'He Knows a LOT' Boies Calls For Andrew's 'Safe Passage' To US | With Michael Tracey
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is facing a police investigation for leaking trade secrets to Jeffrey Epstein, being told by Britain’s top prosecutor, “nobody is above the law.” Scandal cost him his royal status - but a white collar crime may yet cost him his freedom. And now pressure is continuing to build on the former prince to testify in the US. David Boies represented the late Virginia Giuffre in her civil case against Andrew; who reportedly paid 16 million dollars to avoid facing him. He joins Piers Morgan to discuss what he thinks should happen next - plus Piers also speaks to journalist Michael Tracey, former CIA whistleblower, John Kiriakou, executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online and former State Department official, Mike Benz and broadcaster Tara Palmeri. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Oxford Natural: To watch their full stories, scan the QR code on your screen or visit https://oxfordnatural.com/piers/ to get 70% off your first order when you use code PIERS. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Redacting Names and Victims00:08:19
The Epstein mythology have simply never been supported by anything close to the degree of credible evidence.
People like Tara Palmieri and David Boyes are convincing untold millions that there was some enormous child rape atrocity so David Boyes can add to his extortion of the British royal family.
We've got a better person to respond, actually, because I'm now joined by David Boyes.
You can always find somebody to deny anything.
The idea that anybody can, with a straight face deny that this was a massive sex trafficking scheme is between absurd and pathetic.
You may seek to depose Meghan Markle as she may have important knowledge.
Do you still think she may have information that could be useful?
I think that's quite likely.
Mr. Dershowitz, like a lot of other people, serve themselves a lot better by coming clean.
Nobody is above the law, said the UK's top prosecutor about Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.
The former prince is facing a police investigation for leaking trade secrets to Jeffrey Epstein.
A sex scandal cost him his royal status.
A white-collar crime may yet cost him his freedom.
And pressure is continuing to build on the former prince to testify in the US in a country where many are frustrated about the lack of serious consequences for Epstein's pals, fueled by the idea that we still don't have the full story.
This is not going away for Andrew or for the royal family.
Well, David Boyce represented the late Virginia Dufray in her civil case against Andrew, who reportedly paid $16 million to avoid facing him.
He will join me very shortly.
We will begin with our expert panel.
Joining me now are the executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online and a former State Department official, Mike Bence, former CIA whistleblower and host of Deep Focus with John Kiriaku.
John Kiriaku, the journalist and academic Michael Tracy, and the host of the Tara Palmieri show, Tara Palmieri.
Well, welcome to all of you.
Tara, we've spoken a lot throughout this scandal.
I've noted today that the Trump administration is now saying that's it.
We've had all the files we're going to get, even though it's believed there are 3 million more that have not been put into the public domain.
And there's still no real accountability of the highest profile people named in these files.
Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, issued a lengthy number of names, some of which, obviously, from looking at it, are completely innocent of any criminal behavior.
But of all these high-profile names that have been named, there's only one person who is languishing in prison, and that's Ghillaine Maxwell.
This seems deeply unsatisfactory on so many levels.
Yeah, I'd have to agree with you on that, especially considering the FBI had presentations that they were putting together, which showed that they had credible tips about a variety of other men, and they never went through with those investigations.
And I think a lot of people just feel like that, you know, if you read these emails, if you look through the FBI's own investigations, that they could have gone further and they could have actually prosecuted some of these men who have been accused by women in civil cases of rape and through their meeting, through Jeffrey Epstein, through, I guess, like Leon Black, for example.
I mean, he denies the charges that are against him and the cases were dropped.
But there are other examples as well inside of the files.
And yeah, just nothing has happened.
It's just, it's been, I think, not just for the victims, but for everyone, a feeling that this is it.
I mean, Pam Bonnie just said on Sunday, case closed.
Yeah, which it clearly isn't.
And the problem with that is if you've said from the start of this, as the Republicans have, we're going to be completely transparent.
And then you're self-evidently not being completely transparent.
You can't hold back 3 million files and say that's all you're getting, right?
The conspiracy theories will continue to rage.
