Could Epstein’s birthday book trip up the British Ambassador?

In May, Sky News asked Lord Mandelson, Britain’s Ambassador to the United States of America, if it was true that he’d stayed at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse in June 2009, when the financier was in jail for soliciting prostitution from a minor. He replied flatly that he refused to answer any questions about Epstein. “I wish I’d never met him in the first place,” was all he would say on the subject. 

No doubt Mandelson would rather forget – and that we all now ignore – how he used to lavish praise on Epstein. “Wherever he is in the world, he remains my best pal!” Mandelson, aka “the Prince of Darkness,” gushed in a birthday note to Epstein in 2003, which has now been revealed under the auspices of the Congressional Democratic House Oversight Committee. Mandelson even illustrated the note with a photo of himself wearing only a bathrobe in conversation with his greatest friend, who is fully dressed. 

“Happy birthday, Jeffrey. We love you!!” the note concludes. 

We all make mistakes. But it might be good if his lordship would now answer the question directly about whether he stayed with Epstein in 2009 – after Epstein had been given a weirdly lenient 13-month work-release sentence rather than the maximum 45-year jail sentence for the crime of raping girls as young as 14. 

You’ll remember Prince Andrew stayed with Epstein in Manhattan in December, 2010. And it was good enough for royalty, surely it was good enough for a mere Labour party politician.  

There is so much about the Epstein scandal that stinks to high heaven, no matter how grimly President Trump – who once described Epstein as “a terrific guy” and “a lot of fun to be with” – tells us the whole thing is a Democratic hoax. 

There’s the question of whether Epstein did or did not kill himself – a question the FBI recently failed to settle recently when it confusingly released hours of camera footage from outside his cell. 

And then there’s the question of how Epstein, a school teacher, became so obscenely rich. From whom or where did the money come? Also, isn’t it odd that modeling agent and frequent Epstein companion Jean-Luc Brunel, who like Epstein stood accused of raping and trafficking children, also apparently committed suicide while in prison in Paris in 2022 – also by hanging?

Add to that the recent transfer of Esptein’s close companion Ghislaine Maxwell to a minimum-security prison, apparently in contravention of Federal Bureau of Prisons regulations relating to the confinement of convicted sex offenders. The transfer was made just days after she had told Department of Justice officials she had never seen President Trump doing anything nefarious with Epstein. “They’re offering her something to keep her mouth shut,” DoJ Acting Deputy Chief Jospeh Schnitt told an undercover reporter shortly afterward. 

The belief many people hold – too many, surely, to any longer be dismissed as just the fanciful imaginings of conspiracy theorists – is that the charismatic Epstein was running an industrial-scale honey trap operation on behalf of a foreign or domestic intelligence agency for the purpose of secretly recording highly influential people indulging whatever their particular perversion is in order later to exert control over them by means of blackmail. 

“Thinking of voting against sending more arms to [REDACTED], senator? Fine, then presumably you also won’t mind your wife and constituents seeing this footage of you ecstatic in a gimp outfit/being fellated by a teenager/having acrobatic sex with an underage girl…” You get the gist. It doesn’t take much imagination to see why shadowy intelligence agencies might like to operate in this way. It’s relatively cheap, for one thing, and presumably highly effective.

The alternative, and the version of events we are now asked by the likes of FBI Director Kash Patel to believe, is that Epstein was simply history’s wealthiest and most prolific pedophile – indeed, that he, and he alone, molested “over one thousand young women,” according to the official report – but that when he wasn’t indulging in this depravity he liked nothing more than to throw swell parties for the rich and famous. 

Which do you think is more likely? Whatever the reality, it seems increasingly likely we will never be told. Perhaps ultimately that’s all the answer we need.