Piers Morgan Uncensored - 'He Knows a LOT' Boies Calls For Andrew's 'Safe Passage' To US | With Michael Tracey

Episode Date: February 17, 2026

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is facing a police investigation for leaking trade secrets to Jeffrey Epstein, being told by Britain’s top prosecutor, “nobody is above the law.” Scandal cost him his royal status - but a white collar crime may yet cost him his freedom. And now pressure is continuing to build on the former prince to testify in the US. David Boies represented the late Virginia Giuffre in her civil case against Andrew; who reportedly paid 16 million dollars to avoid facing him. He joins Piers Morgan to discuss what he thinks should happen next - plus Piers also speaks to journalist Michael Tracey, former CIA whistleblower, John Kiriakou, executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online and former State Department official, Mike Benz and broadcaster Tara Palmeri. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: 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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Epstein mythology have simply never been supported by anything close to the degree of credible evidence. People like Tara Palmeri and David Boyce are convincing untold millions that there was some enormous child rape atrocity. So David Boyce can add to his extortion of the British royal family. We've got a better person to respond, actually, because I'm now joined by David Boyes. You can always find somebody to deny anything. The idea that anybody can, with a straight face, denied that this was a massive sex trafficking scheme. It's between absurd and pathetic.

You may seek to depose Mega Markle. She may have important knowledge. Do you still think she may have information that could be useful? I think that's quite likely, Mr. Dershowitz, like a lot of other people, and serve themselves a lot better by coming clean. Nobody is above the law, said the UK's top prosecutor about Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

The former prince is facing a police investigation. for leaking trade secrets to Jeffrey Epstein. A sex scandal cost him his royal status, a white-collar crime may yet cost him his freedom and pressure is continuing to build on the former prince to testify in the US. In a country where many are frustrated about the lack of serious consequences for Epstein's pals fueled by the idea that we still don't have the full story, this is not going away. For Andrew or for the royal family? David Boyes represented the late Virginia Dufray in her civil case against Andrew,

reportedly paid $16 million to avoid facing him. He will join me very shortly. We will begin with our expert panel. Joining me now at the executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online and a former State Department official, Mike Bentz, former CIA whistleblower and host of Deep Focus with John Kiriaku, John Kiriaku, the journalist and academic Michael Tracy and the host of the Tara Parmiri show Tara Parmary.

Well, welcome to all of you. Tara, we've spoken a lot throughout this scandal. I've noted today that the Trump administration is now saying, that's it, we've had all the files we're going to get, even though it's believed there are 3 million more that have not been put into the public domain. And there's still no real accountability of the highest profile people named in these files. Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, issued a lengthy number of names, some of which, obviously, from looking at it, are completely innocent. of any criminal behavior, but of all these high-profile names that have been named, there's only one person who is languishing in prison, and that's Gillene Maxwell. This seems deeply unsatisfactory on so many levels.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with you on that, especially considering the FBI had presentations that they were putting together, which showed that they had credible tips about a variety of other men, and they never went through with those investigations. And I think a lot of people just feel like that, you know, if you read these emails, if you look through the FBI's own investigations, that they could have gone further and they could have actually prosecuted some of these men who have been accused by women in civil cases of rape and through their meeting, through Jeffrey Epstein, through, I guess, like Leon Black, for example.

I mean, he denies the charges that are against him and the cases were dropped. but there are other examples as well inside of the files. And yeah, just nothing has happened. It's just, it's been, I think, not just for the victims, but for everyone, a feeling that this is it. I mean, Pam Bonny just said on Sunday case closed. Yeah, which it clearly isn't. And the problem with that is,

if you said from the start of this, as the Republicans have, we're going to be completely transparent. and then you'll self-evidently not being completely transparent. You can't hold back 3 million files and say that's all you're getting, right? The conspiracy theories will continue to rage, and I suspect there will be a series of leaks from the files that we haven't seen. So the scandal just continues, whereas I've always felt if they just went, here you go, redacting victims' information that could lead to their identification,

but just put everything out there, in one hand, and say that's it, that genuinely is it, you can at least have the claim that you've been transparent. Right. And even from the fact that a number of members of Congress, like Thomas Massey, Rokana, they've gone into classified briefing rooms to see the files and what was redacted. And what they found is that, in fact, they were redacting the name of men. they weren't redacting the names of the victims. And, you know, in a number of instances, these were just men that had some connections to President Trump, some didn't.

