Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Ignored or Misjudged? The UK’s Epstein Investigation That Never Happened (4/27/26)

Transcript

Ignored or Misjudged? The UK’s Epstein Investigation That Never Happened (4/27/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Epstein Chronicles. According to authorities over in the UK, they're
• 0:09
  more than willing to investigate any claims that Jeffrey Epstein
• 0:13
  was committing crimes in the UK. However, if you look
• 0:17
  at the past, and you look at their performance when
• 0:20
  crimes have been brought to their attention, I don't come
• 0:23
  away from that feeling confident that they're going to do
• 0:26
  the right thing and pursue the right people, especially when
• 0:30
  we're finding out that in twenty twenty four there were
• 0:32
  new Epstein allegations in the UK, but nobody ever followed
• 0:36
  up on it, no investigation was ever launched. And of
• 0:40
  course they'll say that it was all because of judicial
• 0:43
  reviews and all kinds of legal jargon, but the truth
• 0:47
  is they just didn't have the will. They didn't want
• 0:51
  to open that can of worms because they understand how
• 0:54
  bad it is for the monarchy and for the UK itself, because,
• 0:58
  as I've said before and I'll say a million more times,
• 1:02
  the UK is engaging in an Epstein cover up. Just
• 1:05
  like in America. There are way too many people that
• 1:09
  can be damaged here. And if you think that doesn't
• 1:12
  stretch out across the Atlantic, to the UK, to France
• 1:15
  to other places. You're crazy. It most certainly does. And
• 1:19
  while all these politicians might have different beliefs, one thing
• 1:22
  that they all share is that they'll do anything when
• 1:25
  it comes to self preservation, even if that means covering
• 1:28
  up pannish crimes like the ones that were committed by
• 1:31
  Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell. So today we have an
• 1:35
  article from International Business Times and the headline fresh Epstein
• 1:40
  allegations flagged to UK Crime Agency in twenty twenty four,
• 1:43
  but no investigation was opened. This article was authored by
• 1:47
  Seneca Cabrera. The UK's National Crime Agency was given fresh
• 1:54
  allegations linked to Jeffrey Epstein in early twenty twenty four,
• 1:58
  but chose not to open oh formal investigation. Officials assessed
• 2:02
  the information as largely unverified or hearsay, and did not
• 2:07
  meet the evidential threshold required to open a full inquiry
• 2:11
  under UK law. The referral reportedly included material relating to
• 2:16
  financial links and social associations involving UK connected individuals. So
• 2:21
  what that means is that these people were too powerful
• 2:24
  to investigate. That's really what they mean. It didn't meet
• 2:27
  the threshold. What kind of threshold you're looking for? Even
• 2:31
  now they're going to say it doesn't meet the threshold.
• 2:35
  Mountains of evidence, reams of testimony. All that's missing are
• 2:39
  the videos that Epstein obviously took. And my guess is
• 2:43
  even if those were introduced, you'd still have people out
• 2:46
  here saying, oh, come on, this is bs. It never happened,
• 2:49
  There was no human traffickang. The decision has since come
• 2:55
  under renewed scrutiny following a High Court decision in April
• 2:58
  twenty twenty six granted a judicial review into the NCAA's
• 3:02
  handling of the referral. Claimants argue the original assessment was
• 3:06
  procedurally flawed, while the agency has said it's now reassessing
• 3:10
  the material in light of additional disclosures made by the
• 3:14
  US authorities. Don't let the authorities in the UK take
• 3:17
  you for a walk. These rotten basterds are just as
• 3:20
  devious as the people in America. They all operate on
• 3:25
  the same ground, and that ground is protect myself at
• 3:28
  all costs, no matter what, no matter the situation. It's
• 3:32
  all about my political life. It's never about what's doing right.
• 3:35
  It's never about chasing people that should be chased for
• 3:39
  the crimes that they committed. According to reporting by The
• 3:44
  Financial Times, a meeting in spring twenty twenty four brought
• 3:47
  NCAA officials into contact with the US based activist, who
• 3:52
  said that they had no information concerning Epstein and UK
• 3:55
  linked figures. Follow Up discussions took place, but the agency
• 3:59
  concluded the material did not justify opening a criminal investigation.
