Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / “Get On With It”: How Keir Starmer’s Team Moved Mandelson Forward Despite Red Flags (4/28/26)

Transcript

“Get On With It”: How Keir Starmer’s Team Moved Mandelson Forward Despite Red Flags (4/28/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to hop across
• 0:07
  the pond and check in on the situation that is
• 0:11
  threatening to bring down Kira Starmer, especially now that the
• 0:15
  Foreign Office chief says that he was told to get
• 0:19
  on with appointing Mandelson despite his own worries that he
• 0:23
  had ties to Epstein, and that directive came from Kiras
• 0:26
  Starmer's office according to the reporting. And if that's the case,
• 0:31
  then Kiris Starmer's whole narrative is absolutely cooked. So when
• 0:38
  is Kis Starmer going to do the right thing and
• 0:40
  step down? Because it's obvious that you've been lying about
• 0:44
  this from the very beginning. Today's article was published by
• 0:49
  LBC and the headline the former Foreign Office chief was
• 0:53
  told to get on with appointing Mandelson despite his worries
• 0:57
  over links with Epstein. This article was authored by Asher McShane.
• 1:04
  Sir Philip Barton told m Peace today, I was presented
• 1:07
  with the decision and told to get on with it.
• 1:10
  There was no space for dialogue. I had a concern
• 1:13
  that a man who demonstrably from the public record at
• 1:16
  the time, and it was clearly much bigger than we
• 1:19
  all knew had a link to Epstein, and that Epstein,
• 1:22
  through both the presidential election campaign in the US and
• 1:26
  more generally in US politics, had been and was a
• 1:29
  controversial figure. And I was worried that this could become
• 1:33
  a problem in the future, and he was told to
• 1:35
  get on with it. So that tells me, and it
• 1:39
  should tell you, that Kiras Starmer didn't really care. They
• 1:43
  thought this was done. Keep that in mind. They thought
• 1:46
  this story was done and over and they were never
• 1:49
  gonna have to deal with it again. They thought it
• 1:52
  was effectively buried. But the discharge petition changed everything because
• 2:02
  that forced the hand of the DOJ. They couldn't slow
• 2:05
  walk it. They couldn't, you know, pick and choose. Well,
• 2:08
  they did, but the law says they can't on what
• 2:11
  they're going to release. They have to release all files
• 2:15
  that fall under the umbrella of what the law states,
• 2:19
  and obviously they haven't done that, but the ones they
• 2:21
  have released have been quite damaging for people like Peter Mandelsson,
• 2:26
  especially when you consider he was passing off confidential information
• 2:31
  in emails to Jeffrey Epstein when he was in a
• 2:34
  position of authority and in a position where he was
• 2:38
  representing the UK government, and who the hell knows If
• 2:43
  that's the worst of it, who else did Mandelsson pass
• 2:46
  information onto That is a very candid account of what
• 2:49
  I was thinking at the time, But there was no
• 2:51
  space or avenue or a mechanism for me to put
• 2:54
  that on the table. A decision had been taken. It
• 2:57
  was a political decision. Oh, this is bad for Starmer
• 3:01
  one hundred percent. This is the kind of thing that
• 3:04
  should chase him from office. And then you look at
• 3:07
  everything else going on over in the UK, where it's
• 3:10
  certainly not roses and rainbows, and you come away thinking
• 3:14
  to yourself, how does a guy like Starmer survive this?
• 3:17
  Because I have a hard time believing that he comes
• 3:19
  out of this. I think that Starmer is absolutely cooked.
• 3:24
  He said that the normal order is vetting, and then
• 3:27
  Announcement asked if he knew why the process was reversed
• 3:31
  in Lord Peter Mandelson's case, He told the Foreign Affairs
• 3:34
  Committee know the timing of the announcement was driven and
• 3:37
  decided by Number ten. So he's blaming Curreed, Starmer and
• 3:42
  the Prime Minister's office. And I would too if I
• 3:47
  was being made the scapegoat. I'd be blabbing my fat
• 3:49
  yapp too. Well, it wasn't me. They told me to
• 3:53
  do this. I advised against it, but my boss said
• 3:56
  that we have to do it. So here we are.