But there was no reason to redact the word less in front of Wexner, for example. There was no reason to redact the name of an Emirati businessman in the email about the torture video that he enjoyed. And so there's just a number of these. examples and we can only be left to wonder, well, what else? Especially since we know there are three million more files that we're probably never going to see. And we don't know why. Right. Michael Tracy, you've been, you know, a relatively lone voice out there arguing a lot of the public debate about this, especially around hidden elite networks, intelligence links,

and so on. It's mythologized beyond the evidence that we've seen from courts, documents, official records and so on. This is not a popular view, but there are some who share it. Why do you feel so convinced of your position on this? Because the central tenets of what I've taken to calling the Epstein mythology have simply never been supported by anything close to the degree of credible evidence that would justify the United States, Great Britain and the world, now being embroiled in this gigantic pedophilia crisis where people like Tara Palmeri and your next guest, David Boyes, are convincing untold millions that there was some enormous child rape atrocity that was perpetrated and covered up at the highest levels of government. This is crazy making stuff. And in fact,

it wouldn't be surprising if people who come to believe this stuff and might already have a disposition toward mental illness could enter into a kind of homicidal mania. And so Tara Palmerry, I mean, I would agree with her in that there is a lot more to investigate on this subject, namely the journalistic malfeasance that's been so shockingly rampant, it's incredible. Tara Palmeri journalistically collaborated with Virginia Roberts Goufrey. Didn't just use her as a source or as an inspiration, but essentially shared a byline effectively with her on the podcast series that she produced in 2020. They went around the United States saying they were just innocently on this truth-seeking mission to find out all that

Jeffrey Epstein did to all his innocent victims. And they told the listeners, don't worry, none of this is about bringing any further lawsuits or criminal charges against anybody. So all these men were trying to track down, they have no reason not to speak to us. Meanwhile, about a year or two later, Virginia Roberts Goufrey, who, by the way, is one of the most egregious serial fabulous who's ever walked the earth. I know that's really controversial, but all the claims that she had to retract the trail of destruction she left in her wake, empowered by people like David Boyes. And Bradley Edwards, who, by the way, if you want to know what the impediment is, the full disclosure of the Epstein files, just look at what David Boy's colleague, Bradley Edwards, has been frantically arguing for the past several months in federal courts in the Southern District of New York about,

the supposed terror and nightmares that have been unleashed if we have the Epstein files released. On the one hand, they're all sloganeering about release the Epstein files. On the other hand, they don't just want to redact the quote victim's names and by the way, what happened to saying alleged victim or purported victim virtually none of these people have actually ever been adjudicated as victims. The only criteria that's required by the DOJ to abide by what the frantic victim lawyers are demanding is mere self-identification of victimhood. Does the media make

any of this clear? And does the media... All right. Let me... Let me... Let me... When Pam Bondi is protesting, last point, peers, when Pam Bondi is being protested last week and everybody's going wild saying, oh, all these benighted Epstein victims are standing up and demanding

truth and justice, how come it's never pointed out that, you mean, the vast majority of the people who are visible there, the victims, were adults at the time of their claimed victimization. And yet this is supposed to be some massive pedophile crisis. So David Boyes can add to his extortion of the British royal family and now extort J.P. Morgan for another couple hundred million dollars. Well, when you say, all right, all right. Today's show is sponsored 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 boosts your energy and supports weight loss throughout the day. Optimum night helps you relax and get deep, refreshing sleep. They have countless success stories including from some very familiar faces. England legend Michael Owen, we lost £40. AFTV's Robbie, we lost more than £100. To watch their full stories and many more, scan the QR code on your screen or visit Oxfordnatural.com slash peers. And here's the best part.

