Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / George Mitchell and the Epstein Reckoning That Never Came (9/22/26)

Transcript

George Mitchell and the Epstein Reckoning That Never Came (9/22/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. You
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: can learn a hell of a lot about someone's principles
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: by watching where their outrage stops. Oh, they'll demand every document,
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: every name, every uncomfortable answer. Right up until the conversation
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: threatens reputation, they're personally invested in protecting. Then the same
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: people who were pounding the table start explaining why everyone
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: needs to calm down. Apparently, their commitment to accountability comes
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: with a guest list. I have nothing but contempt for
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: that kind of bullshit. Especially when the people being asked
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: to tolerate it have already spent years fighting to be heard.
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: They don't owe anyone a convenient story, and they certainly
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: don't owe Washington the preservation of its favorite heroes. And today,
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: we're going to have a conversation that should have been
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: a lot louder a long time ago. Because apparently a
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: sufficiently distinguished career buys a man something more valuable than awards.
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: an audience willing to look away when the questions become revolting.
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: And George Mitchell should have faced the same relentless scrutiny
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: over Virginia's allegations, and I'm disgusted by how easily his
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: name slips out of conversation supposedly devoted to Epstein accountability.
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: Virginia identified him among the men she was directed to
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: have sex with while under Epstein and Maxwell's control. Now Mitchell,
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: he denied the allegation and says he never met her.
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: His denial certainly belongs in the record. where it can
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: be examined alongside her account. It does not belong on
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: a pedestal elevated above questioning by sheer magnificence of his resume.
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: We're discussing an accusation of sexual exploitation involving a woman
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: caught in Epstein's abuse. Not some embarrassing disagreement at a
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: Washington dinner party, yet the instinct to protect the distinguished
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: gentleman keeps intruding on a conversation that should be centered
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: on what Virginia alleged. How fucking obscene that his reputation
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: can command such careful handling while her accusation struggles to
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: command sustained attention. His years in public service do not
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: purchase the right to have Virginia's name whispered around his. Look,
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: I spoke with Virginia directly about George Mitchell years ago,
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: which makes the recurring treatment of this subject particularly infuriating.
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: I'm not approaching her accusation as some amusing discovery in
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: a document dump or another name to throw into the
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: partisan argument There was a person behind it, and I
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: spoke to her. So when I bring up Mitchell, I'm
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: also remembering that the woman whose allegation people can so
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: casually scroll past was someone who was my friend that
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: I actually had a conversation with about this very subject.
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: Her name isn't merely a citation to me, and that
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: conversation is not erased because the public discussion keeps finding
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: other places to direct its attention. I can't reconcile the
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: seriousness of what she alleged with the ease with which
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: his name can become an afterthought. That shouldn't be necessary
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: for people to understand that her account deserves more than
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: a passing mention before everyone returns to safer territory. But
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: the distance between discussing survivors in the abstract and confronting
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: the men they actually name is where much of the
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: supposed conviction collapses. People love the courage of a survivor
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: until they dislike the implications of what she says. Then
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: the enthusiasm drains out of the conversation, the language becomes bloodless,
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: and suddenly everyone discovers an urgent need to discuss something else.
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: The people treating this as an uncomfortable problem for Mitchell's
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: legacy should consider what they're asking the rest of us
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: to dismiss. A woman's account of her own exploitation and
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: her identification of someone she said was involved. Now look,
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: my conversation with Virginia certainly doesn't make me a witness
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: to the alleged conduct but it makes the casual indifference
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: surrounding her accusation almost impossible for me to stomach. Virginia's
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: account does not become less worthy of investigation because George
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: Mitchell is harder for certain people to fit into their
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: preferred cast of villains. The discomfort of his admirers is
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: their problem to confront, not ours to accommodate. And Mitchell's
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: stature makes the discomfort worth examining because this was a
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: man welcomed into the highest levels of American power. A
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: former Senate Majority Leader is hardly some peripheral figure whose
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: name can reasonably be overlooked as an obscure footnote. This
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: man helped lead the Democratic Party in the Senate and
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: built an international reputation as a statesman. His name carried authority,
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: and the institutions were eager to borrow it. The titles,
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: the tributes, and the reverential introductions all invited the public
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: to regard him as a man of exceptional judgment. Fine.
