Piers Morgan Uncensored - Biggest Conspiracies Uncovered By Piers Morgan: JFK & Epstein Files

Episode Date: August 26, 2025

The assassination of JFK and the Epstein Files are two stories that have piqued the world's interest for some time - and both have spawned all manner of conspiracy theories. Piers Morgan asked those closest to the cases to answer some of the more pressing questions - and here we've rounded up the most interesting responses. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Cozy Earth: Luxury shouldn't be out of reach. Go to https://cozyearth.com/PIERS for up to 40% off Cozy Earth’s best-selling temperature-regulating sheets, apparel, and more. Oxford Natural: To watch their full stories, scan the QR code on your screen or visit https://oxfordnatural.com/piers/ to get 70% off your first order when you use code PIERS. Birch Gold: Visit https://birchgold.com/piers to get your free info kit on gold. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Trump was praised for releasing thousands of files related to JFK's assassination. Despite promises to do the same with the Jeffrey Epstein files, it was suddenly told nothing else would be released. Fury ensued, and now the conspiracy theories on all sides have become too loud to ignore. The noisiest one being that Epstein was a Mossad agent. Authorities have released thousands of documents previously withheld for national security reasons on the assassination of President Kennedy. There's no immediate smoking gun that's been reported.

Perhaps it was always fanciful to imagine that the CIA would have faxed or posted details of a plot to eliminate its own commander-in-chief, for example. What everybody wants to know, though, is whether we are any closer to knowing beyond doubt what really happened, whether there could be more yet to come. We've assembled a panel of experts and insiders to answer those questions. Returning to unscensored, as we said they would after release of the files, are Mike Baker, the host of the President's Daily Brief, and a former CIA, former operations officer, the author and JFK expert, Jefferson Morley, the former Capo and the Colombo crime family, Michael Francise, and joining us for the first time the former CIA officer

and whistleblower, host of CIA Declassified John Curiakia. Well, welcome to all of you. Jefferson Morley, let me start with you. You are a JFK expert. We've had this extraordinary release of so much information. I don't know how much you've had a chance to actually go through yourself or read about or take in. But what is your sort of current overview about the significance of it? It's a very significant release. It's a big break in JFK assassination information. And there, frankly, there's a bombshell in here.

Late last night, the National Archives released the declassified testimony of James Angleton, the counterintelligence chief in 1975. And this document, taken in conjunction with other Angleton documents released yesterday and other material released in the last five years, indicate that Engleton recruited Oswald as a CIA source or contact. That's the phrase that's used in the document, that he monitored Oswald's movements, political contacts, and personal life for four years, that he had 180-page file on Oswald on his desk when the president left for Dallas. So what this raises is the question, a very severe question for proponents of the theory that one man alone killed the president. Was Angleton just atrociously incompetent? Or was he actually

running an operation involving Oswald? I think it's the latter. And there's a document And in the JFK collection, which has not been released yet, which will decide that and will show whether I'm right or wrong. So this is a big breakthrough. There's definitely a bombshell. People who say there's a nothing burger in here are just unfamiliar with the Angleton documents that have just become public. This is not a nothing burger. Mike Baker, obviously former CIA yourself. I mean, your response to what Jefferson just said.

Yeah. And John may have a different view. on this, having also been at the agency, but I would vote for incompetent when it came to Angleton. And look, we've talked about this before, Pierce. I think the importance of this, okay, first of all, the importance is we're closer to complete transparency. I don't think we're there yet. I think there's still some court-sealed documents. I think there's redactions in here, so it's going to take time, documents that haven't been digitized. But I think that the big thing here is going to be. Yes, Oswald was on the CIA's radar, right? Was he listed as a source? Well, he lived

in Russia, right? He was clearly a self-described Marxist. He had been over there for a period of time. He came back. He had been down to Mexico visiting the Cuban and Russian embassies. Of course, he's going to be on the agency's radar for a period of time. I'm not going to be able to make that connection to say he was a recruited intel source. But, you know, you know, you're going to be able to be on, you'd have to go a long ways to go from that, if that's the case, to drawing a connection to he was being directed by the agency, which some people will do. So, you know, there's, again, there's countless theories out there. But you have to build your theories on solid fact.

So I think we're getting closer, again, to transparency, which I'm all for. But again, I would caution people to think that we're there. Well, let me go to the other former CIA officer on our panel, a whistleblower. indeed. John Curiac, you're welcome to Unsensored. Look, people just want to know, were the CIA involved in this? And do we know any more about that suggestion from the release of these files? Well, first, I'd like to say that I agree with both Mike and Jeff. I think that we are closer to the truth. We're not there yet.

But recruitment has a very specific meaning at the CIA. I'm not convinced yet that Oswald was a recruited asset. He may have been, but we're not quite there yet. You know, I think that this Underhill memo is very interesting, too. Certainly, Jeff knows more about it than I do, but the fact that somebody who made a career in Army intelligence and was very close with people in the CIA at senior levels was so distraught about what he thought he knew

that he either committed suicide by shooting himself behind the right ear, the left ear, rather, which is extraordinarily difficult or was killed, is something that needs to be followed up on. Well, I actually have that. I actually have details of that.