Use the code peers and get 70% off. your first order. You're 70% off with the code peers. In relation, okay, in relation, look, I'm going to go to Tara to respond to that. It's only fair giving you your name check to it. So aggressively. All I would say, and I'll come to the other two panelists in a moment, all I would say about a so-called extortion of the British royal family, the reality is that Andrew Mountbat and Windsor,

when he was still Prince Andrew, said he'd never met Virginia Dufray, certainly never had sex with on the three occasions in different places. He was accused to do so. He said the picture of them was fabricated, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. He also, in a lengthy interview for the BBC, said he never had anything more to do with Epstein after seeing him in Central Park, after his conviction, and so on. All of which turned out to be a load of bologna at the last minute,

rather than have his day in court to clear his name, Andrew paid a check reported to be £12 million to Virginia Dufray, a woman he claimed he'd never met. The picture we now know from leaked emails by Gillane Maxwell in the latest dump of Epstein files, where she said were genuine. That picture was taken, right? And so I'm afraid just on that point alone,

I see little extortion and just a bunch of lies from Andrew Mountain Batten, Windsor, to cover his ass. Listening to this, actually, is Virginia Dufre's... Well, hang on, hang on, I gave you a chance to speak, and I've responded. We've got a better person to respond, actually, because I'm now joined by David Boys. David, great to have you back on the censor. It's been six months since I last spoke to. So much has happened since then.

In relation to what we've just heard from another panel member, which is that Virginia Dufre was one of the least reliable witnesses imaginable. What is your response to that? Look, you can always find somebody to deny anything. The evidence is just overwhelming. The idea that anybody can, with a straight face, deny that this was a massive sex trafficking scheme, you know, is between absurd and pathetic.

We have the testimony of dozens, dozens, many dozens, of young women, girls. We have the reports of the police department in Palm Beach. We have photographs, not just the one photograph, but multiple photographs are coming out. We have the emails that set forth at least some of the efforts, including the efforts to bribe witnesses. This is not a close call. And The reason that nobody wants to go to court and that people settle is nothing to do with extortion. It has to do with a no, they don't have a case. If somebody has a case, they can stand up and defend themselves.

This is a situation in which all of the evidence is on one side. I'm in a lot of cases that you know that are close cases. One side has a point of view, another side has a point of view. There's evidence on both sides. And you have to make close calls. This is not one of them. David, in relation to Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, now saying that's it, we've had all the Epstein files that is going to be put in the public domain, notwithstanding the fact

we've been told there are three million more files which will never see the light of day in terms of being put in front of the public. What is your response to that? Does that in any way constitute full transparency on these files? Well, it's clearly not full transparency. We haven't begun to have full transparency. We have more transparency, thanks really to Congress. We have more transparency than we've had before.

And I think you see in the documents that are now being revealed why people fought so hard, powerful people, rich people, politically connected people, powerful people in business, in politics, fought so hard to keep this evidence secret. There's more evidence there. We know there's more evidence there. They're admitting there's more evidence there. Some of the documents that they have produced refer to other documents

that have not been produced. So we know that there's more there. And perhaps Congress, perhaps the courts have got to step in and have got to say to the Department of Justice, do your job, be transparent, legislation, bipartisan legislation was passed requiring the Justice Department to be transparent,

to produce all these documents. Abiding by the law is part of what makes this country great. It's part of what has made the United States and before that United States, the United Kingdom, really a beacon to the world. You can't just ignore the law. And I'm confident that this is not the end of it. I'm confident that we will continue to get to the bottom of things. You told me six months ago that you looked into the claims of criminal wrongdoing

