Second Bombshell Arrest in Epstein Files Scandal

Breaking news, there is more fallout. from the release of millions of files. related to convicted sex offender and. suspected sex trafficker Jeffrey. Epstein. Another bombshell arrest and. once again, it is happening across the. pond. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by. Law & Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Okay, real quick, if you're into content. creation, if you're putting things out. on social media, have you ever wondered. how we're able to put so many of our. clips out there so quickly on all these. trending cases? Well, we use something. called the Opus Clip, okay? This is an.

all-in-one AI editor that makes it so. easy to cut, create, and upload videos. across any platform. Through AI, Opus. Clip generates B-roll, it reframes. footage, and it even cleans up audio. It. is so easy. Just visit opus.pro/sidebar. You sign up, you upload, and in minutes. you have perfectly edited clips ready to. go for TikTok, Shorts, Reels. Opus Clip. is your one-stop shop. And having a tool. like Opus Clip means that our producers. can get you viral courtroom updates. instantly. This is the most powerful. tool there is to share ideas and edit.

like a pro. So, go to opus.pro/sidebar. to get a free week and then 50% off. Well, I will tell you, the fallout from. the Epstein scandal is just continuing. and continuing and continuing. I mean, we did a whole episode on all of the. resignations and the investigations. Hey, I mean we just covered a major. arrest of a member of the British royal. family, and we'll talk about that in a. second, but what just happened? This is. major. Lord Peter Mandelson, former UK. ambassador to the United States, is now.

under arrest. British police announced. Monday that a 72-year-old man was. arrested on suspicion of misconduct in. public office. Now, this is a little bit. different than what we do here in the. United States. So, first sometimes you. have an arrest and then charges. We. don't see official charges as of yet. And also, I will tell you what's. different is the UK police, they. typically don't name the subjects of. investigations, but the subject of this. particular case has been previously. identified as Mandelson. And the way. they describe it, I think you could put.

two and two together. However, I will. tell you, despite the fact that the allegations. against him are indeed or seemingly. connected to Jeffrey Epstein, he has not. been accused of committing any sort of. sexual crimes or sex trafficking as far. as we know, okay? The accusations, as far as we can tell, mirror those. actually against former Prince Andrew. You see, Mandelson is accused of passing. secret government information along to.

Jeffrey Epstein more than a decade ago. According to a statement from the. Metropolitan Police, Mandelson was taken. to a police station for an interview. There are search warrants that were. served at two addresses in connection. with this case. So, I said that, you. know, he's accused of passing sensitive. information to Epstein when he was. serving as business secretary from 2008. to 2010. There are also allegations, by. the way, of financial transfers that. we'll talk about. Although, to be clear, we cannot confirm that this is in fact. the basis of the arrest at this point.

And to be clear, there's no charges that. have been filed yet. But, this isn't the. first time that Mandelson has been in. the hot seat. Not the first time that. we've covered him here on Sidebar. He. was fired from his diplomatic post by. his boss, Prime Minister Keir Starmer, back in September. That is when the US. House Oversight Committee released. images of a 50th birthday album that was. put together back in 2003 for Jeffrey. Epstein's birthday, reportedly by his. on-again, off-again girlfriend. associate, now convicted sex trafficker. Ghislaine Maxwell.

And in his part of the birthday book, Mandelson apparently included several. photos of himself and Epstein, as well. as a note that said, Jeffrey was his, quote, best pal. Allegedly signed it, "Happy birthday, Jeffrey. We love you.". I mean, that's backed up by this email. from seemingly Mandelson to Epstein. Nat. mentioned you at lunch, and she erased. my comment that you are one of my best. friends. Now, I'm sure while those. emails are important, I'm not really. sure that's why he's getting arrested.

