Transcript of All Hell Breaks Loose in UK Parliament Over Trump and Epstein New

And with the e-Rezept-Rabatt, you can save €20 a week on the medical services. Do you like the idea? Then try it now in the Shopapotheke app.

Tell me, Nikola, do you have this feeling, to stand in the corner with your leg?

No, not at all. Why is it the app, with which I can't do anything wrong? Wow. That means, everything is safe? Yes, exactly. Why is it the app, which understands you? Because the app is your whole life.

All hell broke loose in the United in Parliament yesterday as the opposition party pressed Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his government about Lord Mandelson, Peter Mandelsteen, one of Jeffrey Epstein's closest friends who was all throughout these files. He was in his underwear in photos with girls, engaged in some of the most disgusting communications with Epstein, and likely some of the most grotesque behavior. It turned out that the government under Prime Minister, Kier Starmer, when they were vetting Mendelsohn, who became the UK ambassador to the United States, the vetting showed these relationships with Epstein. And apparently, Mendelsohn said, what you're hearing is overblown, and I didn't really have these extensive relationships. And the government brought in Mendelsohn and kept him as a Lord, kept him in these positions, appointed him as the ambassador. And now this It's like toppling the government in the UK right now. Prime Minister Keir Starmer did his best to try to defend the fact that he appointed Peter Mandelstown to be UK ambassador to the United States. But unlike in the United States, where this Trump cabal just says, whatever, we don't care. We're just going to ignore the fact that Donald Trump appeared 38,000 times in the United Kingdom.

It's a big deal to have affiliations with the world's biggest pedo in Jeffrey Epstein. We're seeing the domino effects of the Epstein files in every other country other than in the United States government under the Trump regime, where they just deny that Donald Trump appears 38,000 times and Trump's at the center of the cabal. This is a very difficult time for Prime Minister, Kier Starmer, to try to survive this. Let me just show you what went down, and you'll see the opposition in Parliament. The Parliament in general in the UK, it's very combative. It's very in your face. You have to stand up there and justify yourself on the floor of Parliament. But I just want to share with you the types of questioning that Kier Starmer was given by the opposition. Let's watch this first clip right here.

It Absolutely begger's belief. If we want to clean up politics, then this thing should not be being allowed to happen. Politics is a difficult place, we know that, but this was down to judgment. It was down to the judgment of one person, or was it the judgment of others around that person? I urge the Honorable and Right Honorable members on the Labor Benches opposite Do the right thing this evening. Stand up for democracy, stand up for parliament, and stand up for decency.

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Epraculation day. That is how Mandelstown described the day of Epstein's release for prison, for procuring children to be trafficked and raped. Mandelstown's next message was, How is freedom feeling? Epstein replied, She feels fresh, firm, and creamy. Mandelstown's next reply, Naughty boy. Now, we haven't seen this email, I'll admit, when the ambassador was appointed. But let's look what we did know when he was appointed ambassador. We knew at that point that he had consoled this pedophile, consoled him on his being found guilty and convicted for just one of the many crimes he had committed. We also knew that while he was Deputy Prime Minister of this country and business and trade secretary, carrying the flag of our great nation on an official visit to New York, he stayed in a convicted pedophiles flat. How dare he do that while representing this country. But the idea that no one in the cabinet office, no one at the Department of Business and Trade, No civil servant, no political appointee knew that he'd said, No, I don't need a hotel. Thank you ever so much. I'm going to stay at my friend Epstein's house. Oh, by the way, he happens to currently be in prison incarcerated, but I'm going to stay at his house anyway.

That to me, raises serious questions about why he was not pursued for misconduct in public office back at that point. No one can say that the Labor Government did not know, because having been a civil servant, I knew where my ministers were staying, when they were abroad. Not sure they always wanted me to know, but I knew, and none of them would have ever done that. This is the heart of the issue with the judgment of the Prime Minister. Now, on Monday, one of its ministers, the government's minister, said, No It was very objective when Mandelstown was appointed. I would say, Look at Hansard, I remember objecting very, very clearly and repeatedly, because it was very clear at that point that Mandelson had repeatedly said that Pepsine did not deserve to be in prison, that this was an awful time for him, how he was caring and thinking for his good friend. Why was there no investigation and why was the vetting not done right? Because there is no question that the vetting cannot have been conducted properly. I have been through vetting myself. Now, I accept it was not as a minister, but as a civil servant, I've been sat in a room with a rather elderly gentleman for two hours, asked about my every sexual proclivity, asked about when I lost my virginity, asked about whether I'd taken drugs or not, asked for every single aspect of my life, because civil servants, whether they be apolitical or politicians in this place, should hold themselves accountable and be right to be appointed for these roles.

Here's another clip right here. Let's play it.