by both President Trump and by former President Bill Clinton. You said you were quite confident neither of them had any involvement of the sex trafficking or any sexual activities. First, is that still your position from everything you've now seen from the files that have been put out? I've not seen anything that would cause me to change my mind on that. I think that both former President Clinton and President Trump would say that they regret their association with Jeffrey Epstein and Galane Maxwell. I think that there was certainly... aspects of poor judgment involved. And I think it was a reflection of how tolerant we were

of the abuse of young women and girls that very high-placed people would work with, socialize, with somebody like Jeffrey Epstein. But I don't see any evidence that, I don't see any evidence that Either one of them participated in any of the sex trafficking, or actually prior to the time that they stopped dealing with him, really were aware of the sex trafficking. The other thing you said to me that you felt there were between 10 and 20 men who you felt the government had enough information evidence on that would justify at least a serious prosecutorial investigation. and that Andrew Mountbat and Windsor, the former Prince Andrew, was one of these men and was given a pass. Is that still, again, your position? Yes, I mean, I think I might amend it.

I probably should have amended it six months ago, but 20 men and women. Right. I don't think it's just limited to men, unfortunately. So there were women also perpetrating crimes? Yes. And certainly engage in activities. that is worth investigating.

I don't want to try to make a judgment without looking at all the evidence about whether anybody actually committed a crime. But a lot of people acted very wrongfully, improperly, and there's enough evidence of criminality to warrant an investigation. Should Andrew Mountain Batten, Windsor, now come to the United States

and face the music under oath in front of Congress, in your opinion? Absolutely. I think he's got an obligation to tell what he knows. Now, I also think that if he's afraid of being arrested in the United States,

we ought to give him safe passage to come to the United States to testify because I think we don't want there to be any excuse for him, not coming and telling what he knows. But he knows a lot. How much I don't know myself, because they gave up in the litigation we had against them just before his deposition was supposed to be taken. So I don't think anybody knows how much he knows, but we know he knows a lot from his contact. And whatever he knows, even though it was a little bit, I think he has an

obligation to share that. Do you believe that Andrew Mountbatten-Winzer committed crimes? I mean, obviously, you represented Virginia Dufray. She made very serious allegations of criminal behavior by him against her. Do you believe that he committed crimes? I think that it certainly is something that justifies an investigation. What he knew and when he knew it, what he knew about her age, what he knew about the extent to which he was coerced, she was coerced, I think needs to be decided by investigators, prosecutors, and ultimately by judge or jury. He certainly engaged in terribly wrongful conduct. He clearly knew that Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell were trafficking these girls. Now, whether he knew that they were under age, whether he knew that there was force and coercion involved,

that is something that is a state of mind that I think before I made a judgment on that, I'd want to see more evidence. But it's certainly something that was worth investigating, whether statute of limitations have now passed, I think is a question. But I have been, as you know, I have been very disappointed in the authorities, in the United States, and in the United Kingdom for not doing this investigation in a timely way. There's been a lot of pressure on King Charles in the UK to take more action against his brother. He has removed his titles and Andrew has now moved from a very luxurious home to a much smaller but still pretty luxurious home that would be paid for by the king, including a staff and so on. You know, what should King Charles do?

A lot of people are asking that question. In your opinion, what should he do? Yeah. I think that's really hard. Andrew has lost his title. He's lost his home. He's lost almost all of his friends. He's lost the ability probably ever to make a living. He is, after all, Charles's a brother. And I think it's a special situation when he's also the king. And he's got responsibilities to the nation as well as to his family. But I would not want to be in Charles' position.

You said in 2021 that you may seek to depose Megamarkle, Prince Harry's wife, as part of Virginia's civil suit against Andrew, as she may have important knowledge about the then-Prince's behavior. Is that something you still think she may have information that could be useful? Well, I think that's quite likely. Now, whether she has any information, that we don't already know, I think, is more doubtful. We know so much more now than we did when we started the lawsuit against then Prince Andrew. So whether she has anything to add today, I'd be less certain.