I was going to ask you, so you've raised it. I'll tell everyone, for those who haven't seen it, but there's a memo in there dated June, 1967, detailing how the former U.S. Army intelligence officer Gary Underhill fled Washington, D.C., quotes, very agitated, close quotes, the day after Kennedy was shot and spoke with a friend about how a, quote, small clique within the CIA, close quotes,

was behind the assassination, and six months later he was found dead in his apartment. You know, just that snippet alone, you know, you don't have to be a conspiracy theory is to think, whoa, what's happened there? Who's this guy? I want to know more about him. Why was he so agitated?

What had he been told? Why did he apparently take his life? I mean, these are, you know, if we don't get the answers, at the very least there, right there, is enough of information, I would say, to get a lot of people running around. Yeah. Yeah, agreed.

Agreed. And it's one of those questions that we don't yet have the answer to. Although I will say that it is consistent with what so many people, including Oliver Stone, have said over the years, that while the Kennedy assassination was likely not a CIA plot, that there may have been elements within the CIA who were so angry with Kennedy over his failure to call for air cover during the Bay of Pigs, for example,

or as this memo implies or not even implies, but comes out and says, the CIA or elements of the CIA may have been involved in some kind of criminal activity, it bears investigation. Yeah, Michael Francis, welcome back to our sense. It's always good to have you. One of the files includes a memo from the CIA's St. Petersburg station dated November 20, 1991, which said the KGB, a former security agency for the Soviet Union, watched JFK's assassin, Lee Harv Yolswell, closely. And they commented on his marksmanship and said he was a poor shot when he tried target firing in the USSR.

it was then. Again, a really fascinating bit of information because if he was a poor shot, how did he manage to pull off the extraordinary accuracy of three bullets, two of which killed John F. Kennedy? There's a lot going on with the global economy. It's an entirely reasonable to wonder what the effect will be on your savings and investments. Consider diversifying with gold through Birch Gold Group. For decades, gold has been viewed as a safe haven in times of uncertainty, stagnation and high inflation. Birch gold makes it extremely easy for you to diversify some of your savings into gold. If you have an IRA or an old 401k, you can convert that into a tax-sheltered IRA in physical gold.

Or you can buy gold to keeping your safe. First, get educated. Birch gold will send you a free info kit on gold. Just text my name, Pierce, P-I-E-R-S, to the number 9-8-9-8-8-8. Again, text Piers to 9-8-9-8-8-8. Consider diversifying a portion of your savings into gold. That way, if the FEC can't stay ahead of the curve, at least you can stay ahead for yourself.

Well, you know, Pierce, I can only say this, and I've been saying this consistently over the past 25, 30 years that I've been in the know on this. And that is I heard my entire life from 1963 on that the mob was involved in this hit. I've heard it from the right kind of people. There's no question that everybody in that life hated the Kennedys, specifically Robert Kennedy and Joe Kennedy because a deal was cut during the presidential election with Kennedy and Nixon that the White House, the Department of Justice,

would lay off of the mob, and Robert Kennedy did just the opposite. And from what I was told, somebody in government, I don't know who it was, most likely I would say the CIA, since this would have been the third time that the CIA approached the mob for help. They did it in World War II. They did it again when they wanted to assassinate Castro. These are facts. They came again, and for some reason, Lee Harvey Oswald needed to be silenced. And they came to us, and we were more than happy to oblige them in that regard. Jack Ruby, who 100% was a mob associate, going back to the days of Capone and Accardo in Chicago,

and then Carlos Marcello in New Orleans, and also his connections in Dallas. He was the one designated to silence Oswald. I've heard that consistently my whole life from the right people, people in the know. There's no reason for them to brag about this. Normally they wouldn't say anything when they're involved in a hit. But I've heard this from my father, who was the underboss at that time, to Joe Colombo and to others involved. There was consistent knowledge within our life.

And I said this before, Pierce, if they try to downplay Jack Ruby's role and say that he wasn't associated with the mob in any of these confidential classified documents, then I wouldn't believe much of what stated in there because he 100% was, and that was common knowledge. Well, before I go to Jefferson there, just to respond to that,

on that specific point about his shooting, capability. I imagine you're fairly proficient with firearms, Michael, to actually shoot somebody in a moving car from where Lee Harviel's world was, I would imagine, takes a pretty high level of proficiency. So would you think it's significant if the Russians have been watching him that his target practice was way off? Yeah, I think. Yeah, I would. Sorry, that was for Michael Francis. I'll come back to you, Mike. One second. Sure. Yeah, I agree with that. You have to be very proficient to shoot somebody to shoot a moving target like that.

So I think that's a correct observation. Okay, Mike, you wanted to say something on that? Yeah, look, first of all, I may even mistaken on this. I think Halswald had his marksman badge, which, you know, you can either, you know, consider important or not, depending on the qualification standards that you've set. But I've been down there and spent a fair amount of time at the plaza and up in the book depository looking and recreating that shot.

It's not a difficult shot. I've talked about this before. You know, the wind was not a factor. It was a very clear day. He'd wrecked the site. Well, before the vehicle's moving in line with you, it's an open-top vehicle. From a shooter's perspective, that's not a tough shot.