• 3:59
  And that's basically what the dude saying. Sir Kira Starmer
• 4:02
  is facing claims he misled Parliament for saying that full
• 4:05
  due process was followed in Lord Mandelsson's appointment when it
• 4:09
  obviously wasn't. So he lied to Parliament and I'm pretty
• 4:13
  sure that's a big deal over in the UK. You
• 4:16
  can't lie to Parliament, just like you can't lie to Congress,
• 4:19
  especially if you're the President or the Prime Minister. Forget it.
• 4:22
  The political fallout that comes with something like this is
• 4:26
  career ending, or should be. He also said that the
• 4:34
  Cabinet Office initially suggested Lord Peter Mandelsson did not need
• 4:37
  high level security clearance to be the US ambassador. Say
• 4:42
  what now he doesn't need high level security clearance? How's
• 4:46
  he going to have meetings with his counterpart and report
• 4:49
  back to the UK authorities? What does that even mean?
• 4:53
  Sure looks like a massage job to me, and it
• 4:56
  looks like the UK government just wanted to get their
• 4:59
  guy in, and they were willing to steamroll the whole
• 5:01
  process in order to do it. I mean, that's what
• 5:03
  it looks like from the outside looking in, Sir Philip
• 5:07
  told the Foreign Affairs Committee of MPs, as we're taking
• 5:11
  forward the practical steps required. The Cabinet Office initially said
• 5:15
  that as Mandelsson was to use the technical phrase from
• 5:18
  the Guidance of Fit and proper person as a member
• 5:22
  of the House and Lords, he did not require develop vetting.
• 5:25
  Oh well, in that case, if you were born rich
• 5:28
  and you're part of the House and Lords, you don't
• 5:31
  need any more vetting. Must be nice, yo, Mandelssyn's like
• 5:34
  that feudal lord who would show up at your village
• 5:37
  and take all of your crop, leave you with like
• 5:40
  one turnip and five carrots. That's the kind of guy
• 5:43
  Mandelssohn is. And to think that Kira Starmer thought it
• 5:47
  would be a good idea to have this guy as
• 5:49
  the ambassador to the United States is a fireable offense
• 5:53
  on its own, in my opinion, I mean, to be
• 5:58
  honest with you, I thought that was odd and insufficient.
• 6:01
  I'd been deputy ambassador in Washington, and therefore occasionally in charge.
• 6:07
  I knew very well to do the job effectively, you
• 6:09
  have to be party to some of the deepest secrets
• 6:12
  that the UK government holds. And that's what I was
• 6:14
  just saying. How could you be ambassador and not have
• 6:17
  a clearance. That's ridiculous and to even suggest that is
• 6:22
  just absurd. And whoever made that decision, whoever made that suggestion,
• 6:28
  they should have their clearance yanked because they're obviously not
• 6:32
  qualified to be in the position that they're in. I'm
• 6:34
  sure the folks over in the UK are very very
• 6:36
  confident in their security apparatus after hearing this shit, but
• 6:41
  I also recognize that the situation was unusual, and therefore
• 6:45
  I asked for advice, although it was pretty clear in
• 6:48
  my mind from FCDO Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office security team.
• 6:53
  They came back to me after discussions with the Cabinet
• 6:56
  Office and said that their advice was that he should
• 6:59
  have DV developed vetting and I absolutely agreed with that,
• 7:03
  and if they would have done that, they could have
• 7:05
  avoided this whole entire nightmare, But instead the UK chose
• 7:09
  to keep that cover up roling and if you don't
• 7:12
  think we're going to expose their cover up. You're crazy.
• 7:17
  The rug's getting pulled here too, because I want you
• 7:19
  to keep in mind that all of this is part
• 7:21
  of the same story. These are just different threads over
• 7:25
  in the UK, over in Paris, Europe, wherever. They all
• 7:29
  come from the same strand. But they're just different threads
• 7:33
  that run off the main strand, right, But it's all connected.