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: Then subject that judgment... and the conduct alleged against him
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: to an examination worthy of all the advertised importance. Don't
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: spend decades telling us how consequential someone is, and then
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: act mystified when we insist that an accusation against him
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: is consequential too. The disgusting bargain would be to make
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: his prominence a reason for celebration and a reason for
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: restraint whenever the subject turns ugly. His admirers can't have
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: it both without revealing how little their standards are worth.
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: A reputation that requires people to avert their eyes deserves scrutiny.
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: However much its custodians resent that intrusion. And his involvement
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: in the compensation effort for survivors of clergy sexual abuse
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: makes the juxtaposition especially sickening. Considering that the association asked
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: the public to accept about the person lending his stature
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: to the undertaking. Survivors are being invited to trust a
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: process connected to people presented as responsible, credible, and attentive
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: to the damage abuse causes. Against that backdrop sits Roberts'
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: allegations against Mitchell. That collision demands direct questions about institutional judgment, vetting,
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: and the response to her account. It's not something to
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: tiptoe past because the subject makes an otherwise respectable gathering uncomfortable.
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: What did the responsible people know? When did they know it?
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: And what did they do with that knowledge? Every organization
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: involved should be able to answer for its own decision
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: without retreating behind Mitchell's public accomplishments. If an institution invokes
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: survivors to establish its moral seriousness, it had better be
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: prepared to confront a survivor's accusation against someone associated with
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: its work. Otherwise, all the solemn language about healing begins
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: to sound like a sales pitch delivered over the heads
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: of the people it claims to serve. Now, of course,
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: the press deserves its own share of contempt, whenever it
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: mistakes having mentioned an allegation, for having adequately pursued it. Yes,
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: Mitchell's name and Roberts' accusation have appeared in major news coverage.
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: Nobody needs to invent a total blackout to recognize that
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: publication and persistence are different obligations. An accusation can be
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: technically acknowledged and still be treated as something editors would
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: rather step around than investigate. A paragraph buried inside a
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: sprawling Epstein roundup does not automatically amount to meaningful scrutiny
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: of the man named in it. Neither does attaching a
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: denial and moving briskly along to the figure more likely
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: to produce a profitable partisan shouting match. Newsrooms should be
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: able to explain the reporting they've done, the questions they
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: have pursued, and the gaps they have tried to close.
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: They should be embarrassed if they know more about the
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: anxieties surrounding Mitchell's legacy than about the available evidence bearing
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: on Roberts' allegation. The public does not need another tender
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: mediation on how painful this must be for people who
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: admired him. Save that solicitude for the survivors whose accounts
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: keep getting crowded out by discussions of powerful men's reputations.
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: Now look, there have been some consequences for Mitchell, and
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: acknowledging them makes the demand for more substantial scrutiny harder
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: to dismiss. Queen's University Belfast has cut ties with him
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: and announced the removal of his name from its Peace Institute.
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: and his bust from campus. The U.S.-Ireland alliance has also
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: announced that its Mitchell scholarship program will be renamed. Those
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: decisions belong in the account, but nobody should confuse them
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: with a full examination of Virginia's allegation. A university can
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: remove a bust without producing a single answer about the
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: underlying accusation. A scholarship can acquire a new name while
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: the public remains ignorant of how relevant evidence has been assessed.
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: The temptation for institutions is obvious. Announce the separation, express
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: the appropriate concern, and hope the next news cycle carries
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: the unpleasantness away. They should not be allowed to sell
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: that administrative tidiness as the completion of a reckoning. We
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: deserve to know what prompted their decision and how they
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: understood the information available to them before making those decisions.
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: Taking his name off a wall cannot become another way
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: of taking the unanswered questions out of the conversation. Now,
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: that brings us to the partisan champions of accountability who
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: can summon bottomless fury for the other team and barely
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: a sentence for Mitchell. What a nauseating display of conditional principle.