This has been an absolutely extraordinary day in British politics. It is not often that there is an audible intake of breath in this chamber, but we all heard it earlier on. That gasp when the Prime Minister admitted that, yes, he had known that Peter Mandelsen had an ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein at the point where he appointed him our ambassador to Washington. It is a truly extraordinary admission. The argument that the Prime Minister is making now, and it is quite incredible, is that he did know, but he didn't know the depth and extent. This implies that there is some reasonable extent to which you can be in a long-term relationship with the world's most famous pedophile and still be appointed to our ambassador in Washington. That you can be, to a certain reasonable in in-depth, involved with the world's most corrupt man and still be appointed his Majesty's ambassador. And now the Prime Minister is asking to be taken on trust. Well, after This whole sordered affair, I'm afraid that's just not good enough anymore. The Prime Minister knew, he knew that Mandelstown had stayed in Epstein's house while he was in jail for child prostitution.

Did that not set some alarm bells ringing in the mind of the Prime Minister? Or is that not deep enough a relationship to have worried the Prime Minister? The member for Skipton, earlier on told the House That the British government was warned by one of our closest international allies about their deep concerns before his appointment. Did that not set some alarm bells ringing in the mind of the Prime Minister? No, instead, he appointed a man who had twice Christ had to resign over corruption. Now, unbelievably, his argument is, if only there had been some sign that Peter Mandelson was like this. Unbelievable, Madam Deputy Speaker. This may just be the beginning. We really need to hear an answer now from the minister on a specific point which ministers ducked and refused to address earlier on. The whole house will hear if he does not answer. Will the government agree to a full investigations into Mandelson's behavior while he was our ambassador in Washington? Because on 27th of February last year, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palentier, a client of Mandelson's company, Global Council. That meeting was not recorded in the PM's register of meeting.

It only emerged later. Palenteer were then awarded a £240 million contract by the government on a direct award rather than a competition. We need the cabinet secretary to examine the circumstances of that contract. Will a minister agree, yes or no? I asked the minister, why wasn't that prime ministerial meeting recorded in the normal way? How many more such lobbyist meetings were there? What other inside information was shared with Mandelson's client. And will he now agree to a full inquiry into Mandelson's time as our ambassador, yes or no? Can furthermore the minister reassure the House that the proper has been followed for all number 10's other appointments recently. Can you say that very clearly to the House and give us that reassurance? Now, before I come to the Manuscript Amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say something positive about some of the contributions we've heard today from the Labor Back Benches. The member for the Forest of Dean gave a genuinely superb speech in which he said he would not be able to look victims in the eye if he voted for the government's amendment. He was alone. It was a brave speech. He was not completely alone because we also I've heard sensible comments from the Labor Back Benches, including from Oldham West, Ashton under Lime, Widness, Milsman Thornby, pointing out that the government's cover-up amendment was simply not going to fly.

I think the member for Liverpool, Wavertree, actually said that she would be ashamed to vote for it, and she was totally, totally right. All those Labor Backbenches have shown their character today. But what a contrast. What a contrast with the behavior of the Prime Minister who isn't here. He still hasn't apologized for appointing Mandelsohn. A few hours ago, he was telling this house that these documents couldn't be published. He was saying at PMQs that the leader of the opposition was outrageous and silly for even asking. Here we are, just a few hours later, and the government has added to a total U-turn because they know that they can't get their own people to vote for this shameful proposed cover-up. The Prime Minister has not been decisive. He only sacked Peter Mandelson because we forced him to do. He said again and again that he had full confidence in him. I think many voters will be thinking, Why on Earth was the Prime Minister so deeply in hock to this man? The truth is, he was not out on a limb over in Washington. He was a deeply embedded part of the Prime Minister's operation. He was involved in the selection of some of the MPs here today.

He was involved in the Prime Minister This reshuffle. He was part of the toxic culture that the Health Secretary, the Labor Health Secretary, has warned about in number 10. And most shamefully of all, we had a former Labor Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, whatever you think of him. He tried to get a document about some of the things that Peter Manderson had done. He was Funnily enough, the documents couldn't be found. Madam Deputy Speaker, whatever you think of Gordon Brown, when you choose Peter Mandelson over Gordon Brown, you are making the wrong decision.

And here is another clip of what went down. Let's play it.

Directly, could he tell us, did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson's ongoing relationship with the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein? And he replied, Yes, it did. Now, the point is that when the minister says he lied to the prime minister, but the prime minister knew that the relationship was ongoing. So even if he lied about some other aspects of the relationship, cannot the minister see that the fact there was any ongoing relationship at all with a man who'd been imprisoned for pedophilia and prostitution Constitution, can he not see that that was an impossible position to defend, and no subsequent lies or revelations alter the fact that the Prime Minister appointed him when he knew that he was going to be here.

Now, here's the exchange involving Prime Minister, Kier Starmer. Of course, for those who aren't in the UK, Labor Party, that's the governing party right now. You'll see Kier Starmer get questioned about, What did you know? When did you know it? What judgment is this that you brought in Mandelson? And what does this say about your judgment in other areas? And look, Keir Starmer, and lots of people who support Starmer are like, he's a well-intentioned and decent human being, so he's trying to address it honestly. It's a very difficult situation for him to weather. I'm not sure he's going to be able to survive this. Watch what happens when he's questioned, and you'll see this exchange right here.