But she certainly was in a position to know a lot about Prince Andrew. We've also seen the downfall of Lord Mandelson. It was the UK ambassador to the United States. He lost his job. He's now being investigated by the British police, not least because he appeared to be trading highly classified information about what the UK government was doing when he was a business minister. So he's in very hot water then.

But again, he has so far resisted going to the United States to testify in front of Congress. Do you feel the same way towards him as you? would towards Andrew, given Mandelson's clearly lied about the nature of his relationship with Epstein and was clearly around him, including on the island and everything, for a sustained long period of years. I believe that everyone who has information ought to share that information. You still have, as you saw earlier on your program, people who are denying the existence of the facts that are in front of all of us.

And I think particularly in that context, it's important that everybody who has information come forward and provide that information honestly. As I say, I think that I would feel the same way about Lord Nelson as I do about Andrew, that if they're prepared to come to the United States and testify under oath, they ought to be free to do that without worrying about that we're going to the United States. is going to seize them at the border. But I do think they've got an obligation to come forward. And perhaps they could even testify,

if they didn't want to come to the United States, perhaps they could even testify in the United Kingdom. I believe Congress would send representatives over to the United Kingdom to take their testimony. But one way or another, I think there is no excuse, none, for them not providing the evidence that they have, not providing the information that they have about the sex trafficking.

No, I completely agree. I had Alan Dershowitz on the show a couple of days ago, and he went to great pains. He was obviously Epstein's attorney for a long period of time. He went to great pains to try and defend Epstein's original conviction as not being a confession of being a paedophile. He said that in the end, Epstein only pled guilty

to soliciting prostitution from a girl of 17 years and 10 months and a 21-year-old young woman and said that's not a paedophile. What is your reaction to that? And is he telling the whole story there? I don't know why. Alan Dershowitz continues to try to defend what is just indefensible. He ought to take responsibility for his actions.

He ought to take responsibility for what he told the British press back at the time when he was representing Epstein. I really, I've had my mind. own issues with him and I really don't want to, you know, go after him more than I already have. But I don't think it's reasonable to say that he only acted as a lawyer. He acted as a publicist dealing with the press, telling the press incorrectly that Epstein had passed a lie detector test, which he didn't. And I think that everybody who is involved with Epstein needs to step up and take responsibility for their role. And I think the more that they deny, I think the worse it is, however they thought at the time, they now know what the facts are.

they know those justifications are false. I think everybody ought to take responsibility for what they did and for their support, assistance of what was going on. So I think Mr. Dershowitz, like a lot of other people, would serve themselves a lot better. by coming clean. And finally, David Boyes, Gillane Maxwell refused to give any answers to questions

before the House Committee last week, but said she may testify in exchange for clemency from President Trump. What's your response to that? There is no basis, none, for clemency. To give clemency or pardon to a person who played the role that she did in the victimization of dozens, hundreds of young girls and young women, would be a travesty. I think that the chances that President Trump's going to do that

are small, but I think if that were to happen, it would be an outrage. She has no person. She has no position or right to try to bargain for her evidence. The people of the United States, the people of the United Kingdom, the people of the world, have a right to know her evidence. And although she has a right against self-incrimination, she can be granted immunity for her testimony. That is, she can be granted immunity for the testimony in the sense that the testimony cannot be used against her. But she's already in jail.

Nobody needs to use that testimony to convict her. And if she fails to give that testimony after being granted immunity, she can be held in contempt. And she can be held in contempt and in prison for just as long as necessary. And the special treatment that the administration has given her, taking her out of the ordinary prison, putting her in a much more comfortable prison is an act of grace. It's an act that I think itself was a terrible mistake. But there's no reason none to try to coddle her and bargain with her for her testimony. I just took a quick look at the prediction markets.