Yeah, there's been questionable things. and I'll get into it about the exchanges. between him and Epstein. Like for. example, Mandelson had even seemingly or. allegedly suggested at one point that. Epstein's conviction for solicitation of. a minor back in 2008 was. wrongful and that it should be. challenged. Now, of course, Mandelson. underwent an extensive vetting process. before he was selected to be the. ambassador to the United States, but. it's been reported that his prior ties. to Epstein had been known, but.

apparently significantly downplayed. This is according to reporting like. outlets like AP News. Now, like others. who had been connected to Epstein or. affiliated with Epstein, Mandelson said. he regretted any interactions that he. might have had with Epstein 20 years. ago, swore he knew nothing about his uh. criminal activities or his alleged. criminal activities. But as more and more documentation was. released by the Department of Justice, Mandelson's connection to the convicted. sex offender.

was called into the question. I'm going. to give you an idea. I want to read you. some communication. So, you have this. exchange from 2009 and it allegedly. surrounds Epstein's release from prison. and this is after he served 13. of his 18-month sentence. And again, it's those Florida state charges, solicitation of prostitution, solicitation of prostitution with a. minor under 18. It's part of that guilty. plea. Here's how that went. From Jeffrey. Epstein seemingly to Mandelson, "Free and home.". Mandelson appears to write back, "How.

should we celebrate?" Epstein writes. back, "With Grace and Modesty." Those. are the names of two strippers. Mandelson allegedly writes back at one. point, "How is freedom feeling?" Epstein. writes back, "She feels fresh, firm, and. creamy.". And then Mandelson appears to write back. to Jeffrey Epstein, "Naughty boy.". But again, I don't really think that. this is why he's reportedly getting. arrested. You see, the Metropolitan. Police, they launched this investigation. into Mandelson for allegedly providing.

Epstein with information, market-sensitive information, government. information, when he was acting as. business secretary in the British. government. For example, you have this. email from June 2009 where Mandelson. appears to write to Epstein, "Interesting note that's gone to the. PM." Meaning Prime Minister. So, it. appears to be this note that was sent to. the Prime Minister about business issues. and a plan of action, including the sale. of assets. And this is to which Epstein. appears to write back, "What sellable. assets?".

How about this one? Where Mandelson. allegedly gave Epstein a heads-up that a. 500 billion euro bailout had been agreed. to tackle the Eurozone crisis. So, you. got this email from Jeffrey Epstein, again, to Peter Mandelson, "Sources tell. me 500 B euro bailout almost complete.". And Mandelson appears to write back to. Epstein, "SD be announced tonight.". How about this one? Email exchange in. 2009 about Epstein seemingly asking. Mandelson to petition the government to. amend the upcoming bank bonus tax.

Epstein writes, "Any real chance of. making the tax only on the cash portion. of the bankers bonus?" And from, again, who appears to be Peter Mandelson to. Epstein, "Trying hard to amend as I. explained to redacted last night, Treasury digging in, but I am on the. case." Last year, Mandelson Mandelson. said to the Financial Times, "I regret. ever meeting him or being introduced to. him by his partner Ghislaine Maxwell. I. regret even more the hurt he caused to. many young women.". Now, according to the outlet The.

Standard, Mandelson stepped down from. the House of Lords after the most recent. release of Epstein documents, but. parliamentary procedure lets him keep. his title, at least for now. Now, according to Time, I have to mention. this too as we talk about what the. investigation could be about, the. Epstein files also apparently show these. financial transfers from Epstein to. Mandelson affiliated accounts as well. So, we'll see if anything comes from. that. But, remember, this is all. happening in the wake of what I. mentioned before, another major arrest.

in the UK, the arrest of formerly Prince. Andrew. Now, to give you a context about. that, here's our former Cyber episode, our previous Cyber our episode on all of. that. Take a look. If you've been. watching the news today, you have heard. that the Thames Valley Police arrested. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly. known as Prince Andrew, the Duke of. York, on suspicion of misconduct in. public office. This carries potentially. life in prison. It happened reportedly. just after 8:00 a.m. local time. Six. unmarked police vehicles show up at.

