-Lago. I mean, this is like a 90/10 issue. There is no disagreement in the country that for, yes, for
[33:49]kings and presidents, and then I guess commerce secretaries, there's no consequence to being associated with a dead convicted child sex trafficker. But even the Latinx statement, the Latinx statement is so important because it projects such knowledge of
[34:04]child predation. He says, "I went in with three nannies and three kids and I came out with those three nannies and three kids." Like, nobody asked him. Nobody asked for a head count. Nobody asked if he took role in and out. But only someone who knows that young children and women
[34:23]were potential prey for Jeffrey Epstein says before Congress, "I went to the island for lunch. Oops, sorry, forgot to tell you, but I went in with three nannies and I came out with those three nannies." Wow. Right? It's a little oversharing, right? And the same way that he, some would say overshared
[34:40]when he volunteered to the New York Post in that podcast, that he only went to his neighbor, Jeffrey Epstein's house once and he was creeped out and he was there with his wife and he quickly left. But it was just kind of like a voyeuristic interest in seeing what goes on in there.
[34:55]He saw a massage table. He just volunteered that. It turns out he was lying all along. He said he cut off contact after that. No, you wanted to go to his island. Or Elon Musk, who was like, "Trump's going to get blown up in the Epstein files." And here he is being like, "Party, party, party.
[35:10]Can I come to your island? Girls, girls, girls." It's like, "Okay, bro, we know what you're all about." It's revealing how many people are in leadership positions or are close to those, advising those in leadership positions.
[35:26]And they're not high minded people. They're not thinking about their roles in society or trying to better society. In fact, when you read these Epstein files, they're mostly about sex and how to avoid penalties and how to
[35:40]control the system. They're not about doing any good for the world. Yeah. I mean, Michael, let me ask you that. Prime Minister Stammer's prime ministership was at least a
[35:56]week ago in a tenuous state. Does he have any interest to be a good actor here and aggressively investigate these allegations? I mean, he does, I think. And there's no direct connection that he has to the files.
[36:12]But the problem is that his judgment has been called into question. The reason that his premiership was at risk was because, rightly, people pointed out that he had appointed Peter Mandelson to be ambassador to the US at a time when there was lots of
[36:29]publicly known about the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. And the question that the prime minister's critics have asked repeatedly is, how could you do that? And the answer, I think, really, if Stammer were being honest
[36:44]and all these other people were being honest, is that it's about the elite protecting each other. That's what people have been so frustrated about with the royals protecting each other. And I think the reason it appeals to Trump's populist base
[37:01]is that there's at least this sense that has helped to power Trump to office the first time and, again, the second time, that somehow there is this kind of elite group of rich, connected lawyers, business executives,
[37:17]politicians who all look out for each other. And what the Epstein files, the release of the documents do is it finally blows that apart. It provides ammunition to show, to describe exactly how
[37:34]that protection scheme worked. And to your question about Stammer, I think he's got an interest in pushing some of these prosecutions, but it's sort of self-interested now because
[37:48]it's a way of defending himself and the judgments that he made early on. Right. After the fact. Here's something else. After the fact, yeah. Yeah. This news is broken since we've been on the air, Kristi. I'll just read it to you. Special agents and prosecutors at the New Mexico Department
[38:04]of Justice will be seeking immediate access to the complete unredacted federal case file and intend to work collaboratively with our law enforcement partners, as well as the Epstein Truth Commission recently established by the New Mexico legislature.
[38:18]That is the New Mexico Department of Justice Chief of Staff and spokesperson Lauren Rodriguez writing in an email statement. So another sort of tectonic shift following the passage of the Epstein Transparency Act, new investigations, new scrutiny
[38:40]on the crimes that allegedly happened at Jeffrey Epstein's New Mexico residence. It's long overdue. It really didn't make sense to me why when they went to execute search warrants in the U.S. Virgin Islands and in Manhattan, why they also
[38:53]didn't look at New Mexico. We can see in the files there are plenty of victims who talked about New Mexico, who said they were abused in New Mexico. It would seem like that would provide the probable cause you would need to get a search warrant for that property.
[39:06]It gets back to terrorist point that they didn't believe the women. I mean, possibly. I don't know. It's certainly an oversight and it's certainly something that I'm glad they're doing now. But this is years later.
[39:20]So how many documents, how many devices, how many things have been destroyed? I mean, you have a crime scene and that's exactly what his ranch in New Mexico is. You preserve the crime scene so that they can't destroy evidence. So I don't know how much they will be able to learn, but
[39:34]it's good that they're trying. I mean, I guess the last point here, Tara, is that Donald Trump tried to say there was nothing to see here. They made big binders. They filled them with a whole lot of nothing.
[39:48]They put out a memo in the middle of the night at the beginning of the summer and said, we've looked and there's nothing. Cash Patel, after going on Joe Rogan and saying there are a gazillion gigabytes of evidence, went before Congress and said there were no co-conspirators. Nobody else committed crimes.
[40:03]Nobody else was a sex trafficker. The files come out because of a bipartisan act of Congress based on a public revolt. I mean, I sit here every day. I don't read the number 86 percent of Americans agreeing that up is that way and down is that
[40:17]way. They agree on nothing. And they believe that the elite and the politicians, that there's some scheme to prevent accountability from happening. Yeah. I mean, this is like a
[40:32]universal issue right now. It's creating a real uprising against the elites. And I don't think this is a bipartisan one, like you said. I think there needs to be some accountability in this case. There is a feeling that there is injustice.
[40:49]And the more we see our allies abroad actually pursuing justice in this case, I think the more Americans are going to get angry and wondering what's happening here.