Again, I'm not drawn any conclusions from it. I'm just saying from an operational perspective, not a difficult shot. Okay, Jefferson, on the mob point that Mike, Marcus has been very steadfast about this, that clearly it was openly known and discussed in mob circles that Jack Ruby was acting on their behalf, and this was a revenge against Bobby Kennedy, who had, in their eyes, betrayed them.

Is there anything that you've seen so far on the files concerning the mob generally? I have not searched for organized crime. One of the problems is that the archives did not make these documents searchable, so you really have to go through them one by one. And I have not seen organized crime material in there. But I think Michael's absolutely right, that that is the organized crime component of Kennedy's assassination,

the elimination of the chief witness. I want to go back to one thing, though, that John said before, you know, we talk about this atmosphere. What we've learned over the years is that the story of a lone gunman, some crazy guy who came out of nowhere and no one knew anything about him, you know, that's just not true. Okay. And when I say Angleton recruited Oswald as a source or contact,

that's not an inference of mine. I'm quoting from a document where Angleton describes what was the criteria for putting somebody on his male surveillance program. And he says in this newly declassified document, the sole purpose, the sole purpose was to see if that person could be recruited as a source or contact. So that shows that the most likely explanation for Engleton taking an interest in Oswald in 1959 was to recruit him as a source or contact. And the fact that he then maintained observation, surveillance of Oswald for the next four years supports that. So, you know, what was going on here? Engleton was running a counterintelligence operation involving Oswald.

And I think that's what we're going to learn if we get all of the JFK documents. He wasn't just watching him and being incompetent. He was running an operation and being very competent because that operation is still secret. There are lots of other CIA-related bits and pieces throughout the files. One of them is a CIA memo describing Oswald, phoning the Soviet embassy, asking for a visa while in Mexico City in late September, early October, 1963. He also visits the Cuban consulate in Mexico City

seeking a travel visa so he can wait there for a Soviet visa. And more than a month before the assassination, he drove back to the US through a crossing point at the Texas border. I mean, Mike, let me come to you on that. What should we read into the United States? that activity. Yeah. Well, look, it was, it was desperate to be part of the revolution, right? We know that. He, again, you have to, you have to be a little bit careful in terms of how you define

recruitment, how you, as Jeffrey said, as John has pointed out, and what that means. You can infer lots of things from that. But somebody of Oswald's activities, of his background, of where he's going, his belief system. Are you going to look at him from, again, not drawing conclusions, but from an operational perspective, are you going to look at him as a potential target, as a whether a recruitment target or a potential, you know, occasional contact, a source of information? Are you going to want to know what he's doing? Has he been recruited by the other side? So there's a lot of reasons why Oswald is on the screen. And to what degree that was locked down into a traditional classic sense of recruitment and running an operation? I don't

no, I was a toddler at the time. So, you know, I don't think they were using me for that purpose. But I think what we are looking at here, one of the things that will come out of all of this, once all this material is sifted through, and it's going to take some time, is there was a failure, regardless of what status Oswald was. There was a failure between the agency and the FBI to lock him down, knowing what he was doing, knowing his activities, not being on him, not sharing that information probably. There was turf wars going on between the agency and the FBI, not sharing that information with the Bureau. That's going to come out. And I think part of that is why some of these documents remain hidden because it's embarrassing. Today's show is brought to you by Oxford Natural,

makers of the optimum day and optimum night, all natural supplements. Thousands of Brits and Americans are already taking them with incredible results. Optimum Day is designed to boost your energy and support weight loss throughout the day. Optimum night, obviously you're a lot. It's relax and get deep, refreshing sleep. And don't just take their word for it. Here are just a few of their success stories. England football legend. Michael Owen lost 40 pounds.

Robbie, the face of AFTV, dropped over £100. Linda, a top laurel firm executive, lost £50. And Anita, an immigration lawyer, shed £60. To watch their full stories and found out more, scan the QR code on your screen, or visit Oxfordnatural.com slash peers. And here's the best part. Use the code peers, P-I-E-R-S, and get 70% off your first order.

Get 70% off with the promo code, Peers. In a special edition of Unsensitive, we're taking a deep dive into the good, the bad, and the ugly history of an agency whose founding motto was, by deception, thou shalt do war. Joining me for what will be a fascinating conversation is the former head of the Mossad, between 1999 and 2001, Danny Atom. Former CIA agent and the host of CIA Declassified on UNIFYD TV, John Kiriaku, the author of Provoked.

Our Washington started the new Cold War with Russia and the catastrophe in Ukraine, Scott Horton, and Harvard Law Professor and author of the Preventative State, Alan Dershowitz. Well, thank you all for joining me. Danny Atom, let me start with you, because you actually ran Mossab for two years from 1999 to 2001.

For those who don't know what Mossad is, how would you best describe it? Well, I will describe it as almost the best intelligence and security organization in the world. And if I exaggerate and it is not the best one, it is one of the three best ones. And in terms of what Mossad does on a daily, weekly, monthly basis, what is the majority of Mossad time spent doing? There are a few main goals that Mossad should achieve during the years. One is to fight terrorism, mainly out of the boundaries of the state of Israel. The second one is to fight terrorism. to fight non-conventional capabilities

and to make sure that hostile countries and enemy countries will not have nuclear capability. And nowadays we are talking about the possibility that Iran will acquire a nuclear capability. And Mossad, one, maybe one of the most important goals or missions of the Mossad is to make sure that Iran never will have a nuclear capability or any other non-conventional weaponry.