Andrew's place. Oh, and he was taken. into custody on his 66th birthday. Now, he remains in custody at the time of. this recording. This point it doesn't. appear he's officially been indicted, so. just arrested on suspicion of this. charge. But, I will tell you, if the. charges follow, okay, this would mark, it's already been marked, a historic. moment. You have a senior member of the. British royal family arrested in. connection with actions tied to official. government duties. Now, the Thames. Valley Police issued a statement early. on that read, "As part of the.

investigation, we have today arrested a. man in his 60s from Norfolk on suspicion. of misconduct in public office and are. carrying out searches at addresses in. Berkshire and Norfolk. The man remains. in police custody at this time." Now, that's standard for authorities over. there to not identify the person that. they arrested. But, King Charles III, so. we're talking about Andrew's brother, later released a statement, okay? And. this is what it said, "I have learned. with the deepest concern the news about. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and suspicion. of misconduct in public office. What now.

follows is the full, fair, and proper. process by which this issue is. investigated in the appropriate manner. and by the appropriate authorities. In. this, as I have said before, they have. our full and wholehearted support and. cooperation. Let me state clearly, the. law must take its course. As this. process continues, it would not be right. for me to comment further on this. matter. My family and I will continue in. our duty and service to you all. So, basically, in my view, that's the king. saying, "Andrew, you're on your own. We.

cannot even have the appearance of being. involved in this. We cannot have even. the appearance that we're affecting this. investigation or tainting this. investigation or getting involved in. this investigation." And I would say. this is not surprising considering what. Andrew's already been stripped of his. royal titles. He was already ostracized. by the family by all accounts. And I. want to back up on that for a second. because if you're just hearing this now, you might be probably thinking, "Wait a. second. Wait a second. Andrew was. arrested. Is this about Jeffrey Epstein? Is this about allegations of sex.

crimes?". No. This is about Epstein. There is an. arrest, but it's not in the way that you. think, okay? So, it starts off, just to. give you some background. Jeffrey. Epstein, in the late 1990s, early 2000s, Epstein, as we know, cultivated. relationships with politicians, billionaires, celebrities, and royalty. One of those relationships was with. Andrew, formerly Prince Andrew, the. second son of Queen Elizabeth II. They were photographed together. Andrew. stayed at Epstein's homes, apparently. They moved in overlapping circles. through Epstein's then girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, or associate,

Ghislaine Maxwell. And for years, it was. framed as very controversial and as bad. judgment. Embarrassing, maybe not. criminal. Then in 2015, Virginia Giuffre. filed a civil lawsuit alleging that. Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. trafficked her and that she was forced. to have sex with Andrew, including when. she was just 17 years old. Now, Andrew. denied the allegations, denied meeting. her, questioned the authenticity of a. photo showing them or seemingly showing. them together. In 2019, he attempted to.

repair the PR damage with that now. infamous BBC Newsnight interview. You. know, the pizza alibi, the claim that he. couldn't sweat. It collapsed almost. immediately. And within days, Queen. Elizabeth removed him from public. duties. In 2022, he settled Giuffre's. civil lawsuit for an undisclosed amount, admitted no liability. And after that, it seemed like the story might be over. Andrew kind of retreated from public. life. But here's the thing, the Epstein. story didn't die. Andrew was actually. stripped of his royal titles. And then. in January of 2026, the US Department of.