• 4:04
  It never does, But now they're going to look at
• 4:07
  it again because you know, we have a new perspective.
• 4:12
  What that really means is that they know that we're
• 4:14
  going to hold them accountable, so they have to do
• 4:16
  the right thing. But if you folks weren't up in
• 4:18
  arms about this, do you really think that they'd be
• 4:21
  out here talking about, Oh, we're going to reopen the investigation.
• 4:25
  Zero chance. Under standard UK practice, the NCAA distinguishes between
• 4:29
  intelligence and evidence. Third party dossiers are typically treated as
• 4:34
  intelligence unless supported by corroborated material or direct testimony. Officials
• 4:40
  said in the twenty twenty four referral that it did
• 4:43
  not meet the threshold for allocating investigative resources. The NCAA
• 4:48
  has not publicly detailed the contents of the material and
• 4:51
  has said it does not comment on specific intelligence assessments
• 4:55
  and other words, get screwed. We don't have to tell
• 4:59
  you anything. We don't have to show you our work.
• 5:01
  And to those of us in America, that sure sounds familiar,
• 5:04
  doesn't it. In April of twenty twenty six, the High
• 5:07
  Court granted a judicial review into the NCAA's decision making process.
• 5:12
  The proceedings will examine whether the agency applied its evidential
• 5:15
  thresholds appropriately and whether relevant material was given sufficient weight
• 5:20
  at the time. In other words, did people ignore the
• 5:24
  actual evidence just to get to the conclusion they got to,
• 5:27
  or was an actual investigation launched and people actually gave
• 5:30
  it a good look and then decided, hey, you know what,
• 5:33
  there's no they're there. Because it seems to me that
• 5:37
  they just ignored it, and of course that's going to
• 5:40
  be a big problem, and in my opinion, more evidence
• 5:43
  of the grand cover up that we see. Separately, parliamentary
• 5:48
  interest has increased. The Home Affairs Select Committee has requested
• 5:52
  briefings on how referrals involving public figures are assessed, with
• 5:56
  a focus on ensuring decisions are based solely on evidential standards.
• 6:01
  Probably a good idea, no, look at the evidence. If
• 6:04
  it's good evidence, follow it up, investigate and if somebody
• 6:08
  should be indicted, indict them. I thought that was standard procedure.
• 6:14
  Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has said the public expects maximum
• 6:18
  transparency in cases involving historical sexual offenses. The Home Office
• 6:23
  has maintained that operational decisions remain a matter for law
• 6:27
  enforcement agencies. Everybody wants to pass the hot potato. Nobody
• 6:32
  wants to be the one holding it, and nobody wants
• 6:35
  to be the one to truly investigate this because they
• 6:38
  understand the scope and they know just how dangerous that'll
• 6:42
  be for them as far as their career goes. The
• 6:49
  issue also intersected with broader political questions following reporting that
• 6:54
  allegations involving labor peer Peter Mandelson and Epstein were among
• 6:58
  those brought to the NCAA in twenty twenty four. Mandelssohn
• 7:03
  has denied wrongdoing. Like Keer Starmer has to go. He
• 7:07
  knew exactly what Mandelssohn was, he knew what the relationship
• 7:11
  between Epstein and Mandelssohn was, and he has to go.
• 7:17
  According to the FT, Downing Street was informed that year
• 7:20
  that the NCAA had reviewed the material and decided not
• 7:23
  to proceed with an investigation. The episode has prompted questions
• 7:28
  about what officials knew at the time and how much
• 7:31
  information is handled within the government. Separately, the Metropolitan Police
• 7:36
  have launched an investigation into Mandelssohn on suspicion of misconduct
• 7:40
  in public office, though this is distinct from the NCAA's
• 7:44
  earlier assessment. The met Police and NCAA have declined to
• 7:49
  comment on specific details. They're not going to comment. It's
• 7:52
  an ongoing investigation, or so they say, so they're not
• 7:57
  going to say anything, at least not yet. The NCAA
• 8:01
  has said it's reviewing the twenty twenty four material in
• 8:04
  light of additional documents released in the US. It's not
• 8:08
  indicated whether this reassessment will lead to a formal investigation.