Polymarket currently say there's just a 17% chance that anyone will be jailed over Epstein disclosures. Would you agree with that? Oh, I hope not. I think that is illustrative of the cynicism that people have about our justice system and the prosecutors. I think that's a reflection of the cynicism that people have about our Justice Department today. The cynicism that more than four out of five people

think that our Justice Department is going to give a pass to people because they're rich and powerful. I think that's a tragedy. Yeah, it is. David Boyes, thank you so much. It's great to have you back on our sense. I appreciate it.

Thank you. It's good to talk to you. Well, let's go back to the panel there. I'll be bringing John Kiriakou. I mean, David Boyes is always extraordinarily impressive. He's one of the great criminal lawyers in modern American history with an extraordinary track record.

What did you make of what he was saying there? Oh, I agreed with everything he said. You know, it's like we never learn from history peers. We didn't learn from Watergate or from Iran-Contra that the cover-up of the crime is almost always worse than the crime. It's always better just to be honest, because the truth will out eventually anyway. So just be honest. If there are three million more documents, by God, release the three million more documents. Let's let justice run its course. And I want to agree with another thing, he said. I thought that Gilane Maxwell was already given her gift when she was

transferred from a low security prison to a minimum security prison. There's an internal Euro of prisons policy that prohibits people convicted of child sex crimes from serving their time in a minimum security prison because minimum security prisons have no bars on the windows, no locks on the doors, you're free to come and go as you please, you're just on your honor not to abscond. They can't be sent to maximum or medium security prisons because they'll be killed there in many cases. So they have to go to low security prisons, which are secure, but not minimum. She's in a minimum, and she's the only child sex criminal in a minimum security prison. It's just wrong. It is completely outrageous. And on the other point that I

discussed the other day, and Alan Dershowitz has vehemently denied this, but there's growing evidence from these leaked documents that Epstein was working with. with Israel in some capacity. Do you believe he was a full-fledged Mossad agent? I've said from the very beginning, including right here on the show, that I've always believed he was a Mossad access agent. Maybe not polygraphed, formally recruited,

but he was working on behalf of Mossad, I believe, to get them access to important people and closely held information, that they otherwise would not have had access to. But now we also know from the latest tranche of documents that he had actively sought contact with the CIA and the FBI and that he had sought contact with MI5 and MI6 and possibly even the Germans.

So he was out there as what we would call in the intelligence community, an intelligence broker, somebody who has a little bit of information or access to information and is looking to see who is willing to pay what for it. Mike Benz, thank you for your patience in waiting so long to talk.

You're a former U.S. State Department official. You served in the first Trump administration. You've become more critical of the government since then. First of all, your reaction to David Boyes and that interview we just did. Well, I think it's generally right. There's the question of, I'm more concerned about, as, John pointed out, the cover-up, I think it's been, I'm not sure what the point of trying to contest the, you know, sort of evil nature of what was done. That to me matters much less than

the protection of it by institutions in our government, whether they be the Justice Department, the FBI, intelligence services, or oligarchs on the outside who want to hide their own relations. That to me is really what the heart of the scandal has moved to in the seven years after his death and the absence of questions. What I would add is that Congress can actually take an additional step with the, I'm reminded of the George Bush 2003 speech, mission accomplished after we invaded Iraq. This is kind of what this feels like to say. We've turned over everything. Mission accomplished. By the way, there's three million more files. We have zero information from the Central Intelligence Agency or the State Department.

The State Department actually leased Jeffrey Epstein, a five-story mansion that he stayed in for free for extended periods after it seized it from the government of Iran. Well, Jeffrey Epstein's own personal history in the CIA and foreign intelligence-adjacent spaces date back to the 1970s and the kind of Iran-Middle-Eastern and Latin American operations there. it seems very obvious at this point that there are entire troves, both within DOJ and CIA and state, that need to be turned over. What can be done right now, I think, to move the ball forward in both what David was saying and what folks like John mentioned here is in 1992, after the outroar, outpouring of anger that happened after Oliver Stone's JFK movie, there was a bill passed by Congress.