• 7:38
  And when I tell you that this cover up is
• 7:39
  vast and it's intercontinental, this is what I mean. Elsewhere
• 7:45
  in his evidence, Sir Philip told the committee he had
• 7:47
  learned the government wanted to appoint Lord Mandelsson to the
• 7:50
  post on December fifteenth, twenty twenty four, and that a
• 7:54
  due diligence process but not developed vetting had been carried
• 7:58
  out to deem them suitable for the job. Suitable for
• 8:02
  doll catcher maybe ambassador to the United States more like
• 8:07
  ambassador to fucking Pluto. Sir Kurea Starmer, has pleaded with
• 8:13
  Labor MPs to reject a bid for parliamentary sleeves inquiry
• 8:16
  into Lord Mandelsson's vetting scandal, as he faces another moment
• 8:20
  of peril over the future of his premiership as he
• 8:23
  should look Kire Starmer's in charge, right, He's the man
• 8:28
  at the top. He made the decision, he hired Peter Mandelsson.
• 8:32
  Now he has to own it. Or is that only
• 8:35
  for the rest of us? Like, is there no more
• 8:39
  self responsibility whatsoever? Because sometimes I feel like I'm the
• 8:45
  only person that takes responsibility for my own bullshit. Let
• 8:49
  me be very clear with you, just about every problem
• 8:52
  that I've ever had in my life has been self created,
• 8:56
  my own dumb ass getting in my own way, And
• 8:59
  the same is true here. What because Cure Starmer is
• 9:04
  some prime minister, he doesn't step on his own dick. Well,
• 9:08
  it certainly does. And this whole entire situation is a
• 9:13
  self inflicted wound. The Commons will vote on Tuesday on
• 9:19
  whether the Privileges Committee should consider if the Prime Minister
• 9:22
  misled the House by claiming due process was followed in
• 9:26
  appointing the former Labor grandee as US ambassador despite failing
• 9:31
  his security vetting. How could there be no misconduct here? Like, seriously,
• 9:35
  how could there be none? Now? I doubt they're going
• 9:39
  to hold Mandolsin responsible because I just I'm cynical about
• 9:43
  it all. What I want to happen and what I
• 9:46
  think are going to happen are two very different things.
• 9:49
  And I'm not going to sit here and bullshit you
• 9:51
  guys all day and tell you a bunch of fairy tales.
• 9:54
  So that people are engaged. I'm going to tell you
• 9:57
  what I think, and not only that, I'm going to
• 9:59
  show you how I arrive at those opinions. Now does
• 10:02
  that mean they're all right? Hell no it doesn't. But
• 10:05
  if you follow the evidence wherever it leads, I promise
• 10:08
  you you're going to be better off for it. A
• 10:10
  large scale effort appeared under way by Monday evening to
• 10:13
  rally support from the back benches, with former Labor Prime
• 10:17
  Minister Gordon Brown also urging the party to back stormer
• 10:21
  all about politics, all about politics, and it's really pathetic
• 10:26
  and it's why I find it laughable when people are like, well,
• 10:29
  the UK and Europe, they're getting busy, are they or
• 10:33
  are they just stalling? Because it would seem to me
• 10:36
  that there'd be a big push from everybody in the
• 10:39
  UK at this point to get rid of Starmer, But
• 10:42
  instead what do you see people rallying around them, circle
• 10:46
  in the wagons and defending his nonsense, all because they're
• 10:49
  from the same party. I'll never understand it. If you
• 10:52
  can't hold your own accountable, how do you expect us
• 10:56
  to believe that you're going to hold anybody accountable, especially
• 10:59
  if it's some that you quote unquote dislike. How do
• 11:03
  we know what your motivations are when it comes to Epstein.
• 11:06
  Either you're all the way in or you're all the
• 11:08
  way out. There's no neutrality, there's no offence sitting. Those
• 11:14
  days are over because, as it currently stands, there's only
• 11:17
  two sides when it comes to this story. You're either
• 11:21
  on the side of truth and transparency or you're on
• 11:24
  the side of the Epstein class. And from the way Curas,
• 11:28
  Starmer and the Labor Party are conducting themselves, it would
• 11:32
  seem that they've made their decision. All the information that
• 11:36
  goes with this episode can be found in the description box.