And in addition to it, it deals with gathering strategic information or strategic intelligence and enter it into the process of a, decision-making by the prime minister and his team. Okay. Scott Horton, do you think Mossad is a force for good or not? Well, they serve Israel's interests, which is not the same thing as America's interests at all. And on the topic of Iran's nuclear program, for example, they forged what was purported to be an Iranian scientist's so-called smoking laptop back in the

the W. Bush years, and they pretended that this laptop proved that Iran had a secret nuclear weapons program, and all of it was eventually debunked, but it helped heighten the risk of war between Iran and the United States over this alleged nuclear weapons threat. And as we talked about on the show last week, Pierce, Iran has a latent nuclear capability. They've proven that they've mastered the fuel cycle, but the Ayatollah said he doesn't want nuclear weapons. and America's intelligence agencies and Israel's intelligence agencies have continually reaffirmed that they have not made the decision and changed that decision. Essentially, I think the consensus is among the reasonable experts on this is that if we don't threaten them, and especially if we don't attack them, then they're not going to make nukes. If we do attack them, they might.

And they're saying, essentially, if you don't attack us, we won't. So it's a standoff, and we could leave it at that. I mean, they have mastered the fuel cycle literally 20 years ago in 2005. They started spinning these centrifuges and proving that they can enrich uranium 235. And so I'm not saying the a lot is the most responsible player in the world or anything like that, but it's clearly heightening tensions against them, which increases the threat that they would then make the decision to break out toward a nuclear weapon, and then we would have Israel lead the United States into another disastrous war in the Middle East. Alan Dershowitz, you're shaking your head there.

Well, should Israel really trust and depend on the possibility that maybe Iran is not going to develop a nuclear weapon? Just two days ago, Ayatollah Khamenei said he was determined to destroy Israel. Rafsanjani, the former liberal head of Iran, said if Iran develops a nuclear bomb and drops it on Tel Aviv, It will kill three million Jews, and Israel is a one-bomb state. It will end Israel. Israel will then retaliate and drop a bomb on Tehran. It will kill 10 million Muslims. But the trade-off will be worth it, because it will be end of the Zionist entity, and Islam would still survive.

Life is always a question of probabilities, and possibilities. In my new book, The Preventive State, I go through all the options that governments have to try to prevent likely, sometimes even unlikely scenarios. And the CIA, as well as the Mossad, are there to minimize the likelihood of devastating experiences. You ask if Mossad is good or if it's evil. I actually defended two young men who were arrested Mossad agents in Cyprus back in the 1990s. And I got a letter from the former head of the Mossad, the men who preceded the guests. And here's the way he ended the letter.

And this out tells you everything you need to know. May we all live to see the day when a profession such as mine gives way to more pleasant occupations, still there is still some time and a way to go before this comes about. Look, we know the Mossad is necessary. The question of whether it's good, evil, intermediate,

those are matters of degree and opinion. But the idea that Israel, one of the smallest nations and the most hated nations in the world, one of the most frequently attacked nations, attacked since even before it was established, could do without the Mossad is preposterous. The Mossad saves lives, Israeli lives, American lives, European lives. It prevents terrorism. And like all intelligence agencies, it does things we wish it didn't have to do. As the former head of the Mossad said,

We hope for a day when that profession is not necessary, but tragically, we're not even close to that. So two and a half cheers from Mossad. It does a great job. It's more like the CIA than it is like any other intelligence agency. And on balance, it does a great deal of good, not only for Israel, but for the world. I mean, Alan, the Israeli historian author and politician Michael Barzohar said of the Mossad, the dirtiest action should be carried out by the most honest men. Does the end justify the means to you? You're a very, very high profile and very highly reputed lawyer. Are you comfortable with the way that the Mossat has conducted itself over the decades from a legal perspective?

Or sometimes is it justified for the Mossad to behave illegally if the ends justify the means? Now, everybody knows how much I enjoy my tea, and I'm very happy to say that today's show is sponsored by Peaks Pure fermented teas. These are not your average brews. They're sourced from 250-year-old wild trees in the Himalayan foothills, which are untouched by modern farming. No pesticides, no fertilizers, just nature at its best. Pure delivers a full spectrum of prebiotics, probiotics, and postbiotics, just like the fermented foods found in longevity hotspots. comes in crystal form. There was no messing around. Just dissolve, sip and feel the difference. It's trusted by health experts, including Casey Means and Dr. Mark Hyman. There's teas for all

occasions, and they all support your gut health, metabolism, and cellular renewal. The next time you put the kettle on, ask yourself, is my tea working as hard as me? Peaks pure fermented teas for the gut of a Brit and the longevity of a Himalayan monk. You're 20% off for life, plus a free frotha and glass beaker with the pure bundle. Visit peaklife.com slash peers. That's peak, P-I-Q-U-E-Life.com slash peers. It depends on what the ends are and what the means are.

