All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
July 22, 2025 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
01:14:06
20250722_why-now-ian-maxwell-speaks-as-sister-ghislaine-set
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Willingness to Cooperate 00:08:34
If she's, as you say, a victim of a miscarriage of justice, then there would be no obvious reason why she would not want to cooperate with the authorities.
Is your position as her brother, is your position that these are all these victims are all lying?
There's a lot of speculation about whether Epstein was some kind of Israeli agent.
Your father, Robert Maxwell, was also an Israeli agent, maybe also working for Mossow.
What can you say about that?
Do you believe Jeffrey Epstein killed himself?
That interview was spectacular.
What?
What the hell is going on here, Piers?
These are wild bombshells.
Well, Ghillaine Maxwell is serving 20 years in a federal prison for recruiting, grooming, and transporting young girls for Jeffrey Epstein to sexually abuse.
Amid the outrage over the failure to release the Epstein files, many people have asked, if there is no client list, who did she traffic for and why is she in jail?
Well, the answer is she trafficked for Jeffrey Epstein.
That's what the court concluded.
Evidence from his victims portrayed her as a smart, manipulative woman without whom his abuse would not have been possible.
But Maxwell's family is appealing the conviction and political pressure in the United States for Maxwell to testify before Congress could present an opportunity.
The House Oversight Committee has literally just approved a subpoena for her to do so.
And Epstein's lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, said this.
She is the Rosetta Stone.
She knows everything.
She arranged every single trip with everybody.
She knows everything.
And if she were just given use immunity, she could be compelled to testify.
I'm told that she actually would be willing to testify.
And there'd be no reason for her to withhold any information.
So I don't see any negative in giving her the kind of use immunity that would compel her to testify.
Well, President Trump and others in his administration clearly believe there is too much circumstantial evidence in the case files.
Too many people who'd be guilty by association with a man who obsessively curated influential contacts for whatever reason.
There's also vile pornography that can't really be posted on a government website.
Senior Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson, think bringing Ghillane Maxwell before Congress could be the solution.
And this morning, Attorney General Pam Bondi revealed that she's asked her deputy Todd Blanche to meet Ghillane Maxwell in the coming days.
He'll ask her whether she will cooperate with prosecutors from the Department of Justice and potentially reveal the names of any powerful figures who may be guilty of crimes.
But will she do it?
And can we trust her if she does?
Well, Ian Maxwell is Ghillane's brother and he joins me now in the uncensored studio.
Ian, welcome to Uncensored.
You're her brother, Ghillane.
So let me start by asking you for your reaction to two bits of breaking news today.
The first was that the Attorney General Pam Bondi has directed for her deputy to go and see Ghillane in prison.
What is your response to that, first of all?
Well, you really have to ask yourself, why didn't the DOJ ask to speak to Ghillen before they indicted her?
Why is it only now?
And the reason I say that is because in 2019, after Epstein died and up until Gillen's own arrest in 2020, she was, to the best of her knowledge and her lawyer's knowledge, not a target.
She remained in the United States.
They made her, Gillen, available for questions and kept on being said.
She's not a target, she's not a target.
Suddenly, bang, 60 officers come down on a house in New Hampshire where she was.
Huge show, this arrest and so forth.
And then there is a disgraceful press conference organized by the DOJ's attorney in New York.
And she is pointed at with a picture of Epstein, the subtext being, this woman is guilty.
So we considered that all of that entire process was prosecutorial misconduct.
And finally, they decided that they want to talk to her.
So you think this should have been done years ago?
Of course.
The second development is that the House Oversight Committee, Congress, has voted to subpoena Ghillan.
Will she be willing, from your understanding, will she be willing to talk to both the Deputy Attorney General and to be deposed by the United States Congress?
Well, this has happened quite literally.
I've only heard it as you have at the same time in the last five minutes about the Republicans deciding that they're going to subpoena her.
At the moment, Guillen's lawyer, David Oscar Marcus, has indicated that he is talking to the government to set up this originally requested meeting with Todd Blanche.
Once this is going on, you need to be aware that Guillen is involved in multiple legal, live legal proceedings.
She has a live petition in front of the Supreme Court.
The government has chosen to oppose that.
The same DOJ that is wanting to interview her is opposing her simultaneously.
It's quite an unusual position, but that is what the position is.
So she has to respond and has to rebut that opposition.
That's one set of proceedings ongoing.
Then she has to decide how to deal with this particular request that's come in from the DOJ.
Now we know that there's a subpoena request coming into Congress which has to be considered.
And in addition to all of that, she has a live, not yet live legally, but in the process of being prepared, motion, which is known as a habeas corpus motion, to be brought in front of the district court back in New York in which she's entitled to bring new evidence that was not available at her trial showing government misconduct prior to the trial,
in the trial and post-the-trial, including, for example, the now, as far as we're concerned, confirmed perjury of one particular juror who purged himself in front of the judge at the hearing brought at her request as to why he did not disclose his prior sexual abuse on the jury selection for.
So all of this is to say that Gillen didn't have a fair trial.
That's the bottom line.
And in order to be able to deal with all of these things, while simultaneously being in prison, and a damn dangerous prison it is too.
So it's very, very hard to see the sequencing of all of this.
But if she's, as you say, a victim of a miscarriage of justice, then there would be no obvious reason why she would not want to cooperate with the authorities.
I mean, particularly the chance to address Congress, for example, where the whole world would watch.
And if she is as innocent as you say, then isn't that the perfect opportunity?
Why wouldn't she?
I mean, if she doesn't do that and she doesn't cooperate with the Attorney General's office, people are going to assume guilt, aren't they?
I don't think so.
I think you have to make a, you have to separate the agendas of everybody involved here.
What is Gillen's agenda?
She has been in jail over five years.
She wants to get free.
The reason she wants to be free is because the position, the petition to the Supreme Court is one that says I should never have been prosecuted because I was a beneficiary of the Jeffrey Epstein negotiated non-prosecution agreement.
So her opening position is to say this should never have been brought.
Arguments Against Prosecution 00:02:25
But that's not the same as saying you're innocent.
Wait a minute.
Well, the most important point is that if you should never have been prosecuted, you should never have been prosecuted.
And I don't know what you have in mind when you say that.
Well, I simply say that that would be a legal argument that you would be immune from being prosecuted.
That doesn't mean automatically you're an innocent person.
It just means that you may have been part of what many people think in relation to Epstein was a ridiculous farce in which somebody who clearly was a very predatory pedophile ends up getting an incredibly lenient sentence, albeit he remains a convicted paedophile.
And so anyone associated with him in that case, if you were immune from prosecution, the court of public opinion is not going to view that as an assertion of your innocence.
Summer is here, and everyone knows to protect their skin from the sun.
But what if you could also protect it from collagen loss and inflammation, even repairing damage you did when you were younger?
Well, the good news is that you can.
Something I learned from the scientists at One Skin.
They can protect your skin from UV damage and work at the cellular level to repair damage and prevent collagen loss.