And I suspect there will be a series of leaks from the files that we haven't seen.
So the scandal just continues.
Whereas I've always felt that they just went, here you go, redacting victims' information that could lead to their identification, but just put everything out there in one hit and say, that's it.
That genuinely is it.
You can at least have the claim that you've been transparent.
Right.
And even from the fact that a number of members of Congress, like Thomas Massey, Roe Conna, they've gone into classified briefing rooms to see the files and what was redacted.
And what they found is that, in fact, they were redacting the name of men.
They weren't redacting the names of the victims.
And, you know, in a number of instances, these were just men that had some connections to President Trump, some didn't.
But there was no reason to redact the word less in front of Wexner, for example.
There was no reason to redact the name of a Marathi businessman in the email about the torture video that he enjoyed.
And so there's just a number of these examples, and we can only be left to wonder, well, what else?
Especially since we know there are 3 million more files that we're probably never going to see, and we don't know why.
Right.
Michael Tracy, you've been a relatively lone voice out there arguing a lot of the public debate about this, especially around hidden elite networks, intelligence links, and so on, is mythologized beyond the evidence that we've seen from courts, documents, official records, and so on.
This is not a popular view, but there are some who share it.
Why do you feel so convinced of your position on this?
Because the central tenets of what I've taken to calling the Epstein mythology have simply never been supported by anything close to the degree of credible evidence that would justify the United States, Great Britain,
and the world now being embroiled in this gigantic pedophilia crisis where people like Tara Palmieri and your next guest, David Boyes, are convincing untold millions that there was some enormous child rape atrocity that was perpetrated and covered up at the highest levels of government.
This is crazy-making stuff.
And in fact, it wouldn't be surprising if people who come to believe this stuff and might already have a disposition toward mental illness could enter into a kind of homicidal mania.
And so Tara Palmieri, I mean, I would agree with her in that there is a lot more to investigate on this subject, namely the journalistic malfeasance that's been so shockingly rampant, it's incredible.
Tara Palmieri journalistically collaborated with Virginia Roberts Guffray.
Didn't just use her as a source or as an inspiration, but essentially shared a byline effectively with her on the podcast series that she produced in 2020.
They went around the United States saying they were just innocently on this truth-seeking mission to find out all that Jeffrey Epstein did to all his innocent victims.
And they told the listeners, don't worry, none of this is about bringing any further lawsuits or criminal charges against anybody.
So all these men we're trying to track down, they have no reason not to speak to us.
Meanwhile, about a year or two later, Virginia Roberts Guffray, who, by the way, is one of the most egregious serial fabulous who's ever walked the earth.
I know that's really controversial, but all the claims that she had to retract the trail of destruction she left in her wake, empowered by people like David Boyes and Bradley Edwards, who, by the way, if you want to know what the impediment is to full disclosure of the Epstein files, just look at what David Boyce's colleague Bradley Edwards has been frantically arguing for the past several months in federal courts in the Southern District of New York about the supposed terror and nightmares that have been unleashed.
If we have the Epstein files released, on the one hand, they're all sloganeering about release the Epstein files.
Obligation to Come Forward00:17:22
On the other hand, they don't just want to redact the quote victims' names.
And by the way, what happened to saying alleged victim or purported victim?
Virtually none of these people have actually ever been adjudicated as victims.
The only criteria that's required by the DOJ to abide by what the frantic victim lawyers are demanding is mere self-identification of victimhood.
Does the media make any of this clear?
And does the media last point, Piers?
When Pam Body is being protested last week and everybody's going wild saying, oh, all these benighted Epstein victims are standing up and demanding truth and justice.
How come it's never pointed out that the vast majority of the people who are visible there, the victims, were adults at the time of their claimed victimization?
And yet this is supposed to be some massive pedophile crisis.
So David Boyes can add to his extortion of the British royal family and now extort JP Morgan for another couple hundred million dollars.
When he says, all right.
Today's show is sponsored by Oxford Natural, makers of the Optimum Day and Optimum Night all natural supplements.
Thousands of Brits and Americans are already taking them with incredible results.
