Epstein fallout raises more questions than answers

By Gwynne Dyer
International Columnist

“It’s amazing how the arrest of a 66-year-old man in Norfolk has raised the spirits of the entire country,” a reader wrote on the letters page of Britain’s Guardian newspaper this week. “Perhaps a few more arrests are in order.”

The 66-year-old man was Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, until recently known as Prince Andrew. He was arrested Feb. 19 for “misconduct in public office,” not for allegations related to Virginia Giuffre and the late financier Jeffrey Epstein. He was released on bail the same day.

Four days later, on Feb. 23, another prominent British figure — Lord Peter Mandelson, a longtime political operator and former United Kingdom ambassador to the United States — was arrested on the same charge and also released on bail.

At least there were arrests.

In the United States, no one has been arrested following the release of millions of confidential documents connected to Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died in 2019. The only person serving a prison sentence related to the case is his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell.

The arrests so far have involved Europeans: Andrew and Mandelson in the United Kingdom and Norway’s former prime minister, Thorbjørn Jagland, who acknowledged accepting family holidays from Epstein.

The British cases stem from the offence of “misconduct in public office,” a difficult charge to prosecute successfully. Any potential sexual assault charge related to Andrew would face additional challenges, including the death of the alleged victim.

As for Epstein’s broader network of relationships and alleged exchanges of information, the matter may remain unresolved. That leaves speculation.

One recent comment added fuel to it. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick described Epstein as “the greatest blackmailer ever.” Blackmail may involve money, but it can also involve information.

Epstein’s guest lists suggest many of his associates were not merely wealthy but influential — individuals with access to political and commercial knowledge. Some may have been drawn by prestige, others by social access, and some by darker motivations. In each case, Epstein appeared adept at exploiting vulnerabilities.

Why assemble such a network? If the purpose was simple decadence, the scale seems excessive. If the purpose was access to information, the structure makes more sense.

That leads to the question of who might benefit most from insight into American political and commercial affairs. Israel is often cited, given its close strategic dependence on the United States.

Ghislaine Maxwell’s father, Robert Maxwell, had documented ties to Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad. After his death, Maxwell moved to New York and became closely associated with Epstein.

None of this proves Epstein worked for any intelligence agency. Israel, like many countries, has operated spies in allied nations before. Jonathan Pollard was convicted in the 1980s of spying for Israel and served 30 years in prison. Lawrence Franklin was sentenced in 2006 in a separate case involving classified information.

Espionage between allies is not unheard of, and not every operation comes to light. If Epstein was collecting information that was sensitive but not classified, he may not have violated espionage laws.

Whether any of this will be clarified may depend on future legal proceedings or decisions by Maxwell under a different administration.

Until then, the unanswered questions surrounding Epstein’s activities are likely to persist.