It's packed with science-backed ingredients, including the OS1 peptide for protection, nourishment and repair in one step.
Our sponsor, OneSkin, is the world's first skin longevity company.
By focusing on the cellular aspects of aging, OneSkin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer.
For a limited time, you can try OneSkin with 15% off using code peers at oneskin.co.
That's 15% off at oneskin.co with code PEERS.
After your purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them.
So please show us your support by telling them that I sent you.
Gillen was, her trial took place when she had one arm tied behind her back, both physically because she was abused significantly in the two years prior to trial.
She was under suicide watch.
She was in an isolation cell.
She was physically abused by the guards.
She was woken up every 15 minutes and couldn't sleep for two years.
Facts of Her Trial 00:07:27
So that's how she presented at trial.
And then we now know that her trial was full of government misconduct.
From the start, she was unable to bring evidence in her own defense on the one hand.
And for example, I'll give you one example.
But she could have testified.
She chose not to.
She was advised not to because her own defense was so had been hold below the water by the prosecution.
But after her conviction, she did appeal and the appeals court rejected the appeal.
So going to the Supreme Court is actually the next stage of the appeals process, but she's already had a court convict her, a jury.
She's then had an appeals court of three judges uphold that conviction.
So I understand.
Listen, I would do everything I could for my sister.
Sure.
Let me be clear.
Okay?
So I admire your attempts to get your sister out of prison, just on a human level.
I understand it.
And it must have been a horrendous thing for you as her brother to watch all this go down.
You know, we've got a clip.
She gave an interview to Talk Television, actually.
We've got a clip from that.
They wake you up at six.
And you can go to breakfast, which consists of a cereal and a fruit, a piece of fruit, generally.
And then you have to make your bed sort of military style.
And it was quite a long interview, but I met her once at a book launch in New York.
She bore no relation physically to how she was then.
I mean, just on a physical level, it's obvious what the impact of all this has had on her.
But in relation to her innocence or otherwise, let's just get a few things on the table in terms of facts.
From your understanding, when did she first meet Epstein?
Because there is confusion about that.
Some say it was an introduction by your father, Robert Maxwell, the publisher.
Others say it was at a party or whatever.
What's the truth?
My father was not involved.
Right.
Start with that.
She met him, I believe, sometime in 1991 and either just before or just after our father died and then was with him up until, I would say, sometime like late 90s, when you could consider they were in a relationship, an item.
Correct.
But this wasn't a relationship, a very standard relationship.
They didn't live in the same home.
He lived in his home.
She lived in her home.
She didn't have a key to his house.
He didn't have a key to her house.
So they lived, they were intimate, but he did not share with her in any way what he was doing at any given time of the day.
So we know because evidence was already available before the start of the trial that there are emails written by Epstein to associates saying, do not show this to Guillen.
Wait until Ghillen has gone.
Do not tell Guillen.
So this is a very strange kind of situation.
So I think it's entirely correct that the view of Guillen and Epstein was wrong in terms of the way that they interrupted.
But in her court case, there were a number of people, not just the victims, but also housekeepers at various properties belonging to Epstein, who painted a picture of Ghillane being his misfix.
She was the one that ran things.
She was the one that couriered people around.
She was the one that knew what he liked, even down to sexual peccadillos and so on.
That she was, you know, almost acting like his madame, for want of a better phrase.
And there were a number of people, many people, who painted the same picture, that she wasn't just some peripheral lover on the side who had no knowledge of his movements.
She was in many cases planning his movements.
We now know from grand jury transcripts of the 2007-08 indictment of Jeffrey Epstein, the first time, which were released only in December 2024, so just a few months ago, by Governor DeSantis, that there is significant differences of what witnesses said, including witnesses, three or four of them,
that came to the 2021 trial of Guillen and what they said in the 2006-07 trial of or indictment of Jeffrey Epstein.
The defense were not provided those and could not therefore cross-examine the witnesses, including the women, the accusers, as to where this abuse took place, when this abuse took place, and it's critical because it goes to the ages of the girl, of the girls in each case, in each case, not just isolated, and it goes to the veracity of core witnesses.
And we know this, Piers, because of this.
Juror number 50 turned out to have lied on his jury form.
You said that, yeah.
Now, it's not just that he lied on his jury form about his prior sexual abuse, but we know because he spoke to an independent journalist of the Independent about what went on in that jury room and what influence he personally had on other jurors and crucially on bits of evidence and what was considered important by the jury and what was not considered important.
Okay, but let me just, for those who are not as familiar with the case as you obviously are, and I am, the women victims who testified, Jane, Kate and Carolyn were all pseudonyms.
Annie Farmer testified under her real name.
Testimony under oath from all these victims, including Jane, who said that Ghillane sometimes joined in on the sexualized massages with Epstein.
Kate testified that Ghillane had set up those sexual meetings.
Carolyn testified that Ghillane once touched her breasts, her hips and her butt, told her she had a great body for Epstein and his friends.
She was 14 at the time, she said.
And Annie Farmer, who did give her or wanted to testify under her real name, testified that when she was just 16, Ghillane massaged her naked chest at Epstein's New Mexico ranch in 1996.
Is your position that they were all lying?
Well, my position is that Guillene was never given the chance to cross-examine them properly on their testimony based on new information.
But that's a different question.
Truth About Their Relationship 00:02:59
That was not available.
No, but that's a different question.
Is your position as her brother, who's obviously talked to her about this myriad times, but is your position that these are all these victims are all lying?
I believe my sister.
She has consistently told the truth.
Her lawyer just this morning said that she fully intends to continue telling the truth.
And what's interesting is that as more and more things come out, of more and more examples of misconduct come out, the truth of Guillen is also coming out.
And therefore, the short answer to your question is that Guillen has denied all of this, and I believe that she's telling the truth.
But she stayed friends with Epstein after his conviction for being a paedophile?
No, I think the position is this.
The relationship came to an end, I would say, around about 1999.
But their friendship in terms of an intimate relationship.
Then in 2000, a key associate of Epstein by the name of Sarah Kellen was employed to do all of the arrangements of planes or whatever you will.
The relationship between Gillen and Epstein at that point became essentially a professional relationship.
And she was tasked with the renovations of his multiple houses and all that kind of stuff.
So how long did she continue to be friends with him?
The ups and downs of the economy can be stressful and worrying.
One of the smartest ways to protect your savings is with diversification.
And you can start by talking to the expert at Birch Gold Group.
Gold's value has surged 40% in the past 12 months, driven by record-breaking central bank purchases.
Even with global instability, demand for gold continues to grow.
Birch Gold makes it easy.
You can own gold to store at home, or you can convert an IRA or a 401k into a tax-sheltered gold IRA.
Just text my name, Piers, to the number 989898, and Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold.
There's no obligation, only useful information with an A-plus rating with a Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers.
Birch Gold lets you take control of your savings today.
Text the word Piers, that's P-I-E-R-S to 98-9898.
Hey, Mike Baker here, host of the President's Daily Brief podcast.