It was called the John F. Kennedy Records Collection. Act that forced the CIA to turn over or to set up an independent auditing board to begin the process of reviewing and declassifying documents. You can do the same mechanism here. If the Justice Department is saying there's three million, we're not turning over, pass another bill. Who's going to be on the other side of it? This one passed 427 to 1 in the House and 99 to zero in the Senate. Pass a bill and force them to be reviewed by an independent auditing board. And don't just make it DOJ FBI, extend it to the intelligence services the same way that both chambers of Congress passed in 1992 around JFK. Fascinating. Michael Tracy, was everything David Boyes said, giving you pause for

thought? I have to say, peers, I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't ask him a single challenging question. I invite you to ask me any challenging question you'd like, and you'd think that given David Boy's stature and him being hailed as this legendary criminal attorney that maybe he could tolerate one or two probing questions that might be outstanding, such as among these files that have been produced as of January 30th are a memo that memorializes internal deliberations amongst prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, in which they frankly convey that they are stunned as to how outlandishly non-credible Virginia Roberts Koufrey was when they interviewed her in September 2019. This memo is December 2019.

David Boyes represented Virginia, including as to the lawsuit that was brought against Prince Andrew. And yes, it was an extortionist lawsuit, but the British royal family is incredibly feckless. They are not going to challenge any of the premises that are being marshaled against him to foment this mass hysteria. moral panic, and therefore everybody takes the resolution of that lawsuit to mean that that there was some concession to Prince Andrew's guilt. Even if we want to stipulate that he did have some sort of sexual contact with Virginia Roberts Gouffrey when it was alleged to have taken place, she would have been above the legal age of consent in England, and yet we're told this is a giant pedophilic sex trafficking crisis. But you know what the file show us?

that the government investigators who were on a war path at this point against Epstein and then Maxwell discovered no credible evidence of any pedophilic sex trafficking or any sex trafficking at all to any third party individuals, which was the crux of the mythology that Virginia Roberts Gouffray incubated, that Tara Palmeri amplified so lamentably credulously, and that David Boyes actualized in the legal filings that he carried out on her behalf. This is outrageous. This is a fraud that's been perpetrated on the public by a conspiracy. You know what the conspiracy is?

The conspiracy is this unthinking brainless hysteria combined with journalistic credulity, combined with an unwillingness to do any actual research as to the facts and evidence, and to treat David Boyes like you just did. Now, why didn't you ask you about the 30% in a, attorney's fees that he convinced Judge Rakoff in the Southern District of New York to reward him for his almost $350-plus million lawsuit against Deutsche Bank and J.P. Morgan that he's now trying to extract even more from Bank of America, which is why he's... Can I ask a question?

Prevent to disclosure of Vetsky files because he doesn't want to undercut his page. Do you know what? I'm hearing... I'm hearing... I'm hearing a lot of conspiracy theories, but they're all coming out of your mouth. Let me give the final word to Tara, because he keeps... What conspiracy theory that I apostolied? When he's not lecturing me about my interview skills, he's lecturing you about your journalistic skills. So your response to that and to what David Boyes had to say. Please, Tara, go ahead.

Defend it. I don't know, Michael. Have you ever actually listened to any of the tapes at the Palm Beach, you know, the police in Palm Beach, the detective? Have you listened to any of the girls that they interview that? I've listened to them all. Yeah, and you think that they're not credible. I've listened to it all, Tara. You don't think that entire pyramid scheme

and in a high school in nearby? Do you think Virginia Robeskufreit's credible? She had nothing to do with that initial Palm Beach investigation. We're talking about your former journalist, the collaborator who had to recant allegations against Dershowitz, had to recant her allegations against a department professor, Stephen Koslin, recanted against John Luke Brunel. So you defend the credibility of your own cut your mind. Your own cut your mind.

Do you work? Do you work? Who do you work for, Michael? Because I've never met anyone in my entire life who would so, yeah, like, who's paying you? Who do you work for? I think a lot of people are wondering this because I've never seen anyone quite like you going after victims of sex crimes and attacking them like this. So you must be being paid by someone in power who does not like these accusations that have been made against them.