Justice released another massive dump of. Epstein files. And buried in those. documents was something that shifted the. focus entirely. This brings us to what. we're talking about today. It was about. Andrew's official government role. Between 2001 and 2011, Andrew served as. the United Kingdom's special. representative for international trade. and investment. This is a formal. government position. It's a trade envoy, a crown servant. And in the released. communications, the emails, it seems. that investigators found messages.

suggesting that Andrew allegedly shared. official trip reports and what appeared. to be a confidential investment brief, so sensitive information, with Jeffrey. Epstein. And that this was in 2010. So, this was 2 years after Epstein's 2008. conviction in Florida. Remember, solicitation of prostitution, remember. of a minor, too? And that detail matters. because in 2010, Andrew wasn't just a. royal family member. He was serving in. an official government capacity. And. under UK law, crown servants are bound.

by duties relating to the handling of. sensitive government information. The. Official Secrets Act of 1989, which is. the relevant version here, specifically. protects information relating to. international relations. That's the key. That seems to be what investigators are. now examining. Now, this arrest itself, it isn't under the Official Secrets Act, at least not yet, but it has been. reported that Andrew's been arrested on. suspicion of misconduct in public. office. That is a separate common law. offense, carries its own legal. threshold. The Crown Prosecution. Service, so the main prosecutorial arm.

out in the UK, defines it this way: A. public officer acting as such commits. the offense if they willfully neglect. their duty or willfully misconduct. themselves to such a degree as to amount. to an abuse of the public's trust in the. office holder without reasonable excuse. or justification. And the court of. appeal has described the threshold as a. high one, that you're talking about. conduct that is quote so far far below. acceptable standards as to amount to an. abuse of the public's trust. And I'm.

going to get into that a little bit more. about what that means. But in Andrew's. case, the alleged misconduct is the. sharing of sensitive government. information with a private citizen, Jeffrey Epstein, who should not have. received this, right? That seems to be. what the main argument would be. And I. want to walk you through how we got to. this arrest because after the January. 2026 document dump, there were emails. that surfaced from 2010. So again, two. years after Epstein's conviction. And. they showed what appeared to be ongoing. communication between Epstein and. someone identified in the files as the. Duke. Now, the Duke, presumably Andrew,

the Duke of York. And here's what those. emails purportedly contain. November. 30th, 2010, Andrew's special advisor. Ahmet Patel sends him an email and it. reads, "Sir, please find attached the. visit reports for Vietnam, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Shenzhen in relation to. your recent visit to Southeast Asia.". And attached are official documents, government records generated seemingly. during Andrew's work as the UK's trade. envoy. According to the files, Andrew. appears to have forwarded those reports,

the email, their contents, to Jeffrey. Epstein. And there's no forwarding. message, no context given. There's. another email from December 24th, 2010, so Christmas Eve. Andrew appears to. write to Epstein and includes what he. describes as a confidential brief on. investment opportunities in. Afghanistan's Helmand province. And. here's what the email says. So first of. all, it says, "To J" and then it ends. "From A". "Attached is a confidential brief. produced by the provincial. reconstruction team in Helmand province. for international investment.

opportunities. These are not exclusive. to Helmand province, but principally. focused on that province. I'm going to. offer this elsewhere in my network, including Abu Dhabi, but would be very. interested in your comments, views, or. ideas as to whom I could also usefully. show this to attract some interest. I. have sadly already found out that Gates. Foundation doesn't do anything in. Afghanistan." So, at this time, Helmand. province in 2010, this is our. understanding. This was at the height of. the war in Afghanistan, and there were. British troops that were on the ground. there. And Andrew is allegedly sending.

information about this to Jeffrey. Epstein. So, it kind of gives you an. idea of what we're talking about. You. have a former prince, the king's. brother, arrested on his birthday, police searching royal properties, too, by the way. We'll talk about that. And a. criminal investigation into whether. sensitive government information was. improperly shared with, you know, a. convicted sex offender. Now, the late. Virginia Giuffre, her family released a. statement today. And you'll remember I. mentioned this, Giuffre was the woman. who alleged that Epstein trafficked her. to Andrew. And by the way, her.

posthumous memoir kept this story alive. Her family said, "At last, today our. broken hearts have been lifted at the. news that no one is above the law, not. even royalty. He was never a prince. For. survivors everywhere, Virginia did this. for you." I want to talk about this. Okay, let me bring in my friend Richard. Schoenstein, litigator, trial attorney. Uh okay, your reaction to what? The. first senior royal to ever be arrested? This is a big development in the Epstein. saga. So, first, your reaction to this.