If you want straight talk on national security, foreign policy, and the biggest global stories going on of the day, this is the show for you.
We publish twice a day, Monday through Friday, once in the morning, again in the afternoon.
And on the weekend, we go longer with the PDB Situation Report with excellent guests, including national security insiders and foreign policy experts.
Check us out on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcast.
Also, on our YouTube channel at President's Daily Brief.
Presumption Regarding Epstein 00:07:39
It's hard to say.
I mean, she was in a full, full-on relationship with a man called Ted Waite from 2003 to 2011.
Certainly by the time of his conviction, I don't think that there was any meaningful continued interaction.
My point is this.
She stayed pretty close to him and friendly with him.
I'm not saying what particular capacity, I accept they weren't lovers, but she certainly didn't distance herself or disown him, despite his conviction for procuring sex with an underage prostitute.
So my question for you is: you're convinced of her absolute innocence here, and yet she knew this guy that she was so close to was a convicted paedophile from 2008-09 onwards.
And my question to you would be: well, why would she still hang around with him?
It's a question I would ask Prince Andrew.
He was asked it, of course, in the infamous Newslight interview, and all the others, is that you can make an argument.
Donald Trump never saw him or dealt with him again, according to what he and his people have said.
But there are many people, including Ghillane, who continued to hang out with him.
And if I was her brother, that would raise a few alarm bells with me about actually whether she's telling me the full story.
Because there it is in black and white.
He was a convicted paedophile.
Well, I would question you on your facts as to hanging around or remaining close or remaining friendly.
I don't think that's the case with Gillan.
And I think your dates are wrong.
So she never saw him or talked to him again after 2008-9 after the conviction.
That's not what we reported.
Well, I think there is a picture, quite a well-known picture now, which was pointed to by the Prosecutor when they are the day of Guillen's arrest, which shows her in quite a snug embrace with Epstein, which I think is dated to 2006 or something like that.
Now, she was full out with this other fellow, Ted Waite, at the time, and we know that they bumped into Epstein at some social event, and he grabbed her round the neck, and someone took a picture.
So, I mean, I'm not saying that they never saw each other, but it's that type of context in which that took place.
Do you know how much money Epstein paid her?
How much?
Money you paid her over the years.
No.
Because she was leading an extraordinarily affluent life, and no one was quite sure where all this money came from.
And the presumption is it was her fees from Epstein.
I don't think that's entirely right.
I mean, she was a very talented girl.
She was an NASD trader in her own right.
She had various skills which she was able to turn into, including decorating the money.
So she wasn't the rest of the money.
So I don't accept that Epstein was her sole source of money, and nor do I believe that it's as vast as you painted.
Well, I didn't say sole, and I didn't put a figure on it, but the reports have suggested she got paid many millions of dollars over the time of their relationship, both personal and then strictly professional.
Well, we would need to check this out.
As I explained to you, she had a professional relationship with him, looking after his house, as decorated.
It's entirely possible that the accounts into which some of the money went for these substantial decorations, including the plane and so forth, may have come close to her.
I can't tell you that, but that's what I suspect.
I don't think these numbers are very real at all, so I don't buy it.
In the trial, there was exhibit GX52.
This was Ghillane's supposed little black book.
Most of the contents were redacted from court filings.
In a November 12 filing, federal prosecutors contended the book contained compelling evidence of Maxwell's Ghillain's guilt.
In 2015, Gorka, the website at the time, published a redacted copy of its contest, including the names of world leaders, famous performers, business titans, and so on.
What can you say about the little black book of all the details?
Listen, there was an address book for sure.
It had the names of people, famous people, people that work for them, friends, whatever.
You have one, I have one.
So let's not try and big it up for more than it is.
I think it was a high-quality address book.
I don't think it constitutes a list, let alone a list of alleged people to whom young minor girls were trafficked.
So Guillen's position on this, for what it's worth, has been she doesn't ever believe that such a list existed.
But do you believe that Epstein was a predatory paedophile?
Because many people believe he may have abused thousands of girls, many of whom were underage.
That is the working presumption about Epstein.
Do you believe that?
Well, do I believe it?
I believe that he had some really strange predilections for young girls.
It's called paedophilia.
Let's call it what it is.
Okay, you want to call it paedophilia?
But he was convicted of it, so it's a pretty good indication that so there's no issue that that was his modus operandi for his own pleasure.
But I don't believe that it goes beyond his own predilection.
All these men that were going to the island, going to the houses for these parties, Prince Andrew, for example, who was wrapped with his arm photographed, his arm around Virginia Dufray with Ghillane in the background.
Now, let's deal with that.
Well, we'll come to it in a moment.
Well, we will.
But is your position, and obviously you would know from what Ghillane's told you that it's her position, is the position that, yes, he was a massively predatory paedophile for decades, but that Ghillane, who was around him for large amounts of that period, that she knew nothing about any of that.
Well, we've got to go back in time.
And I know you pressed it to one side, but in the 2006-07 indictment of Epsom, which is the first time the authorities booked him, if you want.
The police detective who ran the entire charge for the Miami Police Department, which was responsible for doing the investigation, was asked on oath, was Guillen Maxwell a target?
No.
Was Guillen Maxwell's name mentioned?
No.
That wasn't my question.
You've asked me a question about you.
You made a statement.
Forgive me.
Can I finish?
Yeah, but that wasn't the question.
You said to me, you said to me, Guillen was there for a large part of decades.
Yes.
This just isn't true.
Or through the 90s and 2000s?
No.
That's a quick elision.
It didn't happen.
They meet in 91.
They're intimate, I believe, until tail end of the 90s.
The professional relationship begins.
Timeline Of Their Meeting 00:02:47
Then the new associate I mentioned, Sarah Kellen, comes in, does all whatever the organizing of the normal backwards and forwards of his life is concerned with.
And she goes with Ted Wade from 2003 to 2011.
I've said they bumped into Epstein from time to time.
So we're talking about, remember, the indictment alone runs 94, 2001 of Guillen's indictment.
And so I tried to explain to you that she was cut out of communications and cut out of his life in large elements.
So this is a man who compartmentalized his life and compartmentalized his personal life.
And it's important that Guillen, I can only assume based on those emails of saying exclude her here, exclude her there, because she is a crucial conduit to important men, political men, bankers and so forth.
But you can't mix those two.
Do you accept that she may have pulled the wool over your eyes?
What if you could delay your next two mortgage payments?
That's right.
Imagine putting those two payments in your pocket and finally getting a little breathing room.
It's possible, and you call American Financing today.
Experts at American Financing can show you how to use your home's equity to pay off debt.
Consultants are helping many homeowners to restructure their loans and consolidate dates, all with no upfront fees.
Their customers are saving an average of $800 per month, which is like a $10,000 raise.
It's fast, it's simple, and it could save your budget this summer.
So call them today before it's too late.
866-721-3300.
That's 866-721-3300.
Or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash peers.
No, I believe myself.
I've known her for 60 years.
Yes.
