Name: Epstein files rock UK as Clintons strike last-minute deal to testify
Uploaded: 2026-02-04T17:18:06.000Z
Duration: 8 min 42 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

The Epstein files fallout once again spreading across the Atlantic to the uk.

Britain's former Ambassador to the United States, Peter Mandelson, is resigning from the upper house of Parliament over his ties to the late sex offender.

Adverbs of degree

Even more stunning, one British royal is calling out another.

Prince Edward did not directly mention his older brother Andrew, who has been stripped of his royal title over his Epstein ties.

And at a summit today, I'm not sure this is the audience that is probably the least bit interested in that.

They all came here to listen to Education solving the future.

But no, I think it's really important always to remember the victims and who are the victims in all this.

Andrew is facing more scrutiny after the latest document drop revealed this photo of him on the floor with an unidentified woman or girl.

And the photographs at this point do not suggest any wrongdoing.

Andrew has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing but obviously a lot of questions raised here.

CNN royal correspondent Max Foster is with us now from London.

Max, give us the latest on the fallout where you are.

Well, we've got lots of reports about Sarah Ferguson, Prince Andrew's ex wife, but

they were living together for a very long time and she had lots of relationships with Epstein as well coming out through these files.

So for example, she's talking about not having 20,000 pounds for rent.

So a very deep relationship there, much bigger than we thought.

Here in the UK the focus is much more on the former UK ambassador to the us, Peter Mandelson, because that has really rollercoaster today initially we heard a statement from the speaker of the House.

He read out a statement effectively from Peter Manson who's a member of the House of Lords.

My Lords, given the public interest and for the convenience of the House, I have decided to inform the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments has today received notification from Lord Mandelson of his intention to retire from the house effective from the 4th of February.

I will formally notify this to the House tomorrow in the usual way.

So he leaves the House of Lords, he keeps his title of Lord.

But in an extraordinary move, the Prime Minister has introduced legislation tonight calling for his title to be stripped from him too.

This is because there were correspondence in the Epstein files between Epstein and Mandelson which suggests that Mandelson, as Business Secretary under Prime Minister Gordon Brown, was leaking internal government information, market sensitive information which Epstein could have used to make money effectively.

And the government launched an investigation very quickly found correspondence which they were alarmed about.

Gordon Brown sent correspondence to the police as well.

And tonight in the last half hour, we've heard the British police are now investigating Peter Mandelson, the first criminal investigation coming out of this latest drop of Epstein files.

Max Foster, thank you so much for the latest there.

Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have reached a deal to testify in the House investigation of Jeffrey Epstein.

The agreement means they will avoid a contempt of Congress vote.

Sources telling CNN the Clintons will be deposed on February 26th and 27th.

They want to answer the Oversight Committee's questions in a public hearing.

It's not clear if the Republican chair, Congressman James Comer, will accept that request.

President Clinton has never been accused of any wrongdoing with Epstein.

And his spokesman has said Clinton denies knowing of Epstein's crimes and cut off their relationship before they came to light.

Last night, the deputy attorney general once again signaled there will likely be no further criminal charges.

It is not a crime to party with Mr. Epstein.

And so as horrible as it is, it's not a crime to email with Mr. Epstein.

And some of these men may have done horrible things, and

if we have evidence that allows us to prosecute them, you better believe we will.

But it's also the kind of thing that the American people need to understand that it isn't a crime to party with Mr.

Let's bring in Sarah Fitzpatrick of the Atlantic, an investigative reporter who has covered Jeffrey Epstein extensively.

And just first, what is your reaction there to what we heard from Todd Blanche and what are survivors telling you about it?

I mean, I think it's really hard to square what Todd Blanche is saying there versus what he has spent money on for the Justice Department of taking hundreds and hundreds of attorneys to review these documents to work overtime.

Like, if there's no likely to be no charges, why was there such a huge commitment of resources, resources that have been pulled away from other violent crimes and other things that are in desperate need of law enforcement attention?

He says it's not a crime to party with Epstein.

But you've heard critics of what he's saying say it's very curious to party with Epstein or ask to go to his island or email with him after you know that he is a convicted pedophile.

And the DOJ should be more interested in.

So where does that leave things and why aren't they?

I think it's a very curious question that we have never gotten a good answer to.

This investigation, unfortunately, has been mishandled by multiple administrations, both Democratic and Republican, at the local level and at the federal level.

And so what I think it reflects is a, you know, the Trump DOJ kind of came in that we're going to release these files.

And now we're seeing that there have been no, as far as we can tell, no major law enforcement steps taken.

I was talking to sources who have said, no, the Clintons have never been questioned by law enforcement, which, of course, you need probable cause.

You need, you know, certain steps need to be met before you would bring someone in for questioning.

But it suggests a kind of lack of interest and a lack of following all of those leads.

Anyone who, especially because Epstein was charged and Maxwell were charged with trafficking, which means the moving of people for the purpose of sex, anyone who is at these parties, who had knowledge of their whereabouts, how communications were done, how the planning was, they have material information that would be important to investigators.

This was never really about getting answers, and

especially answers that might not reflect well on the Justice Department.

So what should lawmakers be interested in learning from the Clintons?

I think there's a lot to be learned about, you know, Epstein's behavior, his confidants, how he, you know, how he responded to allegations, questions about even how he made his money.

One of the things that has been so frustrating for me as an investigative reporter is we up until these files were released over the weekend, it was very unclear what Jeffrey Epstein did all day.

Now, I have a better sense, which is email a lot, but.

And cultivate this network very deliberately.

But I think there's lotsanyone who was in his orbit, who understood who was involved, who may have had knowledge.

It doesn't mean that they were aware of criminality, but

it means that they have insight that might bring investigators towards people that did.

And then on this issue of redactions, there is a hearing tomorrow, and

you have lawyers for victims saying, yeah, our victims sort of trusted DOJ to have all of these files put out, but

you put out these files with a ton of their personal information in it.

What's going to happen with the files and with what they're asking for, it's unclear.

So there'll be a hearing tomorrow in New York, and

a judge will hear arguments from lawyers for the victims, as well as representatives from the government.

I think it would be quite extraordinary to take down this volume of information once it has already been disseminated.

I think there's not a lot of great legal precedent for that.

However, it was a real, you know, there were so many months, there was so much time.

There were so many people who were involved in preparing for this release.

And the fact that it is done so haphazardly indicates either a lack of attention or a kind of perhaps some other motive.

And I think that's what a hearing a judge will have to evaluate.

Sarah Fitzpatrick, always great to get your insights on these new developments.