If the Mossad could have prevented the Holocaust, if it could have prevented October 7th, if it could have prevented some of the other devastating events, the killing of so many American Marines and the barracks in Lebanon, then you might say, Yes, the means, even if they sometimes exceeded the limits of acceptable law would be justified. If not, I mean, your previous guest talked about the Mossad forging a laptop. But then they went in and they discovered that, in fact, the Iranians, although they had promised and had a fatwa

against having developed nuclear weapons, were developing nuclear weapons all the time that they promised. They weren't. That's not true at all. Don't generally justify the means, depending on the means, but when the means are calibrated and when the ends are cataclysmic, you sometimes need to take the kind of preventive action that we wish we wouldn't have to take. We don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world that has had holocausts and genocides and all kinds of horrible things to the extent these can be prevented by largely legal activities. And remember, the vast majority,

of what the Mossad does just looks up things. It goes into public and open sources and tries to get the best conceivable intelligence it can. But it also has to engage in terrible actions. Yes, it has to kill people who have killed Israelis in order to send a deterrent message. After the terrible Munich massacres, Goldemeyer said every single person who was involved in killing Israeli athletes will be killed. And the Mossad did it and they made one mistake. They killed one innocent person. That's typical of the way intelligence services operate. Mostly they do preventive action, mostly they do good, and sometimes they overdo it, and sometimes they make mistakes. That's why we have the rule of law. Okay, John Kariaki, you said this. We saw, this is the CIA when

you were there, we saw what the Israelis were getting away with in these prisons that they had in the West Bank and in Gaza. Nobody raised any objection at all, so we thought, well, if the Israelis can do it, We can do it. The president said we could and the Justice Department said we could. And so we did. You've also separately described Mossad saying that it has a negative, disproportionate and widespread influence of the U.S. national security state. So you're clearly not a fan of the Mossad. Why? Well, the job of really any traditional intelligence service is to recruit spies to steal secrets. And that's great because every country's leaders need the. those secrets in order to form the best possible policy.

But when the secrets are being stolen from the U.S., the major U.S. defense contractors, from Capitol Hill, from the U.S. intelligence community, from the State Department, there's a problem there. I remember when I first joined the CIA, and this is going back 35 years, there was a declared Mossad officer in the Israeli embassy and a declared Shimbab officer, and the FBI was able to identify 187 additional Israeli intelligence officers at work in the United States clandestinely. I would say, why? Why would they steal secrets when we give them 99% of everything that we already have? Doesn't the United States steal secrets from Israel, too? Of course they do. No, actually, no. The Israelis

were off limits to us at the CIA. We were not permitted to conduct up. I don't believe that. I don't believe that. I don't believe that for one second. I have information definitely that the United States has stolen secrets. I know it for a fact, and I don't think you can credibly dispute that. Well, you know, Jeff Stein, the great... Go ahead. Well, Jeff Stein, the great intelligence beat reporter from Newsweek, would report every year on an intelligence report that the FBI would put out about the worst counterintelligence threats

in the United States. Russia, China, and Israel. And eventually what happened was it caused such a scandal after time after time of this coming out that Diane Feinstein ended up changing the rules so that they didn't have to issue the report anymore so that Jeff Stein wouldn't be able to report on it anymore. But they were alleged by the FBI counterintelligence division to be the most damaging spies in America only after our supposed adversaries, Russia and China. In fact, at the CIA, we were now permitted to go to this.

Well, hang on, hang on one second. I want to ask Danny, actually, because you ran Mossad. Did Mossad steal secrets from the CIA, for example? As far as it was published, nowadays, no. The answer is no. Probably it was the situation until the polar affair. Once the polar affair happened, and it became a... big crisis that influenced to the worse, the relations between Israel and the United States,

the Mossad stopped working on an American soil. On the contrary, I don't know if you know, but there are very, very close and intimate relations between Mossad and CIA and between Shinbet and FBI and we are working together. We are sharing information and as a matter of fact, our best ally is the United States and our best ally to the Mossad is the CIA. John, I want to come to you about something that you've stated, which is that you believe that Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad agent. I believe that he was an Israeli excess agent. You know, if a foreign intelligence agency wants information from very highly placed sources or from very important sources, they're not going to be able to recruit those sources directly. So you recruit somebody

who has access to those sources. And I think that that's most likely what Jeffrey Epstein was. I don't know the fact. You knew Jeffrey Epstein. I was in Israel writing a book. And one day, Jeffrey Epstein called me. I was his lawyer. And he said, I've never been to Israel. I'd like to come there and meet some people. Can you get a lunch together for me with six of Israel's smartest people? And so I arranged a lunch in the Tel Aviv Hotel at which the president of the Supreme Court, the dean of this, the dean of that. He didn't know any Israelis.

He absolutely didn't know anybody. I took him on a trip to the Shook. We bought a couple of Soviets. He got on the plane that night. He knew I had Brock afterward. as a matter of they did business together, but not when he was the prime minister at all. And the idea that the Mossad would retain somebody like Epstein is just preposterous. Epstein was what he is, but he was not a Mossad agent.

And the idea is so conspiratorial and so absurd. It just focuses on because Epstein is famous and infamous. Oh, Israel must have something to do because it's Jewish. Adam, it's a core anti-Semitic notion. If you're Jewish, you must have some connection with Israel, and you must be doing bad things, and you must be a spy for Israel. It is so preposterous, so absurd. Epstein was many things, but he was not a member of Mossad.