• 8:13
  The judicial review is expected to consider whether procedural standards
• 8:17
  were applied correctly, rather than determining the substance of the
• 8:21
  allegations themselves. In other words, just another bullshit investigation. That's
• 8:25
  what that means. Oh, we're going to look at the system,
• 8:29
  not the people that were actually involved in this, not
• 8:32
  the people that actually made the decision. Not to investigate.
• 8:35
  It's not their fault. It's always the system's fault, right,
• 8:38
  It's always somebody else's fault. And when they passed the
• 8:41
  buck enough, and when you have a bureaucracy as big
• 8:44
  as the UK government, pretty easy to pass the buck.
• 8:49
  And when the fingers are being pointed in every direction,
• 8:51
  it's easy to throw your hands up and just say, ah,
• 8:53
  it's systemic. But that doesn't cut the rod out, does it.
• 8:57
  It doesn't get to the bottom of it. It doesn't
• 8:59
  remove the actual infection. All it does is provide more
• 9:03
  excuses and more room for these people to maneuver and
• 9:06
  lie to us. And I don't know about you, but
• 9:09
  I'm sick of it. I'm tired of the bullshit. I'm
• 9:12
  tired of them making pretend they care. And I'm certainly
• 9:15
  tired of them saying that they're investigating this one or
• 9:17
  that one and then just ignoring it. And that's been
• 9:20
  a common theme over in the UK. Now. I know
• 9:24
  we want to talk about how the UK is, you know,
• 9:26
  arresting people Mandelssohn Andrew, But where's it going to go
• 9:30
  from there? Have either of them been charged, has there
• 9:34
  been other arrests, Has the UK government moved towards a
• 9:39
  point where they're going to try and really shatter what
• 9:42
  happened here and get to the bottom of it, because
• 9:45
  from what I can see, that hasn't occurred yet. In fact,
• 9:49
  all I see is a cover up getting deeper. And
• 9:53
  when you look at all the people involved over in
• 9:55
  the UK and how powerful they are, that shouldn't shock anybody.
• 10:00
  It's the same story here in America. When you have
• 10:02
  these kind of elite circles and these kind of powerful people,
• 10:06
  do you think they're just going to see their power.
• 10:08
  Do you think they're just going to admit to their bullshit?
• 10:11
  It's never gonna happen. The only way that's gonna happen
• 10:14
  is if they're held accountable. And for that to happen,
• 10:17
  these institutions need to do the right thing. But when
• 10:20
  you have people bringing you evidence back in twenty twenty
• 10:23
  four and you're ignoring it only to reopen that investigation
• 10:27
  in twenty twenty six, how do you think that's going
• 10:30
  to leave people feeling confident about what you're up to
• 10:33
  and about the investigation as a whole. Because I'm here
• 10:35
  to tell you nobody's confident, not in America, not in
• 10:39
  the UK, not down in South America, not over in Bulgaria.
• 10:44
  Nobody's confident that the people in charge are going to
• 10:48
  get to the bottom of what Jeffrey Epstein was up
• 10:50
  to and hold the people that were helping them accountable.
• 10:53
  Nobody believes that, at least not if we leave you
• 10:55
  to your own devices. We have to pressure you, and
• 10:59
  the only way we're going to get any kind of justice,
• 11:01
  the only way we're ever going to get any kind
• 11:03
  of resolution, is if we keep pressing for it, because
• 11:08
  unfortunately we can't rely on the institutions that have already
• 11:11
  shown that they're either inept or corrupt. And it doesn't
• 11:15
  matter if it's in America or the UK. They're all
• 11:19
  cut from the same cloth, and they all look at
• 11:21
  you with the same kind of contempt. The only thing
• 11:23
  that's different is the accent. All the information that goes
• 11:28
  with this episode can be found in the description box.