Optimum Day boosts your energy and supports weight loss throughout the day.
Optimum night helps you relax and get deep, refreshing sleep.
They have countless success stories, including from some very familiar faces.
England legend Michael Owen, who lost £40.
AFTV's Robbie, who lost more than £100.
To watch their full stories and many more, scan the QR code on your screen or visit oxfordnatural.com slash peers.
And here's the best part.
Use the code peers and get 70% off your first order.
You're 70% off with the code PEERS.
In relation, okay, in relation, look, I'm going to go to Tara to respond to that.
It's only fair giving you the name check.
I don't even know.
So aggressively.
All I would say, and I'll come to the other two panelists in a moment, all I would say about a so-called extortion of the British royal family, the reality is that Andrew Mountain Batten Windsor, when he was still Prince Andrew, said he'd never met Virginia Dufray, certainly never had sex with her on the three occasions in different places he was accused to do so.
He said the picture of them was fabricated, etc, etc., etc.
He also, in a lengthy interview for the BBC, said he never had anything more to do with Epstein after seeing him in Central Park, after his conviction, and so on.
All of which turned out to be a load of baloney.
At the last minute, rather than have his day in court to clear his name, Andrew paid a check reported to be 12 million pounds to Virginia Dufray, a woman he claimed he'd never met.
The picture we now know from leaked emails by Ghillane Maxwell in the latest dump of Epstein files, where she said were genuine.
That picture was taken.
And so I'm afraid just on that point alone, I see little extortion and just a bunch of lies from Andrew Mountain Batten Windsor to cover his ass.
Listening to this, actually, we've got Virginia Dufray's.
Well, now hang on, Mike.
I gave you a chance to speak and I've responded.
We've got a better person to respond, actually, because I'm now joined by David Boyes.
David, great to have you back on our sensor.
It's been six months since I last spoke to you.
So much has happened since then.
In relation to what we've just heard from another panel member, which is that Virginia Duffray was one of the least reliable witnesses imaginable, what is your response to that?
Look, you can always find somebody to deny anything.
The evidence is just overwhelming.
The idea that anybody can, with a straight face, deny that this was a massive sex trafficking scheme is between absurd and pathetic.
We have the testimony of dozens, dozens, many dozens of young women, girls.
We have the reports of the police department in Palm Beach.
We have photographs, not just the one photograph, but multiple photographs are coming out.
We have the emails that set forth at least some of the efforts, including the efforts to bribe witnesses.
This is not a close call.
And the reason that nobody wants to go to court and that people settle is nothing to do with extortion.
It has to do with, no, they don't have a case.
If somebody has a case, they can stand up and defend themselves.
This is a situation in which all of the evidence is on one side.
I'm in a lot of cases that you know that are close cases.
One side has a point of view, another side has a point of view.
There's evidence on both sides.
And you have to make close calls.
This is not one of them.
David, in relation to Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, now saying that's it.
We've had all the Epstein files that is going to be put in the public domain.
Notwithstanding the fact we've been told there are 3 million more files, which will never see the light of day in terms of being put in front of the public.
What is your response to that?
Does that in any way constitute full transparency on these files?
Well, it's clearly not full transparency.
We haven't begun to have full transparency.
We have more transparency, thanks really to Congress.
We have more transparency than we've had before.
And I think you see in the documents that are now being revealed why people fought so hard.
Powerful people, rich people, politically connected people, powerful people in business, in politics, fought so hard to keep this evidence secret.
There's more evidence there.
We know there's more evidence there.
They're admitting there's more evidence there.
Some of the documents that they have produced refer to other documents that have not been produced.
So we know that there's more there.
And perhaps Congress, perhaps the courts, have got to step in and have got to say to the Department of Justice, do your job, be transparent.
Legislation, bipartisan legislation, was passed requiring the Justice Department to be transparent, to produce all these documents.
Abiding by the law is part of what makes this country great.
It's part of what has made the United States and before that, United States, the United Kingdom, really a beacon to the world.
You can't just ignore the law.
And I'm confident that this is not the end of it.
I'm confident that we will continue to get to the bottom of things.