If I were a Mossad officer, I would have targeted him from my first day on the job because he had access to important people. You would have been fired then. We would have been fired. but important people with important information. You are dealing with fake information. Let's go to somebody who may know the answer. For sure, Danny.

Yeah. Let's talk to us about Jeffrey Epstein. Remember, I reiterate what I said some 15 minutes ago. Since the Pollard affair, we do not dare to do anything. related to espionage in the United States of America. Were you the guy that tapped Bill Clinton's phone? I know Clinton very well because I met him, the President Clinton,

because I met him a lot of times when I was the chief of staff of Barack and participated in all the rounds of talks with the Syrians, Palestinians, Jordanians, and the Americans. I was part of the group being in. in Camp David. I know him very, very well. I appreciate very, very well President Clinton, and I think that he has all the other presidents as well assisted essentially the state of Israel. You have to understand we are a small country. We are surrounded by enemies till now. all the terror organizations are with the aim to kill as many Israelis and as many Americans, by the way, as possible.

The Iranians call us the little Satan and you they call the big Satan. So we need to have very good and professional intelligence apparatuses. Okay, but Danny, let me ask you. I know that we have. Danny, let me just jump in. Yes. Danny, let me ask you something. As a former head of Mossad,

if Jeffrey Epstein had been working with Mossad, would you even tell us? No. Would you admit it? Exactly. So as far as I understand, as far as you have to believe, how do you know that there is God?

He just said you wouldn't tell me. If you believe, God exists, yeah? It is a question of belief. Either you believe me or not. You just told me you wouldn't tell me if he had. I didn't. You know, speaking of a vote. I did not meet.

I didn't tell him ever. Yeah. I know him. I don't know him. Sorry. I don't know him. I don't think. And this is my assessment.

Let me give you a fact. Let me give you a fact. Okay. Let me ask Alan. Because it was a steep point. Okay, we're talking over each other again. Hang on. Hang on.

I'm going to make news. Everyone's talking again. Hang on, Alan, Alan, let me ask you a question. Alan, let me ask you a question. Have you ever worked with Mossad? Yes, I represented Mossad to help get two people out of Cyprus. I did it pro bono, and I got this letter from the head of the Mossad, thanking me for doing it. Let me tell you another thing.

I was Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer. I know everything about him. If he had worked for the Mossad, he would have told me that. and I would have used it as a way of trying to reduce his sentence. He didn't tell me that. He told me nothing like that. So there's no way in which he worked for the Mossad and didn't tell me that he worked for the Mossad

because I could have used that to get him an even shorter sentence than the one he got. There is no possibility that he did that. Of course, I'm so proud of the fact that I helped to get two people out. Let me tell you what happened. They were arrested by Cyprus on the theory that they were working as spies for Turkey. Those were the days when Turkey was close to Israel.

I was able to prove that, in fact, they were there in order to prevent an attack from terrorists on Israeli people who were coming as tourists and sailing their boats there. As soon as I was able to persuade the Cypriot authorities that that was the case, they freed them. And that was a wonderful moment. They came home in time for Russia Shana,

for the Jewish holiday. And I got this wonderful letter from the head of the Mossad, saying thank you. I hope someday we will no longer have the profession I need to have. That's the attitude of Israelis. We wish everybody wishes there wouldn't be war. There wouldn't be fighting. Remember what Bill Clinton said. They offered the Palestinians at Camp David, 96% plus 4% of Israel, plus all of Gaza, and Arafat walked away and started the Intifada. It's all the Palestinian leadership fault. No fault on the point.

of Israel. Ask Bill Clinton. He'll tell you the same thing. Yeah. Okay, but we're moving away from, we're moving away from Mossad. I want to just ask Danny, Danny, the Mossad has done some extraordinary things. You know, the way it tracked down the Nazi, Adolf Eichmann in 1960, down to Argentina and brought him to due trial in Israel, was seen as a landmark moment in justice for the Holocaust, of course. Scott, you mentioned, He mentioned Ronan Bergman. He has detailed Operation Roth of God when the Mossad tracked down and killed multiple Black September operatives after the attack at the 1972 Munich Olympics, which went on for many years. And as Alan Wrighty said, there was one mistaken killing of a Moroccan waiter in Norway, which is part of the incident called the Lillehammer affair. But there's no doubt that the overall operation, Roth of God, was enormously successful.

And it showed that the Mossad never gives up in tracking down Israel's enemies. The more recent incident, which has happened, Danny, which people presume to have been orchestrated by the Mossad, was, of course, the pager attack on 3,000 members of Hezbollah. Can you confirm that that was an operation by the Mossad? I can confirm that it was an operation of the Mossad, because the prime minister of the state of Israel confirmed it a few weeks ago.

And how long would something like that take to prepare and how much patience does the Mossad have, whether tracking down individual enemies or taking on a terrorist organization like Hezbollah? It is an extraordinary operation. It was very, very successful, and it helped us to crack down Hezbollah. It takes a long time.

You need to collect all the information. You need to collect all the intelligence that possible. You need to find the right people that you recruit in order to help you, to do that and that and that. And at the end, it is the way Mossad thinks. this is a thinking out of the box. Therefore, so many people appreciate it and admire Mossad due to such an operation.