news. So, my reaction to the news is. really? That this guy's been under. suspicion of sex trafficking and sexual. abuse for years and years and years, but. the thing that's made the British. government angry is he maybe gave away. some money secrets. And that's what. they're going to prosecute him for. >> would be, isn't this probably the more. straightforward path to prosecution than.

sex-related crimes if you just look at. the emails? It is probably more. straightforward and there may be a. higher degree of proof. I give you that. But, you know, no one is facing. consequences for what went on on that. island. And so now this guy's going to. be prosecuted cuz he sent an email with. some trade secrets. Eh. Well, I want to get into that. Um. but I guess the question is in the. overall scheme and look, you're right. He hasn't been uh officially charged.

with respect to any sex-related crimes. I hear you. But in the idea of releasing. the Epstein files, transparency, accountability, talked earlier about the. statement from Virginia Giuffre's. family. There are those who say, "Okay, this is a measure of some sort of. accountability for someone having a. connection to Jeffrey Epstein." And. again, look, he hasn't been uh. officially indicted at least in time at. the time of this recording. He hasn't. been officially uh charged or found. guilty. But, obviously people looking at.

this and he did a full episode about. what's accountability, people resigning, information coming out, ridicule, investigations. This is something. This is something. against the former prince. I mean, it. wasn't just that he was stripped of his. titles and was essentially banished. Now. he's There's a There's an investigation. Yeah, well, it's something. It's. potentially something. And I And I think. that the being stripped of his title and. his royal duties was somewhat. significant and probably a more.

significant step than anything we've. seen in the United States where we. refuse to release the full files, we. refuse to do anything about it. We just. ignore it or downplay it. So, there's. something being done and if it makes. some of the survivors or their families, if it alleviates some of what they've. had to suffer over the years, then I'm. happy for it. I just think it's a little. it's a little off target. I mean, he. could be looking at life in prison. I'm.

I'm not sure that's exactly what would. happen, but there is a possibility. Well, that's the other thing, Jesse. We. have to see how it plays out. I mean, bringing as you know, I mean, you follow. more of these cases than anybody, bringing charges and getting a. conviction and putting someone in jail, those two points are far removed and we. have to see what happens with this. process going forward. It was. interesting. It was a surprise. It's a. surprise. Well, here's the thing. We did. an episode on Epstein's connection to. the Royals. We knew there was some sort.

of investigation. I was not expecting a. full-blown arrest and now potential. charges. I did look up what the Crown. Prosecution Service says about. misconduct in public office. And the. Crown Prosecution Service is the, you. know, the main prosecuting arm in in. Britain. So, to be clear, we're talking. about arrest under suspicion. There. hasn't been a formal charge yet. We'll. see if that actually develops. They have. to gather and assess evidence, which. let's talk about what they would might. be searching at the properties. But. first, if you talk about a charge, it is. a public officer, so here I think they'd.

be able to say that, right? You he was. acting as a official government envoy. This public officer willfully neglects. to perform their duty and or willfully. misconducts themselves, that this. amounts to an abuse of public trust and. there is no reasonable excuse or. justification. Now, what is some of the. evidence that may be used here? Well, there's an alleged email where Andrew. allegedly shares files that are marked. as confidential brief with Epstein on.

potential investments in Southern. Afghanistan. By the way, British forces. were based there. Now, Andrew allegedly. said at the time that look, I was just. seeing comments or views or ideas that. maybe Epstein might have had to attract. interest. I think that's what it was. reported. There's also this allegation. that Andrew forwarded his official. reports on his visits to Asia that was. sent to him by his special adviser to. Epstein just minutes after he got them. No forwarding message, no context. So, when we go back to what the law, I. looked this up. It says that this public.