You told me six months ago that you'd looked into the claims of criminal wrongdoing by both President Trump and by former President Bill Clinton.
You said you were quite confident neither of them had any involvement of the sex trafficking or any sexual activities.
First, is that still your position from everything you've now seen from the files that have been put out?
I've not seen anything that would cause me to change my mind on that.
I think that both former President Clinton and President Trump would say that they regret their association with Jeffrey Epstein and Elaine Maxwell.
I think that there were certainly aspects of poor judgment involved.
And I think it was a reflection of how tolerant we were of the abuse of young women and girls that very high-placed people would work with, socialize with somebody like Jeffrey Epstein.
But I don't see any evidence that either one of them participated in any of the sex trafficking or actually prior to the time that they stopped dealing with him, really were aware of the sex trafficking.
The other thing you said to me, that you felt there were between 10 and 20 men who you felt the government had enough information evidence on that would justify at least a serious prosecutorial investigation and that Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, the former Prince Andrew, was one of these men and was given a pass.
Is that still, again, your position?
Yes, I mean, I think I might amend it.
I probably should have amended it six months ago, but 20 men and women.
I don't think it's just limited to men, unfortunately.
So there were women also perpetrating crimes?
Yes.
And certainly engage in activity that is worth investigating.
I don't want to try to make a judgment without looking at all the evidence about whether anybody actually committed a crime.
But a lot of people acted very wrongfully, improperly, and there's enough evidence of criminality to warrant an investigation.
Should Andrew Mountain Batten Windsor now come to the United States and face the music under oath in front of Congress, in your opinion?
Absolutely.
I think he's got an obligation to tell what he knows.
Now, I also think that if he's afraid of being arrested in the United States, we ought to give him safe passage to come to the United States to testify.
Because I think we don't want there to be any excuse for him not coming and telling what he knows.
But he knows a lot.
How much I don't know myself because they gave up in the litigation we had against them just before his deposition was supposed to be taken.
So I don't think anybody knows how much he knows, but we know he knows a lot from his contact.
And whatever he knows, even it was a little bit, I think he has an obligation to share that.
Do you believe that Andrew Mountain Batten Windsor committed crimes?
I mean, obviously, you represented Virginia Duffray.
She made very serious allegations of criminal behavior by him against her.
Do you believe that he committed crimes?
I think that it certainly is something that justifies an investigation.
What he knew and when he knew it, what he knew about her age, what he knew about the extent to which he was coerced, she was coerced, I think needs to be decided by investigators, prosecutors, and ultimately by judge or jury.
He certainly engaged in terribly wrongful conduct.
He clearly knew that Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell were trafficking these girls.
Now, whether he knew that they were underage, whether he knew that there was force and coercion involved, that is something that is a state of mind that I think before I made a judgment on that, I'd want to see more evidence.
But it's certainly something that was worth investigating.
Whether statute limitations have now passed, I think, is a question.
But I have been, as you know, I have been very disappointed in the authorities in the United States and in the United Kingdom for not doing this investigation in a timely way.
There's been a lot of pressure on King Charles in the UK to take more action against his brother.
He has removed his titles, and Andrew has now moved from a very luxurious home to a much smaller but still pretty luxurious home that will be paid for by the king, including a staff and so on.
You know, what should King Charles do?
A lot of people are asking that question.
In your opinion, what should he do?
Yeah.
I think that's really hard.
Andrew has lost his title.
He's lost his home.
He's lost almost all of his friends.
He's lost the ability probably ever to make a living.
He is, after all, Charles' brother.
And I think it's a special situation when he's also the king and he's got responsibilities to the nation as well as to his family.
But I would not want to be in Charles' position.
You said in 2021 that you may seek to depose Meghan Markle, Prince Harry's wife, as part of Virginia's civil suit against Andrew, as she may have important knowledge about the then prince's behavior.
Is that something, do you still think she may have information that could be useful?
Well, I think that's quite likely.
Now, whether she has any information that we don't already know, I think is more doubtful.
We know so much more now than we did when we started the lawsuit against then Prince Andrew.