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: Democrats who demand scrutiny of Republican figures in the Epstein
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: story should be leading the demand for an equally serious
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: examination of a former Democratic Senate leader. The obligation doesn't
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: become optional because the name carries sentimental value inside their
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: own political tradition, If Virginia's account interests you only when
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: it can damage someone you already hate, your concern for
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: her is a fraud. You're using her suffering as a
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: political weapon and dropping it the moment it becomes awkward
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: to hold. So you can spare everyone the sanctimony about
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: standing with survivors while you quietly screen the accused for
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: party affiliation. Mitchell's Democratic Credentials should make Democrats more determined
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: to demonstrate consistency, because this is where that consistency actually
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: costs them something. Anyone can denounce a political enemy with
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: a crowd cheering behind them. The people who lose their
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: voices when the questions reach their own side deserve every
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: ounce of contempt their hypocrisy earns. That hypocrisy also feeds
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: a particularly rotten habit of treating public achievement and accumulated
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: credit against accusations of private misconduct. Mitchell's role in Northern
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: Ireland is frequently central to discussions of his legacy, and
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: his contributions can be assessed on their merits. They cannot
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: answer what Virginia alleged. No diplomatic accomplishment can establish whether
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: a particular encounter occurred, and no testimonial from an admiring
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: colleague can substitute for relevant evidence. The insistence on bringing
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: every uncomfortable discussion back to his stature becomes insulting when
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: it asks the public to treat reverence as an investigative finding.
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: Imagine telling an ordinary accuser that the man she named
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: has done so much good that further questions would be unfortunate.
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: People would recognize the ugliness immediately if they were not
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: already emotionally invested in protecting the subject. Prestige makes that
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: ugliness easier to dress up, and respectable language, but it
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: doesn't make it less ugly. I refuse to accept a
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: moral accounting system in which the powerful collect enough applause
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: to make someone else's allegation an inconvenience. Virginia didn't owe
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: George Mitchell a less troubling account so that his admirers
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: could keep enjoying theirs. A serious reckoning would require the tedious,
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: difficult work that all this public posturing so often manages
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: to avoid. Examine the chronology of Mitchell's relationship with Epstein
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: and establish what the available records actually show. Put relevant correspondence, appointments,
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: travel information, and witness accounts beside the allegation and the denial.
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: Identify what corroborates a claim, what contradicts it, and what
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: remains unresolved. Demand answers from the institutions that attach their
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: credibility to his and from the authorities responsible for assessing
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: allegations of this gravity. Where information cannot be disclosed press
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: for a meaningful explanation rather than accepting a wall of
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: bureaucratic language as the end of the inquiry. That work
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: should proceed with enough independence to withstand pressure from both
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: Mitchell's defenders and anyone hoping to exploit the accusation. It
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: should also proceed with enough determination that an influential name
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: does not exhaust everyone's curiosity before the difficult questions are
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: even answered. There is nothing unreasonable about demanding that the
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: public understand how such a serious allegation has been handled.
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: The disgrace would be allowing status, fatigue, and political convenience
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: to do the work that evidence is supposed to do.
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: And yo, I am sick of watching the comfort of
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: important people set the boundaries of a conversation about exploitation.
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: George Mitchell's reputation is not more precious than Virginia's right
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: to have her accusation treated seriously. Now his defenders are
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: free to challenge your account with evidence and journalists should
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: examine that evidence without fear or favor. What they should
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: never receive is deference masquerading as resolution. Democratic politicians who
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: shout about Epstein accountability need to say Mitchell's name with
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: the same clarity they bring to names across the aisle.
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: Editors who congratulate themselves on confronting power need to demonstrate
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: that resolve when the subject comes wrapped in honors and
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: institutional affection. Organizations that invoke survivors need to explain their
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: decision without hiding behind another polished statement about values. Virginia
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: named a man who's standing guaranteed that people would care
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: about the damage to him, and in my opinion, the
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: least the public owes her is sustained attention to what
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: she said happened to her. Every person who demands less
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: should have to explain why his legacy deserves protection that
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: her allegation does not deserve examination. If your principles cannot
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: survive the words George Mitchell, take your speeches about justice
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: and transparency and shove them. All the information that goes
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.