Well, you know, I'm not going to suddenly say she started pulling the wool.
I don't think so.
I don't believe so.
Not for a second.
Not for a second.
And interestingly, President Trump was asked the only time, I believe, in public, at the tail end of his presidency, November, December 2021, about Guillen.
And he said, you know, I don't know much about it, but I wish her well.
And I don't think that anyone else showed the slightest piece of humanity.
Not anybody at that time.
And yet he did.
He didn't need to.
He's the President of the United States.
Most powerful man in the world.
He could have just sloughed it off.
He didn't.
He made a positive statement.
I'm very grateful to that.
And I know Guillen was too.
Speculation On Israeli Agents 00:15:32
Do you think that she will testify to Congress if she's given immunity?
Well, I've just told you that there are multiple...
I understand that.
Wait a minute.
Is that what she would require?
You want me to answer the question?
You let me explain it to you.
The immunity.
You've got to be careful about things like immunity.
In situation where you've got live legal proceedings, we can't find that if Guillen says, okay, I'm going to start testifying, that she is somehow attacked ex post facto for procedural nonsense and she's accused of lying to Congress.
You cannot take this lightly.
We just heard about the possible subpoenaing or the definitive subpoenaing or whatever.
It doesn't mean that when she...
A subpoena is a command to come to Congress and to testify.
But it could be possible for Guillen not to testify.
She may be advised in the midst of her legal proceedings that she should take the fifth, which would be a pity, because she's never taken the fifth, not once, not in any of the civil proceedings.
Not once.
No, but she didn't testify in her criminal case.
That's the right of every defendant.
Sure, but she didn't testify at that point.
She did not testify.
Because she believed...
She never actually testified under oath about any of this.
She believed that the government had not made its case.
It's not for Guillen to make the government's case.
I understand, but she could have testified.
She could have testified.
Of course she could have testified.
Let me ask you, Ian, do you believe Jeffrey Epstein killed himself?
I have to say that that was my original view.
I think it's entirely plausible that that could have happened.
However, I think the jury must be out on the manner of his death.
I think the investigation was shoddy.
I think it was cursory.
I think the guards involved were let off pretty lightly.
I think the footage we've seen of the film is not terribly conclusive.
There's a flex from a CPAP machine which helps you breathe better.
Why couldn't that have been used as a ligature?
We don't know.
And the pathologist that was brought in by the Epstein family did not consider that the injuries to Epstein's neck were conclusive of suicide and he thought it was more likely that it was homicide.
And so that's my take on it.
Remember, prisons are damn dangerous places.
There are murderers on the wing where he was.
He is a convicted pedophile.
So, you know, nonsense, as we call them in Britain, get short shrift in prison.
You know it and I know it.
Do you worry that if your sister agrees to testify that her life will be in danger?
I think Guillen's life is in danger today.
She's in a prison.
It's a violent place.
And we know that there's heavy overcrowding in Tallahassee, that now higher category prisoners are being admitted.
So yes, I think it's, you know, the prisoners are washed with drugs.
It's extremely violent.
You know, it also is so ridiculous.
She has no paper, Pierce.
She can't even instruct her lawyers.
I mean, what kind of a situation is this?
Where is the justice in that system?
Tell me briefly about the Prince Andrew photograph.
The infamous picture with his arm around Virginia Duffray with your sister in the background.
Some people have tried to cast aspersion over the veracity of that, but we know that Andrew paid a reported $11 million to avoid having this argument in public court.
So what is your view of it?
Well, you've made several points.
The first thing I want to deal with is the photograph.
This photograph was allegedly taken on the 10th of March, 2001.
I think I'm right about that.
The weekend of 10-11 March.
Now, Ghillen had flown from the United States to England for one purpose.
That weekend.
It was to attend my mother's 80th birthday celebration, which took place 35 miles away from, 50 miles away from London at my then sister-in-law's house, the house of my brother, Kevin.
We have footage of Guillen in that weekend, on that weekend, there.
We have people who saw her there.
Now, you cannot be in two places at the same time.
That's my take on the picture.
You draw the conclusion.
Well, 30 miles is not that far to drive.
You draw the midst of a family gathering.
So you're saying the picture was fake?
I'm saying you can't be in two places at once.
So is the picture fake, do you think?
What do you think?
I don't understand.
Well, if the picture was fake.
If your picture was fake.
Ghilen has herself considered that she has no memory of that picture having been taken.
She has no memory of the event taking place and for what it's worth, nor did Prince Andrew, because he's on...
So why did he give Virginia Dufray $11 million to avoid a cold picture that he ought to have?
The real reason that he folded his tent was not that he didn't have a decent case or a decent crack at proving that Virginia Duffray was a serial liar, which we know is the case because Professor Dershowitz was accused also of having slept with her.
But unlike Andrew, he stuck to his guns and she had to pull.
But she did remember.
Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on.
You have to remember.
But Ian, Ian, on the question of whether Virginia Duffray lied about Ghillene, as you know, Virginia Duffray sued Ghillane for calling her a liar, and in the end, Ghilane paid a reported millions of dollars as a settlement.
Why would she have done that if Virginia Duffray was lying?
Let's just get back to finish your question on Andrew, because you've asked that question I haven't answered.
You have to remember the context in which he filled it.
It was his mother's 70th Jubilee year.
She's at the end of her life.
She's at the end of her reign.
She wants to finish, go out on a bank, and this could not happen.
I think he folded his tent either at her direct request or at the request of other members of the family that said, we can't have this.
It's too bad.
You just have to fold it, take the pain, and just move on, right?
Now, so that's as far as Andrew is concerned.
In the case of Guillen, it's a really different position, because the transcripts of the civil case between Duffray and Guillen found their way utterly inappropriately and, as we now know, illegally into her criminal trial, but the transcripts as affecting Jufre.
So what came into the trial was all of what Ghilen had to say and what Gillen did, but not what Jufre has admitted and what Jufre did.
So part of what we want to get released, and which we hope that president Trump will authorize, the DOJ will proceed and Pambondi will get on with, is to have all of those transcripts in the public domain.
But why did Ghilene pay her millions of dollars?
Listen, it reached a point where the matter was sealed.
There would be no more finish to the whole thing.
It was finished.
She had enough.
They came to an arrangement.
We don't know what that arrangement was actually, I don't know to this day.
It finished just finally.
There's a lot of speculation about whether Epstein was some kind of Israeli agent working for Mossad or some other entity, and there's also been a further suggestion that your father, Robert Maxwell, was also an Israeli agent, maybe also working for Mossad.
What can you say about that?
Well, just dealing with my father briefly uh, it's well known that he was uh, a major supporter of the state of Israel from its independence war 1948.
Unknown to me, but described in a book that came out a few years ago.
He was instrumental in ensuring that Israel had spitfires and replacement parts required to defend itself and to ensure that it won that particular war.
Later on, when he was a much more well-known man, he discovered the treachery of Nunu.
This was a man who had exposed Israel's nuclear secrets and ended up being quite helpful to Israel to get him and get him into jail.