So whether she has anything to add today, I'd be less certain.
But she certainly was in a position to know a lot about Prince Andrew.
We've also seen the downfall of Lord Mandelson, who was the UK ambassador to the United States.
He lost his job.
Now being investigated by the British police, not least because he appeared to be trading highly classified information about what the UK government was doing when he was a business minister.
So he's in very hot water then.
But again, he has so far resisted going to the United States to testify in front of Congress.
Do you feel the same way towards him as you would towards Andrew, given Mandelson's clearly lied about the nature of his relationship with Epstein and was clearly around him, including on the island and everything, for a sustained long period of years?
I believe that everyone who has information ought to share that information.
You still have, as you saw earlier on your program, people who are denying the existence of the facts that are in front of all of us.
And I think, particularly in that context, it's important that everybody who has information come forward and provide that information honestly.
As I say, I think that I would feel the same way about Lord Mendelssohn as I do about Andrew.
That if they're prepared to come to the United States and testify under oath, they ought to be free to do that without worrying about that we're going, the United States is going to seize them at the border.
But I do think they've got an obligation to come forward.
And perhaps they could even testify if they didn't want to come to the United States.
Perhaps they could even testify in the United Kingdom.
I believe Congress would send representatives over to the United Kingdom to take their testimony.
But one way or another, I think there is no excuse, none, for them not providing the evidence that they have, not providing the information that they have about the sex trafficking.
No, I completely agree.
Responsibility for Press Claims00:03:01
I had Alan Dershowitz on the show a couple of days ago, and he went to great pains.
He was obviously Epstein's attorney for a long period of time.
He went to great pains to try and defend Epstein's original conviction as not being a confession of being a paedophile.
He said that in the end, Epstein only pled guilty to soliciting prostitution from a girl of 17 years and 10 months and a 21-year-old young woman and said that's not a paedophile.
What is your reaction to that?
And is he telling the whole story there?
I don't know why Alan Dershowitz continues to try to defend what is just indefensible.
He ought to take responsibility for his actions.
He ought to take responsibility for what he told the British press back at the time when he was representing Epstein.
I really, I've had my own issues with him, and I really don't want to go after him more than I already have.
But I don't think it's reasonable to say that he only acted as a lawyer.
He acted as a publicist, dealing with the press, telling the press incorrectly that Epstein had passed a lie detector test, which he didn't.
And I think that everybody who was involved with Epstein needs to step up and take responsibility for their role.
And I think the more that they deny, I think the worse it is.
However, they thought at the time, they now know what the facts are.
And whatever justifications they thought they have, they know those justifications are false.
I think everybody ought to take responsibility for what they did and for their support, assistance of what was going on.
So I think Mr. Dershowitz, like a lot of other people, would serve themselves a lot better by coming clean.
Mossad Access and Immunity00:09:13
And finally, David Boyce, Ghillane Maxwell refused to give any answers to questions before the House committee last week, but said she may testify in exchange for clemency from President Trump.
What's your response to that?
There is no basis, none, for clemency.
To give clemency or a pardon to a person who played the role that she did in the victimization of dozens, hundreds of young girls and young women would be a travesty.
I think that the chances that President Trump's going to do that are small.
But I think if that were to happen, it would be an outrage.
She has no position or right to try to bargain for her evidence.
The people of the United States, the people of the United Kingdom, the people of the world, have a right to know her evidence.
And although she has a right against self-incrimination, she can be granted immunity for her testimony.
That is, she can be granted immunity for the testimony in the sense that the testimony cannot be used against her.
But she's already in jail.
Nobody needs to use that testimony to convict her.
And if she fails to give that testimony after being granted immunity, she can be held in contempt.
And she can be held in contempt and in prison for just as long as necessary.
And the special treatment that the administration has given her, taking her out of the ordinary prison, putting her in a much more comfortable prison is an act of grace.
It's an act that I think itself was a terrible mistake.
But there's no reason, none, to try to coddle her and bargain with her for her testimony.
I just took a quick look at the prediction markets.
Polymarket currently say there's just a 17% chance that anyone will be jailed over Epstein disclosures.