And I think it's fair to ask, are you being paid by? any of the men who've been accused by Jeffrey Epstein. I'm having trouble hearing right now. I wish I could respond to whatever nonsense. She just blurted out. My, I'm asking you if you have ever been paid by any of the men who have been accused of prime. But maybe somebody can.

A astonishing, an astonishing coincidence that you suddenly lost your hearing when you were asked a very difficult question. I'm rather telling it, I may say. I heard it. Okay. Can I ask? I'm not saying you didn't get cut. I'm just saying.

If he can hear you, can you ask him that question because he can't hear me, but maybe he can hear you asking that question. Yeah. I think it's a big question asked. Did you hear me, Michael? I can hear you very faintly. Did you just allege that I'm somehow implicated in the Epstein criminality, or did I miss hear you?

I asked if you're being paid by anyone. Tara asked if you're being paid by anybody to smear the victims of the Epstein scandal. See, rather than defend the merits of her journalistic output, which she can't because it's indefensible. What does she do? She tries to impugn me personally, tries to imply or... What's the answer to the question?

Of course I'm not being paid by anyone. I'm paid by my readers on substack, you idiot. You just can't engage on the merits, Tara. You are disgraced. I mean, I'm happy to be remembered as somebody who is integral in fomenting this moral panic and mass hysteria that's led to mass defamation like you just tried against me.

You know how Rok-Kana and Thomas Massey got caught a few? days ago accusing a random auto mechanic in New York and a random IT manager of having been complicit in pedophilic sex crimes, you're just following on in that tradition, which is so emblematic of how this issue has functioned in the popular mind. I'm going to give Tara. Now it's being weaponized political. No, of course, Pierce, I resent the implication. I resent the question. I ask her straightforward questions about her own journalist. Yeah, okay, I'm going to Tara now. Single aspect of it. You don't just get to talk at infinitum.

Instead, she tries to do her whole little defamation song and dance because she can't actually engage in an intelligent way because there's no defense. Tara, Tara, let me ask. I can talk about my reporting on the broken Jeffrey. Tara, let me ask you. Tara, you don't need to justify your reporting. It's been, it's been excellent on the whole scandal. Why not? Tara, let me just ask you.

Let me ask Tara. What was, Tara, what was your response to David Boyes' interview finally? You know, I think like, I think David Boyes has done. a lot of incredible work. And I know that to go after, you know, the crown was a really big deal, especially for his firm. They're obviously one of the biggest firms in the world. And so to target, you know, the monarchy is a really big deal when you have offices in London. And that can affect, as anyone would know, as a lawyer. So, and I think it's great that his partner, I'm blanking on her name right now. She's really earned the trust of the victims. And

It's, they're really hard cases to pursue. I mean, when you go after the most powerful people in the world, you can't represent them either. And when you have a talk, when you have a white shoe law firm, it's like, how are you supposed to do? How are you supposed to do that? So I think it's incredible. I think it's very commendable, excuse me. And I, you know, there's still so much more to do, though. There's still so many more places to go.

And unfortunately, I just don't see it coming from the Southern District. of New York, like, in particular with Leon Black, I mean, the man who was picked to replace Leon Black by Leon Black himself, like he picked his own successor, and that man is Jay Clayton. And now Jay Clayton is running the Southern District of New York. He is the lead prosecutor. And it's he really going to do an investigation into the guy who picked him to succeed him at Apollo management when he had to step down, when Leon Black had to step down because of Epstein, an Epstein investigation found that he paid Epstein $150, that million dollars to do a state planning. It's just everything is so incestuous. And how are we supposed to trust that power

will police itself? We can't. And that's where we are. You know what? That's where journalists like you come in and where lawyers like David Boyes come in. I've got to leave it there. Thank you all very much indeed. Thank you. Piersmore and our sense that is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we 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.