All right. Do you think the, well, let me just ask you, actually, Danny, before I go to the others, but do you think that that was the greatest operation by the Mossad that you can recall, or was there something that you thought was better? No, I cannot say, that this one is the greater or the most big operation. There are many, most of them are not

known, and this is the way it should be. We should speak about Mossad and operations of Mossad as little as possible. You can imagine that there are many other operations, some at the magnitude of this a pager operation that you don't know and you will never know, and not necessarily it is an operation that killed people. It might be an operation to collect information, vital information, and to make out of it an intelligence that helps us this intelligence to secure the state of Israel. There are many unanswered questions about Epstein, the source of his wealth, the circumstances of his death, the reasons why so many powerful people kept his sinister secrets and have not been made accountable for any association with him. Perhaps inevitably, many people aren't satisfied

with the explanation of Virginia's death either. Her lawyer in Australia said this week that there are big question marks, and one of my guests tonight has always maintained amid much criticism that there are big question marks over Virginia Jufre's story. And she says she now has new evidence that will support her case. Well, Dr. President Andrews' former girlfriend, Lady Victoria Hervey, Royal biographer Tom Bauer, host of the nerve with Maureen Callahan, Maureen, and also be speaking to lawyer Spencer Coving, who represented nine of Geoffrey Epstein's victims. Just to set this up, the most damning evidence against Prince Andrew

about the claims from Virginia Dufre was a photograph taken in London with his arm round her when she was 17 years old. Do we have a picture of the actual Daily Mail on? Because the scale, or here it is, but it's... Right, but with Gilae, Maxwell and the... background. It's a famous, infamous picture now. And the point of the picture being that appeared to have them all in the house in London around the time that this abuse was said to have taken place. Now, what is it that you've done about this picture to try and, as you put it,

investigated? Yeah, I just want to set the scene for what happened on this night. So it was actually the coldest week since the 1960s at that point. It had been raining all day. you can look this up in the weather, freezing. The window wasn't, like, that window would never have been open. Number one, they would not have been wearing these clothing. She wears this outfit in San Chappelle a couple months later. They were not at Tramp Nightclub. There were no photos of them at Tramp Nightclub.

He doesn't drink. Andrew has never carried a wallet in his life. He's got a wallet in his back pocket. There's many pictures of Jeffrey Epstein with the same. trousers. Jeffrey did carry a big wallet in his back pocket. So you're saying in the picture was faked? There's nothing real about this image peers. So we can start with when I did go into the house. So when did you first go into this property? A year ago. And how did you get access? I pose as a buyer. So they're selling it? Yeah. Who owns this property? Now it's on the market,

but it wasn't on the market. Who is the owner now? I don't know. Has it changed hands? a few times. Do we know that? No, so it was sold, it was only sold once and he's now actually got it on the market. Okay, so we're watching footage of you. You went in with a friend, I think, and this is you walking through the house. Now, what is the significance of what you think you discovered on this trip? Because you've been in there twice. You're going to see this landing, which I got photos of, but that's the landing. Like, it's so small. It's so small. peers that you don't you know if people would actually be able to get access to that house literally I walked up the stairs and we couldn't even find this landing because it's so tiny

like you walk up I was with two people I was with a photographer friend and another person and I've known the photographer for 30 years we did a shoot together when I was about 18 and he's kind of helped me on this project a bit over the last two years doing some interviews and things with witnesses. When we got up there, it was like this bit here. So he is only five for eight. So we're showing pictures. This is one of your friends who is standing where Andrew was standing.

What's the point you're making there? I'm showing the scale. So he's five foot eight, five foot nine at tallest of spiky hair. And he doesn't have a gap between him and the banister like Andrew does. it's like okay he's not totally on the side but he's a lot of smaller guy than Andrew you you just you can't fit a man like Andrew and half of Virginia in that space it's just not possible like this this bit here is oh it's it's only so that's the camera so this bannister here this is only this is 60 centimeters only do you

you know what 60 centimetres have we had a measuring tape to show you how small that is. I mean... So let me ask you a question then. They're basically making him out like he's anorexic. Okay, look. I couldn't fit in there with another girl. At the very least, this is actually interesting because I've never seen independent pictures taken of this area. No one has seen this picture, by the way.

Which is very interesting, right? Yeah. So my question for you is if, as you say, it's very easy to at least cast a lot of doubt over this picture, which was the key crux of the evidence. against Andrew. Why did Andrew end up paying a reported $11 million? Well, he didn't have these pictures, did he? He could have got them, surely? You know what? I just, I think he was given really, really bad advice. So, so this here, so this shows the measurements. So actually, like, when you zoom in on that, you can actually zoom in and it's 61 inches all the way

across. Now that corroborates the information we got on video when we measured. We have the same basically. So your overview is what? My overview is that this is a collage. Also Virginia says that this part of the photo, well she says the photo was done with a throwaway camera. Now a throwaway camera back in 2001 cannot do this perfect symmetrical like also the flash and the background that is actually thought to be the light from the pub um outside but this is a collage so it was this this frame and then they were collaged and basically put in but their scale is about okay does prince andrew know you've got this um he knows that well i speak to i speak to his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson.

Yeah. And you told her about these pictures? She knows that I got into the house. So Andrew knows that you've been in the house? I suspect so. And do they share your view that they think this is materially interesting evidence that may support his version?