Would you agree with that?
Oh, I hope not.
I think that is illustrative of the cynicism that people have about our justice system and the prosecutors.
I think that's a reflection of the cynicism that people have about our Justice Department today.
The cynicism that more than four out of five people think that our Justice Department is going to give a pass. to people because they're rich and powerful.
I think that's a tragedy.
Yeah, it is.
David Boyce, thank you so much.
It's great to have you back on our sense.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
It's good to talk to you.
Well, let's go back to the panel there.
We bring in John Kiriaku.
I mean, David Boyce is always extraordinarily impressive.
He's one of the great criminal lawyers in modern American history with an extraordinary track record.
What did you make of what he was saying there?
Oh, I agreed with everything he said.
You know, it's like we never learn from history, Piers.
We didn't learn from Watergate or from Iran-Contra that the cover-up of the crime is almost always worse than the crime.
It's always better just to be honest because the truth will out eventually anyway.
So just be honest.
If there are 3 million more documents, by God, release the 3 million more documents.
Let's let justice run its course.
And I want to agree with another thing he said.
I thought that Ghillaine Maxwell was already given her gift when she was transferred from a low security prison to a minimum security prison.
There's an internal Bureau of Prisons policy that prohibits people convicted of child sex crimes from serving their time in a minimum security prison because minimum security prisons have no bars on the windows, no locks on the doors.
You're free to come and go as you please.
You're just on your honor not to abscond.
They can't be sent to maximum or medium security prisons because they'll be killed there in many cases.
So they have to go to low security prisons, which are secure, but not minimum.
She's in a minimum, and she's the only child sex criminal in a minimum security prison.
It's just wrong.
It is completely outrageous.
And on the other point that I discussed the other day, and Alan Dershowitz vehemently denied this, but there's growing evidence from these leak documents that Epstein was working with Israel in some capacity.
Do you believe he was a full-fledged Mossad agent?
I've said from the very beginning, including right here on the show, that I've always believed he was a Mossad access agent.
Maybe not polygraphed, formally recruited, but he was working on behalf of Mossad, I believe, to get them access to important people and closely held information that they otherwise would not have had access to.
But now we also know from the latest tranche of documents that he had actively sought contact with the CIA and the FBI and that he had sought contact with MI5 and MI6 and possibly even the Germans.
So he was out there as what we would call in the intelligence community an intelligence broker, somebody who has a little bit of information or access to information and is looking to see who is willing to pay what for it.
Mike Benz, thank you for your patience in waiting so long to talk.
You're a former U.S. State Department official.
You served in the first Trump administration.
You've become more critical of the government since then.
First of all, your reaction to David Boyce and that interview we just did.
Well, I think it's generally right.
There's the question of I'm more concerned about, as John pointed out, the cover-up.
I think it's been sure what the point of trying to contest the sort of evil nature of what was done.
That to me matters much less than the protection of it by institutions in our government, whether they be the Justice Department, the FBI, intelligence services, or oligarchs on the outside who want to hide their own relations.
That to me is really what the heart of the scandal has moved to in the seven years after his death in the absence of questions.
What I would add is that Congress can actually take an additional step.
I'm reminded of the George Bush 2003 speech, mission accomplished after we invaded Iraq.
This is kind of what this feels like to say we've turned over everything, mission accomplished.
By the way, there's 3 million more files.
We have zero information from the Central Intelligence Agency or the State Department.
The State Department actually leased Jeffrey Epstein a five-story mansion that he stayed in for free for extended periods after it seized it from the government of Iran.
While Jeffrey Epstein's own personal history in the CIA and foreign intelligence adjacent spaces date back to the 1970s and the kind of Iran-Middle Eastern and Latin American operations there, it seems very obvious at this point that there are entire troves both within DOJ and CIA and state that need to be turned over.
What can be done right now, I think, to move the ball forward in both what David was saying and what folks like John mentioned here is in 1992, after the outpouring of anger that happened after Oliver Stone's JFK movie, there was a bill passed by Congress.