Can the Prime Minister tell us, did the official security vetting he received mention Mandelson's ongoing relationship with the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein?

Prime Minister?

Yes, it did. As a result, various questions were put to him. I intend to disclose to this house all of them are the national security, prejudice to international relations on one side. I want to make sure this house sees the full documentation so it will see for itself the extent to which the extent to which time and time again, Mandelson completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein and lied throughout the process, including in response to the due diligence.

.

Then there was another line of questioning about a Kier Starmer meeting with Palantier in the United States. Peter Thiel, Thiel is in a lot of instances in the files as well. And Mandelson, Peter Mandelson, his company has a lot of links with Palantier as well, as pointed out here. And so it's like you met with Palantier, and Mandelson has the Palantier connection with Peter Thiel, and they were all speaking with Epstein in the files. Here, play this clip right here.

Briefly, Mr. Speaker, before I hand over to other members of the House, to the conduct of Lord Mandelson whilst he was our ambassador in Washington. I think that this is very relevant for our debate today because it exposes, again, the Prime Minister's lack of judgment in appointing Peter Mandelson as our ambassador. There is obviously now very strong evidence to suggest that Mandelson behaved entirely inappropriately when he was a Secretary of State in the last Labor Government. But there are now equally big questions outstanding about what was happening in 2025 in Washington. This As I say, is relevant now. On the 27th of February, 2025, the Prime Minister, whilst in Washington, visited the American data and AI company, Palantier, at its headquarters. The meeting did not appear in the Prime Minister's register of visits. It only came to light later. Now, Palantier, we should remember or remind ourselves, was a client of Global Council, the company in which Peter Mandelson had a commanding share. Later that year, Palantier received from this government a £240 million deal. British companies couldn't compete. That deal was granted by Direct award. Given the allegations now coming to light about Mendelsohn's conduct, can the minister assure the house that the cabinet secretary will review the circumstances around the award of that contract and assure himself that there are no other such contracts, no other undisclosed meetings, that the government is going to go through all of the communications that Mendelsohn sent out whilst he was ambassador, messages we must assume, some of which were sent to old business contacts, potential few business contacts, and so on.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained an unhealthy relationship with a man who was a convicted pedophile, and he appointed him to the role of ambassador anyway. Everybody in this house should be shocked by it. It It must be concluded that had the Prime Minister been pressed on that point at the time, the appointment would not have been made. But the Prime Minister knew, his aides knew, and the appointment was made anyway. What else did he know? Only after this humble address, only if the government treats with it in good faith, will we know that. I very much hope that it is not the case that we find that there are gaps in our security and vetting process. If there are, the government will be able to fix them. But I think it's also likely that we'll see that there were reports that consistently raised concerns that were swept away, and it will then be the duty of the government to disclose who swept them away and why. Ultimately, What responsibility must rest with the Prime Minister. It is time for him to take responsibility. Finally, where this netded out is Prime Minister Starmer is forced to give the files relating to Mandelstine's appointment as the UK ambassador to the United States to Parliament's Intelligence Committee.

You'll see that there's a rebellion, not just by the opposition, I want to be clear as well, from Labor Party members of Parliament as well. The Labor Party doesn't support. The Labor Party doesn't know what to do because they clearly don't support this. They don't support Mandelson, and it puts them in a It's a difficult situation. Here's what went down. Let's play this clip at the very end when that final order was made.

The question is that amendment A be made since when an amendment to the amendment has been proposed as follows, that amendment At the end of the amendment A, and which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee, Parliament, the question is the amendment be made and proposed amendment be made. As many of that opinion say Aye. Aye. Aye. The country, no. I think the Aye's have it, the Aye's have it. Right. The question is the amendment A as amended be made. As many of that opinion say Aye.

Aye.

Of the country, no. I think the eyes have it. The question is that the motion has been meant to be agreed to. As many of that opinion say, I. I. Of the country. No, I think the eyes have it. The eye have it. Right. That's complete. Are you ready, Caroline? Yes. Right. Sorry, a point of order, Simon Hall.

Speaker, it's in relation to the point that the minister made with regards to the Metropolitan police asking that certain documents are not released in case they prejudiced a trial or an investigation. You know as well as I do, sir, the importance of privilege to this place. Will you Will your office and council be working with the cabinet office to ensure that the rights and privileges of members of this house are protected?

Can I just say, we're not going to continue the debate, but just to sum up. The question with the Metropolitan Police, the Metropolitan Police have no jurisdiction on what this house may wish to do. It will be whether the government provides or not. But just to let you know, they cannot dictate to this house.

There you have it. Let me know what you think, everybody. That's why I want to show you what's going on in the UK Parliament so you see what's happening outside of the United States. Let me know what you think. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 6 million. And thanks for watching. Thanks for watching. Be sure to add the Midas Touch podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast for new updates every single day.