officer had to have been acting as such. So, it needs to be distinguished from. somebody who is merely acting while a. public officer, but more acting as a. public officer. So, in that context is. where they allegedly engaged in. misconduct. There has to be a nexus. between the willful neglect, the breach. of duty, the willful misconduct, and. that power, that authority, those. responsibilities. What does willful. mean? According to the Crown Prosecution. Service, willful means deliberately. doing something which is wrong, knowing.

it to be wrong, or with reckless. indifference as to whether it is wrong. or not. That this person was aware of. the duty and knew that the way in which. they carried out or neglected that duty. was capable of reaching the seriousness. threshold that amounts to misconduct. So, you don't have to prove that the. defendant themselves came to that view. All you have to show is that they had. the means available to them to make such. an assessment or that the defendant was. reckless. And in order to establish this. is a serious issue, the seriousness of.

the effect, it's whether the conduct. amounted to a serious abuse of the. public's trust. And that not every. willful neglect of duty or misconduct is. going to reach that bar. It is a high. bar of seriousness, but you have to. basically say, and this is I'm reading a. quote, "An affront to the standing of. the public office held. The threshold is. a high one requiring conduct so far. below acceptable standards as to amount. to an abuse of the public's trust in the. office holder.".

And this is going to be determined by a. jury. So, Rich, I I threw a lot at you. I guess the question is I. What are some things you're going to be. looking out for to determine is this a. serious breach of trust, the misconduct. in public office based on what we're. seeing right now? Well, that was a great summary and good. research of what it would require to. prove these charges. So, I think this is. an interesting case because to me. willfulness seems kind of obvious. If he.

was giving away information that he had. no right to give away to Jeffrey. Epstein, that seems fundamentally. willful. But, the big question here that. the courts will have to ponder before it. even gets to a jury is was this really. in furtherance of his official duties? And I don't know enough about what his. official duties were at the time as a. prince and whatever other offices he. held to know if passing on this. information could have arguably been. part of the duty. He's going to say, I.

think, this really had nothing to do. with my official duties. I was providing. some information to a friend on his. request that I had access to. I wasn't. trying to negotiate with Epstein on. behalf of the United Kingdom. I wasn't. trying to transact business. I wasn't. representing the crown. I was just. passing on some data the guy asked for. I did not have any ill intent, etc. And. even though a jury might conclude you.

would no business passing on that. confidential governmental information to. this maniac, was it part of his official. duty? I think that that to me is the. toughest part of the case. So, I think. that's the easiest part. I think he's. he's in a position where he gets this. information. He's handing it over. Um and I or allegedly handing it over. I. guess the question is what was he. gaining out of this? Like whether even. it rises to the seriousness or whether. it rises to the level of what he would. be punished. I looked up the Crown. Prosecution Service. They said some of.

the things to factor in as did the. conduct involve the exploitation or. attempted exploitation of vulnerable. people. Did the conduct have an. operational impact that harmed the. public interest or undermined public. trust either in the role held by the. suspect or the relevant public service. or institution? What was the suspect's. motive? Was it personal gain? What was. the severity of the actual or likely. consequences? Was there a risk of death. or serious injury? How egregious was the. abuse of power? Did the willful. misconduct or breach of a duty have the.

effect of benefiting the wider public. interest rather than being injurious to. it? So, I guess if you look at a. textbook example, if he gave up like the. location of British forces and he did it. for money and they got killed, that's. like textbook throw the book at him, right? This one I'm curious like what. did he have to gain by it? Who was. harmed by it? I think those are the. things that I'm looking out for. So, right. So, so this is a financial crime, right? Because it's trade information. It's information about transactions on.

behalf of the United Kingdom. That's how. Is that the way you understand it? That's the way I understand it. >> That's the way I understand it. I mean, if you're in a position where you're. getting this material and you're sharing. it and you could say just in and of. itself that's breaching his. responsibilities, his duties. This is. confidential information or sensitive. information. That I think is is as is a. level. I just don't know It's like an. insider It's like an insider trading. case. Who are you harming? When you give. away secrets of a company so that.

