MTracey podcast - Prince Andrew has actually been VINDICATED! But instead he's being slimed

Episode Date: February 21, 2026

I keep saying I’m going to start modulating my podcast appearances at some point, and then I never do so. I have a proper article coming soon on the Prince Andrew nonsense. Watch my full appearance on the Unherd appearance here, if you want. I was also on the “All In” podcast, joined by Saagar Enjeti, who popped in for the first half hour or so. I have also done a bunch of other stuff, but it’s all starting to blend together at this point. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mtracey.net/subscribe

But so what is there about Andrew in the Epstein files? And why has it led to this resurgence? I mean, the thing that really should be emphasized if we had a rational media, like in any continent. I mean, I guess it's a lost cause in the UK and the US. I don't know. I'll go to like Fiji and maybe see if they're interested. There are pockets of rational media still in the UK, I should say. Okay.

Yeah, I shouldn't paint with too broad a brush. There was a memo that came out that was incredibly revelatory. I mean, people are always in search for the. most revelatory Epstein files, right? And most of the time, that means honing in on some snippet of an email where they can claim that they can know what the code words are because, like, it mentions pizza or grape soda or something. I mean, these people are hallucinatory. But if you're like actually acquainted with the source material and you came across this memo that I did, it's from December 19th, 2019. It basically memorializes the investigatory progress of the Southern

District of New York in conjunction with the FBI. at that point in their investigation of Maxwell. They had been investigating Epstein before, but then he dies, so then their target shifts to Maxwell as the chief accomplice allegedly of Epstein. And in a prospective trial of Maxwell, the number one witness that would be a slam dunk if her evidence could be at all corroborated

or was all credible, would have been Virginia Roberts Cuffray because Virginia Roberts Cofray is the first person who claimed that she had been trafficked by Maxwell to Epstein. So had she been found credible by the investigators in 2019 after preparing for a prosecution of Maxwell, then she would have been the most valuable asset they could have had. So you found the transcript or the record of that interview in the Epstein files.

The document I'm referencing here is them summarizing their findings as to their assessment of Virginia Roberts Gouffrey after they had interviewed her privately. We never knew that this interview took place until just, until January 30th. But they found, like she, when they found, they almost seem shocked because they recount that even over the course of the one interview that they conducted with her, she could not maintain a consistent narrative of her own victimization within the confines of that one singular interview.

And they also found that her central claim, the claim that if you can point to any claim at all as having been integral and spurring the wider Epstein mythology, meaning that she was lent out. This is what she put in that motion for joint her in 2014, that she was lent out to high-profile people, namely Andrew Dershowitz, Brunel, but then also this constellation of other people, some of whom she named, some of whom she would allude to. But that was her core claim, right? Because then the idea is, oh, all these prominent people were actually implicated or ensnared in something by Epstein by virtue of Goufrey. And then he secretly recorded them and then did blackmail, right? That was the genesis of the whole thing. They dispelled that core mythology in this memo. They say they could not corroborate.

all that she had ever been lent out to anyone. And furthermore, that none of these, none, no other Epstein victim of whom were told there's like potentially thousands or millions, they always shift the number. None of them ever made a claim comparable to hers in terms of having been, quote, lent out or traffic to anyone. So this is dispelled. And here's why it's related to Andrew. Okay. So his accuser, the only accuser he ever had turns out, according to the most thorough, rigorous investigation that we ever know to have been conducted of the of her claims was found to have no credibility in terms of that central claim that implicated Andrew. So if anybody should be running around claiming vindication, it's not the siblings of

Virginia Roberts Gouffray or anybody else, you know, trumpeting the bravery of close survivors. It's Prince Andrew himself. He should be on the BBC being applauded and cheered because after all this time and after all these years of defamatory accusations, it turns out that he was right all along and his chief accuser really did just make stuff up as far as anybody can tell and based on all available evidence. I think we're going to have to put the link to this document at the bottom of this video, so people can go and look at it themselves. I linked to it in the forthcoming article.

So how should we conclude then, Michael? Your assessment of the evidence is just so at variance with 99% of the world media. I think many people watching this will be like, who is this guy? How come he has a parallel version of reality in which Andrew has vindicated, should be being applauded on the BBC instead of being banged up in the, you know, overnight prison in the local police station. How should intelligent people who are following this and just want to have a sane conclusion? How should they try and address that enormous gap? I just want to declare that I am hereby willing to journey to whatever like secondary

royal lodge they've stuck them in and stand outside and just give a solo standing ovation and maybe I'll be joined by some birds and deer or something, but there will be no humans joining me, most likely. But I'm being, you know, earnest about this and that, like, I do think if there's an impartial examination of the evidence done, this would be the unassailable conclusion. It's just that nobody really does an impartial examination of the actual evidence. And for one thing, because there's so much superfluous redactions in these Epstein files,

not of, like, potential perpetrators, which is always everybody's immediate suspicion, but of material that's tied to, quote, victims. And then the standards for who even constitutes a victim are so expansive that it necessarily sweeps up this giant percentage of the available material. So, like, in order to read a document like the one I'm referencing and to understand what's being stated or what's being reported, you have to have a lot of background knowledge so that you're not inhibited by the excessive redaction.

So I have the requisite background knowledge. I know what I'm looking at. I know who's being reference if, you know, Virginia Roberts Bufre is being referenced, even if her name is technically redacted, like if you've done the deep dive that I've done on this story, like you know what is being referred to despite the unnecessary redactions. But that's one of the impediments for like the average either news consumer or even journalists because it really does require a ton of legwork to be able to become even just fluent on this issue in a way that I think conveys the proper impression to people.

So yeah, I mean, it is a lonely ordeal, but like I'm always begging anybody out there who has a countervailing perspective to me and thinks I'm just dead wrong. Okay, let's have at it. And like all the top Epstein researchers who are more toward like the conspiracy tinged, let's say, part of the spectrum, they're invariably they run away or they make up some excuse or they like attack me personally. They don't want to engage. So that just kind of talk about vindication. I would say at least from my perspective, that vindicates my confidence in that in my being at least direct. correctionally correct on this. Obviously, everybody can screw up a date or something marginal,

but directionally speaking, I'm confident that I'm correct.