It was called the John F. Kennedy Records Collection Act that forced the CIA to turn over or to set up an independent auditing board to begin the process of reviewing and declassifying documents.
You can do the same mechanism here.
If the Justice Department is saying there's 3 million we're not turning over, pass another bill.
Demanding a Full Hearing00:09:26
Who's going to be on the other side of it?
This one passed 427 to 1 in the House and 99 to 0 in the Senate.
Pass a bill and force them to be reviewed by an independent auditing board.
And don't just make it DOJ FBI.
Extend it to the intelligence services the same way that both chambers of Congress passed in 1992 around JFK.
Fascinating.
Michael Tracy, was there anything David Boyce said giving you pause for thought?
I have to say, Piers, I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't ask him a single challenging question.
I invite you to ask me any challenging question you'd like.
And you'd think that given David Boy's stature and him being hailed as this legendary criminal attorney, that maybe he could tolerate one or two probing questions that might be outstanding, such as amongst these files that have been produced as of January 30th are a memo that memorializes internal deliberations amongst prosecutors in the Southern District of New York,
in which they frankly convey that they are stunned as to how outlandishly non-credible Virginia Roberts Guffray was when they interviewed her in September 2019.
This memo is December 2019.
David Boyce represented Virginia, including as to the lawsuit that was brought against Prince Andrew.
And yes, it was an extortionist lawsuit, but the British royal family is incredibly feckless.
They are not going to challenge any of the premises that are being marshaled against him to foment this mass hysteria and moral panic.
And therefore, everybody takes the resolution of that lawsuit to mean that there was some concession to Prince Andrew's guilt.
Even if we want to stipulate that he did have some sort of sexual contact with Virginia Roberts Guffray when it was alleged to have taken place, she would have been above the legal age of consent in England.
And yet we're told this is a giant pedophilic sex trafficking crisis.
But you know what the files show us?
That the government investigators who were on a war path at this point against Epstein and then Maxwell discovered no credible evidence of any pedophilic sex trafficking or any sex trafficking at all to any third party individuals, which was the crux of the mythology that Virginia Roberts Guffray incubated, that Tara Palmieri amplified so lamentably, credulously,
and that David Boyes actualized in the legal filings that he carried out on her behalf.
This is outrageous.
This is a fraud that's been perpetrated on the public by a conspiracy.
You know what the conspiracy is?
The conspiracy is this unthinking, brainless hysteria combined with journalistic credulity, combined with an unwillingness to do any actual research as to the facts and evidence and to treat David Boyce like you just did.
Now, why didn't you ask him about the 30% in attorney's fees that he convinced Judge Rakoff in the Southern District of New York to reward him for his almost $350 plus million dollar lawsuits against Deutsche Bank and J.P. Morgan that he's now trying to extract even more from Bank of America, which is why the disclosure of the money.
Do you know what?
I'm hearing it.
Can I ask a question?
I'm hearing a lot of conspiracy theories, but they're all coming out of your mouth.
Let me give the final word to Tara because he keeps it.
What a conspiracy theory that I postulate.
When he's not lecturing, when he's not lecturing me about my interview skills, he's lecturing you about your journalistic skills.
So your response to that and to what David Boyes has to say.
Please, please, Tara, go ahead, defend it.
I don't know, Michael.
Have you ever actually listened to any of the tapes that the Palm Beach, you know, the police in Palm Beach, the detective?
Have you listened to any of the girls that they interviewed that were as young as you can?
I've listened to them all.
Yeah, and you think that they're not.
I've listened to it all, Tara.
You don't think that entire pyramid scheme and in a high school?
Do you think Virginia Roberts Guffray is credible?
She had nothing to do with that initial Palm Beach investigation.
We're talking about your former journalistic collaborator who had to recant allegations against Dershowitz, had to recant her allegations against Harvard Professor Speaker.
Let her speak.
John Luke Brunel.
So you defend the credit.
Let her speak.
Do you work?
Who do you work for, Michael?
Because I've never met anyone in my entire life who would so, yeah, like who's paying you?
Who do you work for?
I think a lot of people are wondering this because I've never seen anyone quite like you going after victims of sex crimes and attacking them like this.