someone can make decisions about buying. and selling stock with more information. than others, you're harming the other. stockholders or in this case you're. potentially harming the United Kingdom. itself because you're providing somebody. with secret information that they can. enact trades on. Now, a question I would. have on either side of this case is did. Jeffrey Epstein use this information? What did he do with it? Did he pass it. on? Did he trade on it? If he traded on.

it and made some financial gain, then. that's to the financial detriment of. somebody else, potentially of the United. Kingdom or of others who were involved. in the trading. So, there could be or. the public. So, there very well could be. victims just as there are in insider. trading and other kinds of financial. fraud cases. I guess the other thing is. too is whether or not he had. authorization to share this allegedly. sensitive government material. And I. wonder if he'd say, "Look, there was.

nothing so confidential about it and I. couldn't share it or maybe it was public. knowledge or was about to be." That. might be tough, but I think that does go. into whether or not this is a deliberate. breach of official duty. Yeah, in a case. involving disclosure of confidential. information, you're always going to look. at is that information truly. confidential? Does it exist somewhere. else in the public form? Was it. obtainable by Jeffrey Epstein from. somebody else or was it stale at the. time it was released? What measures did.

the government take to protect the. confidentiality of that information? That goes to both whether it was. confidential and the level of Andrew's. misconduct in fact. If he didn't know it. was a secret, I mean, I don't know how. he would know, but if he didn't know. >> confidential or something like that. Yeah. >> All right, you always look you know, where is the information kept? How is it. marked? How is it stored? You always. look at stuff like this. So, it's an. interesting case. I I mean, I was a. little hard on it on the outset because.

I think there are more important issues. here arising from these Epstein files, but the case itself is interesting from. the perspective of of just a business. fraud case and how you would prosecute. something like that. What I'm about to. say, I want to be clear, I am not making. this comparison on its face, but I. guarantee you, as this comes up today, you are going to hear the term Al. Capone. I thought of the same thing. You're absolutely going to hear.

>> Al Capone. I mean I mean seriously, it's. like you couldn't get him on the other. stuff, it was tax-related crimes, right? So again, I'm sure you're going to hear. that today. Not making the comparison. that Prince Andrew's anywhere in the. realm of Al Capone, but whatever. Anyway, look, the there are two. addresses that were reportedly searched. by authorities. You have one in. Berkshire, one in Norfolk. He had lived in Windsor. Royal Lodge in Berkshire earlier this. month. Now he has this new home in. Sandringham, this estate in Norfolk. Two. parts to that. A, what do you think. they're looking for in connection with.

this alleged crime? And B, I don't know. the whole rules of UK law, but assuming. it's similar to what we have here in the. United States, what happens if they find. something else during the course of. their search that's not related to the. current breach, the alleged breach of. trust? You asked the best question. So I'll. take the easier one. The first. question's easier. What they're looking. for is anything with a plug or anything. they can plug plug into something, right? Any computer, any tablet, any.

phone, any external media, any device. that might have data on it or might have. evidence of things that were sent to or. received from Jeffrey Epstein or anybody. else or might show where he kept this. kind of data or if he was harvesting it. and maintaining it in some form. So. they're looking for all of that. I mean, I doubt they're looking for physical. printouts of confidential information. That doesn't seem very likely, but. usually these days when you bust into a.

home in a case like this, you're going. to carry out every computer you can find. and hand it over to people who know how. to search them. Your second question is. much harder. What happens if they carry. out a computer and they find, you know, 10 metric tons of pornography? I don't. know the answer to that. That doesn't. seem to fit the crime and the elements. that you outlined, which is probably. part of the British government's answer. to why are you prosecuting this.

