Mandelson and Epstein is the largest political scandal of my lifetime, writes DAN HODGES. Now a senior Whitehall supply has instructed me the murky reality, I do not imagine our Prime Minister

It’s important to try to retain some perspective. Nothing has yet been proven. The accused need the opportunity to present their side of events. Falsehoods, manipulation and outright lies infect the heart of this sordid story.

But with the news that the police are launching a criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson, the release of the Epstein Files represents the biggest, most far-reaching and devastating domestic political scandal of my lifetime.

First, there is the sheer scope of those who are being consumed by it. A senior Cabinet minister. A senior member of the Royal Family. Senior British business leaders. The Whitehall elite. The security services. And increasingly, through his inexplicable inability to get to grips with the unfolding crisis, the Prime Minister himself.

Then there is the staggering nature of the alleged offences involving Epstein. Child abuse. Rape. The sale and purchase of vital state secrets. Apparently for both cash and sexual favours.

Meanwhile, framing the whole despicable saga is the increasingly damning proof it has been coordinated, at least in part, as a deliberate intelligence gathering operation on behalf of a hostile foreign state.

Every time another of the three and a half million pages of the Department of Justice documents is turned over, Vladimir Putin’s bloody fingerprints can be spotted staining the pages.

And yet the official line from the British Government is this: ‘We knew nothing. We saw nothing. We heard nothing.’ A line which with every passing hour is looking as incredible as the nature and scale of the crimes it is attempting – and failing – to insulate itself from.

Let’s give Keir Starmer the benefit of the doubt. Let us assume that when he appointed Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to Washington he was still in the dark about the full nature of Mandelson’s relationship with one of the United States’ most notorious convicted paedophiles.

In that he would not be alone. I myself was one of many who believed that while risky, it could prove a diplomatically astute appointment, and said so at the time.

But the defence of ignorance expired on September 10 last year, when damning new emails appeared showing the depth and extent of our Washington ambassador’s friendship with Epstein. More ‘embarrassing’ correspondence was set to be revealed, Mandelson himself admitted.

Inexplicably, even then Starmer told the House of Commons he retained ‘full confidence’ in him. But that position, like so many others, failed to last the week.

Further damning emails were released and Mandelson was finally sacked. At which point Starmer’s supporters hailed his swift response, and Parliament – as well as the public – were told the whole affair was closed.

But as has now been revealed, the affair wasn’t closed. And what’s more, Keir Starmer knew it wasn’t either.

On September 10, the very day Starmer was expressing his confidence, former prime minister Gordon Brown wrote to the Cabinet Secretary asking him to formally investigate whether Mandelson had been conspiring with Epstein and passing him sensitive Government secrets. Nine days later, Brown received a response. No such link could be found, he was told.

We now know that was completely wrong. Over the past 48 hours, emails have been published which, assuming they are not masterful and inexplicably detailed forgeries, prove Mandelson was indeed providing highly sensitive Government information to Epstein in the mid-2000s.

Which takes us to the increasingly dark heart of how Starmer, the Cabinet Office and the wider Whitehall machine have been dealing with the Mandelson/Epstein crisis from day one.

Let’s return to Mandelson’s initial appointment to Washington in February 2025. Keir Starmer has claimed he blatantly lied to those who were responsible for his initial vetting. Mandelson, for what it’s worth, strenuously denies this.

But one senior Whitehall source I spoke to said the truth is more murky.

I’m told that in the initial security services assessment of Mandelson, numerous ‘red flags’ were raised. But it was made clear to those responsible for producing the final assessment that the Prime Minister – and his influential chief of staff Morgan McSweeney – were pushing hard for the appointment. And those flags would not be welcomed. At which point, according to my source, ‘they watered down the assessment’.

Whatever the truth, what followed is not a matter of conjecture.

In September, sufficient evidence emerged for Keir Starmer to dismiss Mandelson. Meanwhile, his Cabinet Office was conducting an additional investigation into any further potential wrongdoing. Yet the existence of that investigation was withheld from Parliament and the public.

Then, over the past weekend, further damning evidence was unearthed within the three million new documents released. And again, the Prime Minister did two things which raise serious questions about his judgment and potentially his probity.

First, Starmer made a major media intervention in which he pointed national attention around the unfolding Epstein scandal in the direction of the Royal Family, by explicitly stating he thought former prince Andrew should testify over the affair. But he conspicuously made no comments in relation to the man he’d appointed as US ambassador.

Then, on Monday when the new revelations relating to Mandelson emerged, he announced the Cabinet Office would launch a full investigation.

But as we now know, he was well aware they had already ‘investigated’ Mandelson back in September. And miraculously given him an entirely clean bill of health when Gordon Brown demanded answers.

Which brings us to the most important part of the Prime Minister’s ‘I knew nothing’ defence. What did he actually do to try to unearth the full truth about Mandelson and Epstein?

Time and again, we have seen Keir Starmer cite ‘intelligence sharing’ with the US as the fulcrum of the Special Relationship.

At the time of Gordon Brown’s inquiry to the Cabinet Office, page after page of damning evidence on Mandelson and Epstein was sitting in the US Department of Justice files. Some of that evidence had already leaked into the public domain.

Did Keir Starmer ask to see it? Did Morgan McSweeney ask to see it? Did his National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell ask to see it? Did anyone conducting the Cabinet Office inquiry ask to see it?

Remember, this scandal initially broke just days before a high-profile State visit to the United Kingdom by President Trump. It involved the US ambassador to Washington. But did neither Keir Starmer nor anyone else think to ask the Americans ‘what else have you got on this’?

It simply beggars belief. Starmer is a former Director of Public Prosecutions. What’s more, in that position he had a major role directly liaising with the US intelligence services in the fight against terror. Yet we are meant to believe his lack of curiosity meant he didn’t even bother asking what information they held about his most senior diplomat befriending a notorious paedophile and placing himself directly at the heart of what many now suspect was a Russian honeytrap operation?

There are only three credible answers. Starmer did ask, and the US authorities fobbed him off or lied to him. Which would represent another damning blow to his international credibility.

He didn’t bother to ask. In which case he’s simply not fit to hold prime ministerial office.

Or he did ask. He learnt the truth. But again, he hid the truth from Parliament and the people.

The Epstein affair is the biggest British political scandal of my lifetime. Our Prime Minister says he knew nothing about it. I simply do not believe him.