So you must be being paid by someone in power who does not like these accusations that have been made against them.
And I think it's fair to ask, are you being paid by any of the men who've been accused by Jeffrey Epstein?
I'm having trouble hearing right now.
I wish I could respond to whatever nonsense she just blurted out.
I'm asking you if you have ever been paid, Maybe somebody can come back to the corner.
Astonishing an astonishing, an astonishing coincidence that you suddenly lost your hearing when you were asked a very difficult question.
Actually, rather telling, I may say.
I heard it.
Okay.
I'm not saying you didn't get killed.
I'm just saying.
If he can hear you, can you ask him that question?
Because he can't hear me, but maybe he can hear you asking that question.
Yeah.
I think it's a very important thing.
Michael, can you hear me?
Did you hear me very faintly?
Did you just allege that I'm somehow implicated in the Epstein criminality or did I mishear you?
I asked if you were.
Tara asked if you're being paid by anybody to smear the victims of the Epstein.
Rather than defend the merits of her journalistic output, which she can't because it's indefensible, what does she do?
She tries to impugn me personally, tries to imply or paid by my readers on Substack, you idiot.
You just can't engage on the merits, Tara.
You are a disgrace.
You're having a lot of people.
How are you going to do that?
You're going to remember as somebody who is integral in fomenting this moral panic and mass hysteria that's led to mass defamation like you just tried against me.
You know how Rokana and Thomas Massey got caught a few days ago accusing a random auto mechanic in New York and a random IT manager of having been complicit in pedophilic sex crimes?
You're just following on in that tradition, which is so emblematic of how this issue has functioned in popular models.
I'm going to give you weaponized politics.
Tara, let me just, of course, Piers.
I resent the implication.
I resent the question.
I asked her straightforward questions about her own journalistic.
Okay, I'm going to Tara now.
Single aspect of it.
You don't just get to talk to a whole little defamation song and dance because she can't actually engage in an intelligent way because there's no defense.
Tara, let me nor for David Boyse.
Tara, I can talk about my reporting on the broken Jeffrey.
Tara, let me ask you.
Tara, you don't need to justify your reporting.
It's been excellent on the whole scandal.
Why not?
Tara, let me just ask you.
I'll just say that.
Let me ask Tara, Tara, what was your response to David Boyce's interview finally?
You know, I think David Boyes has done a lot of incredible work.
And I know that to go after, you know, the crown was a really big deal, especially for his firm.
They're obviously one of the biggest firms in the world.
And so to target, you know, the monarchy is a really big deal when you have offices in London and that can affect, as anyone would know as a lawyer.
So, and I think it's great that his partner, I'm blanking on her name right now.
She's really earned the trust of the victims.
And they're really hard cases to pursue.
I mean, when you go after the most powerful people in the world, you can't represent them either.
And when you have a top, when you have a white shoe law firm, it's like, how are you supposed to do?
How are you supposed to do that?
So I think it's incredible.
I think it's very commendable.
Excuse me.
And I, you know, there's still so much more to do, though.
There's still so many more places to go.
And unfortunately, I just don't see it coming from the Southern District of New York.
Like in particular with Leon Black, I mean, the man who was picked to replace Leon Black by Leon Black himself, like he picked his own successor.
And that man is Jay Clayton.
And now Jay Clayton is running the Southern District of New York.
He is the lead prosecutor.
And is he really going to do an investigation into the guy who picked him to succeed him at Apollo Management when he had to step down, when Leon Black had to step down because of Epstein, an Epstein investigation, found that he paid Epstein $150 million to do a state planning?
It's just everything is so incestuous.
And how are we supposed to trust that power will police itself?
We can't.
And that's where journalists, you know what?
That's where journalists like you come in, and where lawyers like David Boyce come in.
I've got to leave it there.
Thank you all very much indeed.
Independent Journalism Matters00:01:01
Thank you.
Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
To enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing: hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan 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, uncensored media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.
Hello.
Welcome to Spielatro.
Meet now at Jasper Steenbach, a D here at Podcast Volksbill and Tada.