potentially, but you didn't prosecute. the other stuff? That's because this. particular crime, if it was committed, is actually a crime if it's carried out. by a public official. And that's why. they feel they can go after it plus the. evidence. So, if other stuff comes out, I don't know. I mean, I I I think we know everything we need. to know about Andrew. already in that regard, but. we'll see. >> It gets complicated cuz here in the. United States, when you have a search.

warrant that is very specific for what. you're looking for, but you discover. evidence of other criminality. It's not. like it can just be ignored. So, I'm. curious. I don't know what else they. might find, but something I had to. address. Okay, by the way, If you go in. with a search warrant, if you go in with. a search warrant and you find like. bodies in that [laughter] house, >> Yeah, yeah, I mean, it's not like. >> that. Yeah, it's not like they're like, "Well, it wasn't in the search warrant. Uh we're just going to ignore it." Um. let me ask you this. You saw the. statement from the king, okay? Basically, it's like, "Andrew, you're on. your own, right?" Yeah, and I think.

people are going to think about this. king and the way he's handled relations. now with one of his sons and one of his. brothers, and that's going to be part of. his legacy. But, I actually thought this. particular statement by the king was. appropriate. He should stay out of it. Government officials should stay out of. it. I've been critical in the United. States about government officials piping. up too much during prosecution. So, I. think the king saying this is going to.

be carried out like any other criminal. matter, and I'm not going to say. anything more about it, and my family is. going to go about doing our royal. duties. I actually think that's probably. exactly right. Before I let you go, this. is the big part. Is this going to spark. the United States Department of Justice. or any, you know, US Attorney's office. to do something? Right? Because people. will say, "Look at the UK. They're going. after the highest of the high. How come. we're not seeing an investigation or.

criminal charges against anybody here in. the United States?" Now, on one hand, I've talked about this before. Based on. case summaries and internal memos in the. Epstein files, they have said there was. no videos or photographs of other people. abusing young girls other than Epstein. and Maxwell. But, could there be an. investigation into something else that's. not related to sex crimes? And the. problem I see is I wonder if this will. spark the DOJ, basically on public. pressure, to do something more. I don't. know if there's anything more. But, also. we can't forget that it was last summer.

when the DOJ and the FBI released a memo. saying, quote, "We did not uncover. evidence that could predicate an. investigation against uncharged third. parties." So, essentially they'd have to. go back on that statement unless they. say, "Hey, that was with respect to sex. crimes. There might be something else to. look at here." I don't know. Got to ask. you. Yeah, I I think that. the fact that this is happening in the. UK. Well, first of all, he's not a.

public official anymore. He's an. ex-former official. So, this would be to. me more like if they went ahead and. prosecuted Bill Clinton. He's an. ex-president. He's not in power. I mean, he holds some influence, but he's not in. power. And so, that would be the analogy. to me, not going after people who are. currently in power. I think there's very. little chance that DOJ, which is the. legal department now of the people in. power, would go after the people in. power. That's just not the way it's set.

up. That's not what DOJ has become. I. don't see any way that changes unless. down the road there's a change in who's. in charge of DOJ. The only way to change. what DOJ does is to change who's in. charge. And you know, you people will. have a chance to do that at the ballot. box in some manner this year and then. they'll have another chance in a couple. of years and that's the only thing. I. don't think what happens in England is. going to I mean it'll be the subject for.

a lot of discussion like the one we're. having, but it's not going to amount to. a change in the way business is done. here. Rich Schoenstein, thanks so much. for coming on and jumping on so quickly. to do this breaking news. Really. appreciate it. My pleasure. We'll keep. an eye on this one, huh? Absolutely. And. that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so. much for joining us and as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple. Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should. get your podcast. You can also follow us. on NBC's Peacock. We have Sidebar. episodes up there, too. If you want to. follow me, X, Instagram, [music] and. NewsNation Show, Jesse Weber Live,

Monday through Friday, 11:00 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you next time, everybody.