So that's as far as my father's concerned.
I would dispute the idea that he was a member of Mossad or that he wasn't some kind of an agent of theirs.
I think he was definitely a strong supporter of the state of Israel, certainly was on the Arab boycott and was proud of it.
List Epstein, I have not a clue.
We know that the uh one of the former Israeli prime ministers Barak, I think, just last week, said that uh, it was not the case, quite the contrary.
Why would he take such a man on to to be an agent?
So that's been.
That's what Israel has to say about it.
As for Ghilen, I have not the slightest doubt that my father would not never have involved him in any such matters, not with the Mossad, not with the British secret service, nothing.
So I dispute all of them.
Your father fell off a boat his boat, as everybody knows.
How do you believe he died?
I have always uh accepted that it was an accident that he fell from that boat.
We know from uh some of the autopsy pictures released That there are really terrible tears and muscles on his back, which would be indicating that he's trying to hang on either to the stairs or to the stern of the boat.
So he was not a well man at the time of his death.
He was very, very overweight.
And so I think that's good for me.
And I just don't buy the murder, although Guillen does and has always thought that he was murdered.
Have you had any contact with Prince Andrew?
Have I?
Yeah, recently.
No, not recently.
I think I met him at a time when Guillen was with him or, you know, saw quite a bit of him.
And that would have been at least 15, 18, 20 years ago.
So, no.
Yeah, Maxwell.
Thank you very much for your time.
I appreciate it.
Joining me now is the host of the Benny Show, Benny Johnson, PBD podcast Angry Patriot, Benny O'Shana, Mick Mulvaney, the former chief of staff to President Trump.
Before I go to the panel, I'm going to speak briefly to Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, who's been waiting patiently.
Thank you all for your time.
It was a fascinating interview there with Ghillene Maxwell's brother.
So I just wanted to complete that first.
Let me just ask you, Lauren Boebert, first, your reaction to the fact that the House in Congress now wants to depose, it seems, Ghillene Maxwell.
Yes, well, my colleague Tim Burchett from Tennessee has language to bring her in before the oversight committee and have Ghillen Maxwell testify.
You just spoke in your previous segment about immunity.
There have been rumors on the Hill that she wants a pardon before she would do that.
That's not confirmed to me, but certainly rumors that have been spoken about.
And so I don't know if she would come before Congress with an immunity deal, with a pardon deal.
I don't think that this is somebody who should be pardoned, or maybe when we hear what we have to say, maybe she should.
But I don't see anything wrong with having the star witness actually say what's happening.
Now, President Trump, he has done so many things that unfortunately are being overshadowed by this.
We are all about truth and transparency.
And I do trust the president's timing that he will get this out.
We've had votes in the rules committee on such language.
There's a discharge petition that I'm a co-sponsor of.
Congressman Thomas Massey has drafted this language with a Democrat to get Democrat support.
Of course, they're all over this right now.
It's the first hint of corruption that they've ever wanted to expose.
I mean, I've been in Congress trying to expose Hunter Biden and the Biden crime family all of this time, even Joe Biden's cognitive decline.
And there was like nothing to see here, folks.
They looked like the penguins in Madagascar.
You didn't see anything.
And now all of a sudden, they're about truth and transparency.
But I do agree with Congressman Tim Burchett and even many parts of the discharge petition that I'm a co-sponsor of in getting truth out to the American people, mainly because I want President Trump to continue on his amazing successes and what he is doing for the country and not be distracted by this mess.
I've had communications with the White House.
I do trust that there is a timing for this.
And right now, we honestly should be talking about the treasonous activity that we have seen with Barack Obama as he was going out of his administration and what our Secretary Gabbert has uncovered.
That should be the main topic today.
But instead, we are focused on Epstein.
And I just want to say one more thing, Pierce.
For years, we wanted to talk about Epstein and no one would.
Everyone called us crazy.
They called us conspiracy theorists.
And now all of a sudden, this is the hottest issue.
And the Democrats who are saying that they have seen things that they, that they, the Republicans didn't try hard enough to get information out, where were they the past two years, the past four years, the past six years?
Where were they in actually getting information out to the public then?
So it's fine to have the conversation.
It's even better to get information out.
to the American people.
And your interview there was very, very fascinating.
He certainly has more information on this topic than I ever would.
So it was great to be here in the waiting room watching that interaction.
Well, I appreciate your patience.
I think in relation to the Epstein scandal and the Trump administration, it's simply that I had Alina Haber on this show several months ago in which she was absolutely ramping up to fever pitch what was likely to be in the Epstein files.
And then suddenly, bang, everything gets shut down in a very mysterious and sudden way on a Friday night.
Merit Of Procedural Claims 00:14:39
And it's exactly the kind of behavior that honestly, if this had been the Biden administration had done that, I think exactly the same Fiori would have been fired up by you guys.
So I do understand why the whole thing blew up the way it did.
But listen, Lauren Bubba, I appreciate you joining me.
Thank you for your patience.
I'm going to go to the rest of the panel.
Benny Johnson, it's very interesting.
I mean, I'd never met Ian Maxwell before.
Obviously, he is her brother.
You know, many people may watch it and think, well, he would say all that, wouldn't he?
And there may well be merit to some of the procedural arguments he's making about the way this all got played out.
But it does remain the case that it's completely baffling to me how the only person who's ever been made legally accountable for the actions of Jeffrey Epstein, one of the most predatory pedophiles, certainly high-profile paedophiles in modern American history, is a woman who's languishing in jail.
And no other men, apparently, were ever involved in any criminal activity with this guy.
What is your view about this?
First off, kudos to you, Piers.
I just, that interview was spectacular.
What?
What the hell is going on here, Piers?
So he's saying that the Prince Andrew photo is fake?
Are you, you're joking?
He's saying that there's a doctored photo.
This is the opinion of the Maxwell family that she never hung out with Prince Andrew.
And then two questions later, he says, when they were all hanging out together with Prince Andrew, exactly what the hell just happened?
That's crazy talk, man.
And then his admissions about his father and his workings with foreign intel agencies.
These are bombshell.
These are some bombshell admissions and some things that we, I really hope, get asked in the federal testimony that is going to be elicited from Jelaine Maxwell that I have sources inside of the DOJ and the FBI that says that meeting is on the books.
It's not something that they're dangling in front of us, Piers.
It's not some shiny object.
It's happening.
It's already on the schedule.
It's going to happen.
And so what's going to become of that?
I'd really love to see the answers to that question.
Jelene Maxwell is on the record saying she doesn't believe that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.
Well, why exactly?
What was the operation?
Did you literally sex traffic thousands of women to no one?
Who was your father?
Did you meet Prince Andrew?
Is this a doctored photo as you just elicited out of her brother?
These are wild bombshells.
Bang on, Piers.
That interview is something.
Well, also, I just think in the end, you know, Andrew paid Virginia Dufray $11 million, reportedly, to not go to court and clear his name as he vowed to.