I think anyone that sees this would think this is pretty interesting. Tom, before we go to Moreen, what's your immediate reaction? The point is, where did these photographs originally come from? And as I recall, it was a daily male journalist who bound Virginia. I got given these. Hold on. No, not your phone. You mean the original picture?

Oh, okay. So this is the other thing, right? So Virginia's photo, it was actually verified that actually the FBI never received a hard copy. They only got a copy put on a disc, so they never got to see the back of it. Okay, Tom, do you just as a journalist, do you find this intriguing? Do you find it incredible? As I understand the story, the original photograph came in. They would have really short legs. They would have no legs.

You know, you can mock up your photographs too. The point is that photographs clearly can be mocked up. This is not. This is real. This girl's like five foot two. Let's on finish. Yeah. She had the photograph and she gave it to the journalist unsolicited. The journalist turned up at her door.

it wasn't an FBI source. It was her photograph. And I believe it to be true. I don't believe... It's sweet. It's sweet that you believe it. I believe it because I just don't see who would have the motive to construct. That's what we all want to know.

But you want to know because you don't believe it's true. I don't want to know because I just don't believe that there's anyone. I want to know who put Jeffrey up to this. Let me just speak one second. There's nobody who has the motive, in my view, to originally put in these three people as a collage because what would be the purpose? Also, her lawyer, David Boy,

said he was skeptical when he first met her just because he's a lawyer and always is. But he made her take a polygraph and she passed with flying colours. Well, that possibly... That's what he said. But that is also possible because she's gone through so much trauma.

Okay. Do you believe anything that incriminates family or one? A lot of the girls did not tell the truth. Who is the great conspirator? Who's organizing this conspiracy? of yours. It's the intelligence three-letter of word agencies of the wrapped up in this that I'm not going to go into right now

because I would rather stay alive. But what I'm saying is... Victoria, do you not have any qualms about Virginia's family hearing you just dismiss everything about her as fake and fortunate? I think Robert Jouffray would agree with me. What about her father, for example? She was estranged from her mother and her father. She didn't speak to the father.

She was. Look, she's earned 30 million, right? That is what she's worth. Her father, he came out a month ago saying he's basically on the doll, like, and he couldn't even afford a flight to Australia to see him. Why would you say that in such a disparaging manner? If that's the case. It's very sad.

It's very sad that obviously, you know, she didn't help the family, right? I mean, this father sounded desperate. Well, look, we can clear this up because I'm going to be joined now exclusively by Virginia Dufre's father, Sky Roberts, who's giving his first... He's just supported him just now, saying it was sad. It's giving his first interview on camera about this. Mr. Roberts, thank you very much indeed for joining me on Uncensored. My deepest sympathies to you and your entire family over what has happened to Virginia. It's an awful tragedy and it ends a life of tragedy in many ways for your daughter.

First of all, tell me about your reaction when you heard that she'd taken her life. Well, first of all, I couldn't even believe it. I mean, I started crying right away. I'm still crying. I can't believe that this is happening. It's impossible. And then for them to say that she committed suicide,

there's no way that she did. Somebody got to her. Let me just ask you, Mr. Roberts, how much contact did you have with Virginia in recent years? Not a lot. I haven't spoke to her in years, but I think that she basically liked to try to protect me because of she knew a lot of things about a lot of powerful people. And to me, she's just protecting me that I don't get involved in any of it. Like I say, when she was here, we were together all the time and doing a lot of things together. She was on her own. She was on her own.

to go against Jeffrey Epstein, Gleine Maxwell, Prince Andrew. She was on her own this whole time, you know. I'm not saying she, it's a way to earn money or anything, but she's just trying to make these people pay for what they did. Did she ever talk to you about Prince Andrew before it became public knowledge? Yes.

Yes. She was there in London with Prince Andrew and Ms. Maxwell. Because one of my other guests here in the studio in London has produced photographs from the property where that famous, infamous picture was taken of Virginia with Prince Andrew and Gilles and Max on the background and says that it proves to her that the picture must have been faked in some way. But do you have any doubt that Virginia was there at the time

and had sex with Prince Andrew? Personally, I don't have proof of it. but she, Virginia sent the original picture. So I know it wasn't fake, but the original picture of Prince Andrew and her with Gislaine Maxwell in the background. So I know that's true that she did. She was there with him.

She, sorry, she showed you that picture, did you say? Yes. My mom had an 8 by 10. And when did she first show you that? Many years ago. when it happened. But before it became public knowledge? Yes.

I knew nothing about it. I mean, I didn't even know she was, you know, doing all these things for Jeffrey Epstein. How did you feel when you discovered that? Oh, I was really angry with Jeffrey Epstein because she had told me later on that, you know, he had threatened that if she had said anything that he had the power to do anything he wanted to, to hear her family.

I mean, I met Jeffrey Epstein. I wouldn't let him go to work for him unless I met him. But he seemed like a normal person. I mean, he came out, I went to his mansion, and he came out and jeans and a t-shirt and just acted like a regular person. So I had no idea. I mean, you don't know who you're talking to.

Here's Morgan on Sensor. He's proudly independent. The only boss around here. is me. If you enjoy our show, we'll ask only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent Unsensored Media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.