And secondly, Gill A. Maxwell paid apparently several million dollars to Virginia Dufrey to avoid going to court and defending herself against her claims that Virginia Duffrey was a liar.
So, you know, look, I agree that in America, a lot of people settle without any admission of fault or blame or guilt.
However, however, when a load of people caught up in one of the biggest scandals of modern times are paying millions of dollars to people while simultaneously claiming they were victims and nothing happened.
And there's nothing to see here, Gov. I'm just not buying it.
Well, here's, I think, the most important part.
And if you speak with any federal prosecutor, as we've done multiple times on my show, you'll find something very strange here.
And it really aligns perfectly and locks in with the Diddy trial.
And there are major connections between the two.
But here's the most major glaring connection that any federal prosecutor will scream from high heavens until his voice cracks over, which is you can't charge a RICO case without any co-conspirators.
The way a RICO case and a kingpin case works, and Epstein's case was a kingpin case, was you start bringing in the lower level people and charging them.
Same thing with Diddy, with the RICO case.
You bring in the people who brought in the prostitutes or found the young women, who set up the freak offs, who set up Epstein's island.
You prosecute the pilots.
You prosecute the underlings.
And then you build yourself up to a RICO case.
In both cases, it was a wrap-up operation.
The prosecution, Piers, was the cover-up.
This was an opportunity for the federal government to seal something, not to expose something.
And that's what has bothered so many people.
They are intricately connected.
Okay, Vinny, do you accept that this has all been handled incredibly badly by the Trump administration?
Because I think that's inarguable now, right?
I mean, they walked everybody up, up the hill, and then right at the point that certainly I think a lot of MAGA voters were expecting to have full disclosure on all the Epstein files, Elon Musk suddenly goes public and says, bombshell.
Donald Trump's, you know, the biggest bombshell is that he's in the Epstein files.
Two, three weeks later, everything is shut down.
You know, you don't have to be a mad conspiracy theorist to say, well, what's going on here?
I did, and I've known Donald Trump 20 years and like him very much.
And I totally accept that he might be completely blameless when it comes to anything involving Epstein of a nefarious nature.
But the sequence of events here is not good.
Hey, I'm Caitlin Becker, the host of the New York Postcast, and I've got exactly what you need to start your weekdays.
Every morning, I'll bring you the stories that matter, plus the news people actually talk about.
The juicy details in the world's politics, business, pop culture, and everything in between.
It's what you want from the New York Post wrapped up in one snappy show.
Ask your smart speaker to play the NY Postcast podcast.
Listen and subscribe on Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Absolutely not, Piers.
And it's good to see you again.
And Jude.
But yeah, Piers, and here's the thing, Piers.
It's all the people, it's the team around him.
Okay, he didn't.
Trump did make a promise, Piers, when he was asked, you know, will you release JFK?
Yes.
Martin Luther King, yes.
9-11, yes.
Jeffrey Epstein, yeah.
But with that one, I kind of, you know, we kind of got to be careful.
Okay.
So it wasn't like he ran on it.
It wasn't a campaign promise.
But when your team, the Pambondis, the Kash Patels, and Dan Bongino, who I admire and I love a lot, are out there on the front lines making all these promises, Piers, Piers, you personally, if you had your team of producers and all these people around you, they're speaking on your behalf and they're making all these promises.
Wouldn't you be like, hey guys, shut the hell out?
Like, what the hell are we doing?
It's such a shameful video.
I think it's worse than that because we all know how Donald Trump operates.
They wouldn't have all been doing that off their own back, right?
They'd have all been doing it because they had been encouraged to do it.
They were speaking on behalf of his administration.
So something went down.
And I don't know what it was.
And maybe it was the Elon Musk thing.
I don't know what it was.
I mean, we've now got the Wall Street Journal, obviously, publishing what they claimed was a hand-drawn bawdy letter bearing Donald Trump's name to Jeffrey Epstein at Ghillane Maxwell's request for his 50th birthday album in 2003.
A pair of small arcs donate women's breasts.
A future president's signature is a squiggly Donald below her waist mimicking pubic hair.
Now, Trump has responded by saying it absolutely wasn't anything that he did.
He's now suing the Wall Street Journal.
He's suing Rupert Murdoch for billions of dollars.
And we'll have to see how that all plays out.
But it's certainly, it was no doubt that they were very good friends for a period of time.
It's also no doubt, but to his credit, Trump dropped him when he became acknowledged.
He was a convicted pedophile, which a lot of other people didn't, including, I don't believe, Ghilane Maxwell.
So I do think there's like life before the conviction and life after the conviction for public figures.
If you carried on like Prince Andrew, hanging around a guy who's been convicted of soliciting an underage girl for sex, then I think I'm afraid you are then guilty by association, right?
You can try and pretend you're not, but you are.
Piers, I have a quick question for you.
Yeah.
You know, you've known Donald Trump for 20 years, admittedly.
Yes.
Okay.
You've hung out with him in private.
You've hung out with him in public.
Yes.
Okay.
Have you ever known him to be a limp-wristed fespian, like a vaudevillian poet that would write enigmatic, mysterious poems to Jeffrey Epstein and then wear some type of French hat and draw beautiful outlines of women scantily clad?
Like, does it sound like Donald Trump to you?
All I can say, well, I can say two things about that.
I'll say three things about that.
One, he's never done that to me, okay, in either written or verbal form.
Secondly, evidence has come out that he's been quite a doodler in his time.
So I don't think he's never non-doodled.
And thirdly, as you probably know, Benny, I mean, I've got probably 150 handwritten scrolls from Trump over things he's read about me, emails I've sent him.
That's his way he corresponds.
He doesn't use email himself.
He'll send you back a printout of your email and he'll scroll with his Sharpie, whatever he wants to scroll.
So he's a scroller and apparently a doodler, but I have never known him right in the way that you're talking about.
So it's going to be a really interesting case here.
Listen, the Wall Street Journal wouldn't have published that if they weren't convinced it was genuine.
But Trump has written emphatic in his denial.
Well, no, listen, I don't know.
They don't even have the documents.
I don't remember.
Wouldn't that be fair to remember?
But he was writing everything at that time.
Benny, I don't know the answer to the questions you're asking.
And it'll be interesting if this actually goes to any actual trial about it.
And Piers, if you don't mind, Piers, and Benny, the biggest problem is that Truth Social post where Trump goes, hey, listen, if you're still talking about it, why are you talking about it?
Then I don't need your support.
And it's like, what are you talking about?
People like me who've been there since 2016 in Los Angeles, I had to move.
I was doing stand-up comedy and acting.
You know how much crap I had to get a go-through?
Punched in the head because I had a red hat, wasn't even a Trump hat.
All the jobs that I missed all my career suffered from it.
Pat were right or died.
And I think that's where people were pissed off.
Don't just discard us, okay?
And just tell us the absolute truth.
You know, we just want the truth.
Tell us about the fact that I think that's what's going on.
I hear you because I do think a lot of MAGA voters feel exactly the same way.
I think they were deliberately led up a pathway here on the Epstein files that A, it was a really big deal, and that B, there was a lot that the public weren't being told that was available to the authorities.
And that the moment the Trump gang got back into power, that this would all be revealed.
And then after Donald Trump won, the team carried on revving everybody up.
Let me come to you, Mick Mulvaney, if I may.
We're going to fix Vinny's earpiece.
I think.
Mick Mulvaney, as we're talking, the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, has just sent the House into recess early, shutting down until September to block a vote calling for the release of the Epstein files.
He says it's because the Democrats are playing political games.
All other votes have been canceled in order to prevent the vote on Epstein.
So the idea of this isn't having real world significant consequences is obviously for the birds.
When the House is shutting down and other votes have been canceled because they can't take a risk of a vote on Epstein, then it's a big deal.
And I think it's a big deal because of all the activity on the Trump side before and after the election about these files.
What's your view?
I think that's fair.
I've never seen this happen before.
I've been in Washington for 15 years.
I was in Congress for six.
I was in the White House for four.
I don't remember ever seeing Congress just shutting down this early in July and leaving until September.
Keep in mind, and I know that's not what this segment is about, but there's a lot of other things that Congress needs to be doing.
The federal government runs out of money the end of September.
So they're staring at a federal shutdown if they don't pull something off when they get back.
This is a big, big deal.
And I think it comes back to the point you guys have raised.
They don't know how to handle it.
Everybody's confused because Trump did make a big deal about this for a long time.
I thought rightly so.
And then just to sort of turn on a dime and say there's nothing to see here as a bunch of people scratching their heads.
One of the most interesting things I've learned in this interview is a bunch of fascinating stuff.
But you had Lauren Boebert on there.
I don't think you'll find anybody more pro-Trump than Lauren Boebert in the United States House representatives.
She has signed a discharge petition.
That means very little to folks out in the real world.
That's the most treasonous thing you can do against your leadership in the United States House.
So if there's enough Republicans willing to go against the Speaker of the House and say, you know what, we don't care.
We want this stuff to come out.
That's also just sort of thumbing their nose at the president.
Donald Trump, a couple of weeks ago, got asked, what does MAGA really mean?
And he said, and he's got the right to say this.
He says, MAGA means whatever I say it means.
This is putting this to the test.
I do think they've stepped here.
I think they've already sort of tacitly admitted that by saying they're going to now try to release the grand jury testimony, see if that satisfies everybody.
It won't.
But they do have a problem here.
And for the sake, look, to be perfectly clear, and I don't know if this has been, I think if anybody said this explicitly, I apologize for the repetition.
I don't expect there's anything criminal about Donald Trump in these files.
Is his name going to be in there?
Sure, there's a bunch of names in there, but there's nothing incriminating here.
Why do I believe that?
Because if there were, the Democrats who have controlled this file for the last four years would have either leaked it out or put it up.
You know what?
That's exactly what I think.
Why wouldn't they?
They're chucking everything else at him.
They were trying to get him jailed left, right, and warning.
Seriously, don't talk about it.
I'm going to finish clinic.
Yeah.
Piers, unless they're on the list.
Like, think about it.
You want to talk about Democrats?
Like, of course they wouldn't want this out.
Like, has anybody asked Bill Clinton why did Jeffrey Epstein visit the White House?
Yeah, but you see, Venny, that's also a good point.
That also raises the question that given they hadn't released anything, then that's why everybody wanted the Republicans to.
Let The FBI Release Everything 00:11:59
And then they didn't.
Benny, I wanted my thing, Benny.
Benny, my thing with Trump is you can normally tell when he's worried about something by the sheer volume of things he does to try and distract everybody's attention.
And several days ago, he posted more than two dozen times on his social media platform, Truth Social, in just a couple of hours, phony mugshots of Obama showing him apparently being arrested in the Oval Office, posting about the NFL's Washington commanders demanding they change their name back to the Redskins, posting a video of a bikini-clad woman picking up and tossing a snake, a man summer tooling down a stairway, a red Lamborghini careering beneath a truck,
a man jumping a fence to come face to face with a speeding train, a woman breakdancing, a billiards treat, a man hacking away at a rock formation, a dirt biker doing stunts, a jet ski, a man ascending an obstacle course with a ladder, a man jump roping, a man pulling a block from a still-standing massive Jenga tower, a man tossing rubbish into a dumpster from his balcony, a man doing a flip, somebody carrying a heavy object on their shoulders, a man juggling a drop package of paper towels, and someone doing a skateboard trick.
I mean, there's a lot of distraction there, Benny.
That sounds like a great social media feature.
It was actually very entertaining.
I'm going to follow.
Very entertaining, but normally something that he reserves for when he really is quite worried about something.
Well, yes, that's right.
It's the same account that's also posted, kill all terrorists, you dumb bastards, and posted constantly about Rosie O'Donnell.
And somebody who also said he has a bigger button than Kim Jong-un.
I think, Mick, you might have been at the White House, actually, when that post was, I have a big red button, and it actually works.
Once again, this is President Trump and the actions today.
I don't know if I know you weren't taking it live because we were doing the interview, but the actions that President Trump said today in the White House moments ago when he was asked about this, he fielded a number of questions on Epstein.
He said, let Pam Bondi release everything.
Let the FBI release everything.
Let them interview Jelaine Maxwell.
I'm confounded as to why Jelaine Maxwell has never once gotten an opportunity to explain herself.
Not in her trial.
She never spoke, not to the press.
One time that she did an interview from prison, she said, Jeffrey Epstein did not kill himself.
And I think they got to him.
Well, who's they exactly?
That's what shrouds the mystery here.
And the move by the DOJ, I think we need to take a moment, step back and say, wait a second, this is the first time that the DOJ has ever reached out to Jelaine Maxwell in the history of us trying to understand what the Epstein op actually is.
This goes back 20 years.
If you really want to get down to the true cover-up, this is what makes my blood boil: that people inside of the current Trump administration are walking around with a dark cloud over them for a cover-up that happened 20 years ago when President Trump was a TV host.
This was happening in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 with Robert Mueller at the FBI, with Alberto Gonzalez as our attorney general and George W. Bush as our president.
This is when Epstein actually properly caught his sweetheart deal so sweet it'd give you diabetes type 2 fears.
Yeah, no, no, no.
He was able to walk in and out of prison.
He was dead to rights.
Jeffrey Epstein should not be on the tip of anyone's tongue today.
He should be rotting in a prison cell for life.
Now, something dark happened then, 20 years ago, nearly.
And it had nothing to do with President Trump.
No one in President Trump's team was in power.
And I know clips from my show, Kash Patel, have gone viral.
Clips from your show, Alina Haba has gone viral, but none of these people were in power.
None of them should have to answer for the cover-up that happened 20 years ago.
And that should truly be the nexus of our questions.
What happened then?
When Jeffrey Epstein was caught underage trafficking over 50 women in 2025, what happened was he started giving up sources to the FBI.
Robert Mueller gave him immunity in 20 and 2005.
This is a correction.
2005, Robert Mueller was the head of the FBI.
You know who was also at the FBI as a deputy?
James Comey at that time, Piers.
And so then through the course of the prosecution in Florida, the federal charges are dropped.
Alex Acosta gets told he belongs to Intel and to not look into it.
Jeffrey Epstein gets the sweetest of sweetheart deals.
And Jelaine Maxwell is arguing that I have immunity because the federal government told me I have immunity forever, which is something, of course, the federal government never does.
So I'm looking at those questions.
Listen, I think you raised, listen, you make a lot of very good points.
I totally agree with you.
But on this point about House Speaker Mike Johnson shutting the house down to avoid a vote on Epstein, how does that do anything but just ramp everything up tenfold?
Totally agree with you.
You know, we went thermonuclear viral, made international news last week by asking Mike Johnson live on our stream inside of the United States Capitol about this issue.
And he said he's totally in favor of full disclosure.
But what he said today was that he wants.
And I agree.
I contend that there are countervailing opinions here.
But Mike Johnson told me in a two-minute, what I thought very thorough answer that he wants full disclosure here and that he'd be okay with Jelaine Maxwell testifying before Congress.
Now, what he said today was that he wants to give the White House time to maneuver this or to work on this.
I'm not sure his exact language.
So maybe Mick, who's been a member of Congress, can commentate on what that actually means.
But that's what he told us last week.
Well, I'll come to Mick in a moment.
Vinny, what do you feel about that?
I just think that's such a bad move to shut the house down and to block other votes happening simply so you can stop a vote on the Epstein scandal just seems to me a ridiculously inflammatory act, which is only going to pour fuel onto all the conspiracy flames.
I agree 100%.
It's like, Piers, how many more games do we have to play?
And at the end of the day, the root of all this, and I know Benny can attest, Benny has a family, you guys have kids.
These are the, we're talking about children, okay?
The most overlooked, uncared about freaking group of freaking people on the planet.
We had 300,000 during Obama missing at the border.
Trump, God bless him, they found with Thomas Woman, 10,000.
But at the crux of this whole thing, and Benny made a great point, 40, 50 women came out.
We were, you know, taken advantage of.
We were sexually assaulted by this guy.
And what?
He's free to go.
And it's the they.
Who's Alex Acosta saying?
They said he worked for intelligence.
Who are they?
Who are these people?
And Piers, there's a lot of debate where people are like, why would you want to do this?
Maybe society's built on all this blackmail.
If he works for Mossad and they have all this dirt, then the whole system's going to come down.
There's a Latin term, and it says, let justice be done, though the heavens fall.
I don't give a damn, Piers, what happens to the system?
We're talking about children that were sexually, that were raped, that were freaking potentially murdered, Piers.
If you think about it, these children, these underage 13, I know Epstein loved girls with braces.
Those are 10, 11-year-old girls.
What do you think happens with them when they sleep with one of these higher-up people, like a really famous person?
You think they just let them go?
No, they're discarded, Piers.
And that's the main part of the world.
When you wrangle this freaking team, you know what, Vinny?
We know what happens to some of them because we know what happened to Virginia Dufrey.
She may not have been an impeccable witness.
She obviously got things wrong with Alan Dershowitz.
But the truth is, she was paid millions by Prince Andrew and by Ghillane Maxwell not to go into a courtroom.
And in my experience, when people pay millions of dollars to people, it's not because they've never met them or don't think there's anything to answer.
Right?
So she recently, here's my point.
She recently took her own life, right?
So, you know, some of these victims are actually taking their lives because of the appalling trauma that they went through.
And so there are real-time consequences that are now reverberating for many years after all this stuff.
He was one of the worst pedophiles in America.
Let's be clear.
And Ghillane Maxwell was at his side for a lot of that time.
And I just don't buy the protestations of innocence.
Mick Mulvaney.
Vinny, sorry.
Go on.
Make your final point.
Jan Don Bet Piers, Piers, me neither.
And what was Prince Andrew?
Pays $11 million.
And what did the queen do?
What was his punishment?
Jail?
No.
He was stripped of royal speaking duties.
So if you're a pedophile and you're out there, your goal should be in a good family or be as rich and famous as possible because then you could get away with it.
All right, Piers, why did Chase, Chase Bank paid almost $400 million for what?
Deutsche Bank paid $71 million to the victims.
Where are all these people?
If Ghillen is in jail, Piers, where are the victims?
You can't be in charge of a kingpin drug operation and you get arrested and there's no customers.
What the hell are we talking about?
It's totally horribly.
I completely agree.
Mick Mulvaney, just finally, how damaging could all this be?
Things seem to be moving at a fast lick here.
And I do think this action by the Speaker is just going to absolutely ignite this.
Because let's be honest, again, if this was the Biden administration and a Democrat speaker of the House doing this to shut down a scandal because it may or may not name Biden in it, all hell would be breaking loose from the other side.
So I can only imagine how this is going to play out with the Democrats.
You must be thinking Christmas has come early, right when they've been at their weakest point.
But what do you think of the political damage that Trump potentially faces here?
Because I listened to someone like Vinny, who's always been unbelievably supportive of Donald Trump.
He's MAGA personified in so many ways.
And I can feel the sense of slight betrayal with Vinny and slight, like, I've been let down here.
And I don't blame him.
I would do too.
I mean, keep in mind, Donald Trump's not running again, but the other Republicans are.
I think what you've seen today with this suspension of Congress is a tacit admission that they just don't know how to handle this.
Lost in a lot of the discussion is the technicalities of the discharge petition would have been ripe tomorrow.
So it would have been a privileged motion and they could have passed as early tomorrow.
And I think the House leadership just didn't know how to deal with that.
So they try to sort of take the next six weeks and figure out how to explain it, figure they have a better chance of winning in the press than they do on Capitol Hill.
But they've got a tiger by the tail.
They really do.
One of the things that I think folks are really upset about is that Donald Trump has made a name for himself keeping his campaign promises.
He's done it on immigration.
He's done it on taxes.
This is the difference, right?
He promised to do this.
Now, I know Benny said he didn't exactly promise aggressively.
I don't remember that.
I just remember him talking about the Epstein files during the campaign.
And folks really are scratching their head.
I think at the end of the day, six months from now, when we look back at this, if it's done in six months, it will be, okay, did Donald Trump create the MAGA movement or did the MAGA movement create Donald Trump?
That's a fascinating test.
Did Trump really dictate what MAGA is or are they going to dictate it to him over the course of these Epstein files?
That's going to be fascinating to watch.
That's such a great question and such a great way to end.
Guys, thank you again for your patience.
But I think it was worth it to have that Ian Maxwell interview go a bit longer than we planned because it was so interesting.
But I really appreciate your patience in waiting and I really appreciate the debate we've had since then.
Thank you very much.
Piers Morgan Istan is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
You enjoy our show?
We ask for only one simple thing.
Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow PiersMorgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain.
And we'll do it all for free.
independent on censor media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it Without you.
Export Selection