Piers Morgan Uncensored - 'He Was Given a PASS!' Epstein Prosecutor Says Prince Andrew HAS To Be Investigated

Episode Date: September 11, 2025

Tax Network USA: Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit https://TNUSA.com/PIERS to meet with a strategist today for FREE Editor’s Note: This interview was recorded before the horrific news of the Charlie Kirk shooting, which will be covered in a special live show tomorrow. Lawyer David Boies is best-known in the UK for representing Virginia Giuffre in her civil case against Prince Andrew; resulting in a settlement of a reported $16m. Now the Epstein Files has erupted into a major US political scandal and Ghislaine Maxwell is reportedly being primed for a pardon and lawmakers are calling for the Duke of York to return to the US and face a criminal prosecution. Boies joins Piers Morgan to discuss why he thinks he should be investigated and more. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Pique: Get 20% off your order plus a FREE frother & glass beaker with this exclusive link: https://piquelife.com/PIERS Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You ask about a cover-up. There's no doubt there's been a cover-up. There's no doubt that people have held back stuff to protect rich and powerful people. Were you aware of this? Have you ever seen this? And what do you make of the contents? Without Congress, I don't think anybody would have seen it. This is something that has been hidden for a long time. Have you ever seen any evidence that would suggest Donald Trump either took part in or was aware of any criminal activity involving Epstein?

You believe you've seen enough evidence to warrant a criminal prosecution of Prince Andrew. Both in the UK and the United States, he was basically given a pass. There should have been a prosecutorial investigation. It looks like she's being given a favorable treatment in return for saying things that is positive to the administration. There is nothing in there that is going to implicate Donald Trump, for example. I don't believe there's anything in there that's going to implicate any current member of the administration. So let it come out.

David Boyes has for decades been one of the most feared and revered lawyers in the United States. Just a week ago, he won a $400 million privacy suit against no less than Google. In the UK, he's best known for representing the late Virginia Dufray and her civil case against Prince Andrew, resulting in a settlement of a reported $16 million. Well, a lot's happened since we last. spoke, the Epstein files have erupted into a major US political scandal. The UK's ambassador to the US, Peter Madelson, is facing calls to resign over his friendship with Epstein. Gilein Maxwell

has reportedly been primed for a pardon and lawmakers are calling for Prince Andrew to return to the US and face a criminal prosecution. Well, David Boyce joins me again. David, great to have you back on Unsencenton, as you've just heard. So much has happened since we last spoke. Let me just start, First of all, if I may, with the sort of series of revelations this week involving the Epstein birthday album, for want of a better phrase, in which a number of eminent people, including Donald Trump and others, all penned these gushing tributes to Epstein. First of all, were you aware of this? Have you ever seen this? And what do you make of the contents? We had not seen it until relatively recently we had subpoenaed the birthday book that is we had subpoenaed

documents that included the birthday book but had not been produced and it had been held back until literally about 10 days ago so we had not seen it and indeed God bless the American Congress without Congress I don't think anybody would have seen it right so I think that this is something that has been hidden for a long time. And now, of course, it comes out. And it used to be said about America that we always reacted to late. And when we did react, we overreacted. And I think that you've got a little bit of that syndrome here with a birthday book. Do you think people are making too much of it, then? Well, I don't think they're making too much of it. I think it's a very important document,

and I think it shows the extent of Epstein's political and social and business relationships. On the other hand, remember the birthday book was done in 2003, which was significantly before Epstein was even accused, let alone convicted, of sex trafficking. And I think we've got to be careful that we don't combine two groups of people, One, people who had relationships with Epstein, who was very well regarded in social, academic, business, political circles at the time, and the people who were active collaborators and participants in the sex trafficking. I think that it's critical, as you and I have talked about several times before, to go after the people who made the sex trafficking

possible. This could not have gone on for the time it did, on the scope and scale it did, without a lot of support. On the other hand, I think that it's also important to distinguish between those people and the people who had relationships, social and business relationships with Epstein at the time, who may not, who very well may not have. Remember years after the birthday book. You had major respected American publications publishing very laudatory articles about Epstein and his so-called philanthropy. Do you draw a distinction, David, between in terms of reputational damage, not people who were directly involved allegedly in any criminal activity with Epstein, but in terms of reputational damage in this sense, between those who distanced themselves

from him after his first conviction which exposed him as a pedophile and those who carried on seeing him and the reason I'm asking is I know you'll be aware of this issue, the scandal brewing involving Lord Peter Mandelson, who's the UK new ambassador to the United States, who has now admitted for the first time that he carried on seeing Epstein,

staying at his homes, and being engaged in what appears to be extensive business deals. involving Epstein for a period of time, a number of years, potentially, after his conviction. Do you see a difference between those two categories of people? I do. I do. I think that people that continued to work with Epstein afterwards face much greater scrutiny. Although I will also say that after Epstein was convicted, the New York Times wrote a very all auditor piece about it.

So I think that the context, I think, is important. I think the most important thing is who was actually participating, who was actually supporting, who was actually collaborating, who actually knew about what was going on, and knew about what was going on continuing. I think that's a critical question to ask. And unfortunately, Congress, although we wouldn't have this progress without them, is not the best vehicle. I mean, this is something that the prosecutor should be looking at.

They're the ones that can separate out the wheat from the shaft. Have you ever seen any evidence that would suggest Donald Trump either took part in or was aware of any criminal activity involving Epstein? Absolutely not. And we've looked. We've obviously looked at both President Trump and former President Clinton. We've looked at all of the really high-profile people. And between my firm's representation and Brad Edwards' firm's representation,

we've represented dozens and dozens and dozens of victims, all of whom we've interviewed. We've looked at the documents. And although both presidents, Clinton and Trump had relationships, social relationships with Epstein that I know they regret, there's been no evidence at all. I'm quite confident that neither of them were involved in the actual sex trafficking or any of the sexual activities.

In the birthday book, there's obviously a... a message purporting to be from Donald Trump, who was a good friend of his at the time, so it's entirely plausible that he would have done a message in that book. Trump has vehemently denied it was him and says the signature was not his, even though people have compared it

and see it as being very similar to his signature at the time, and indeed today. Is he protesting too much? I mean, is Trump sort of almost trying to get ahead of things by denying stuff that probably is true when he doesn't really need to? I think he doesn't need to deny it. I don't think there's anything wrong about writing a note to a friend on his birthday.

And remember, this was years before he was accused of sex trafficking. I don't know, obviously, I have no personal knowledge, whether it's his signature or not on it. It looks like his signature, but if somebody was trying to copy his signature, they probably could. So I don't have any personal knowledge about that. But I do think that he's making more of it than he needs to in terms of denying it. Do you think in relation to Lord Mandelson, a lot of calls now in the UK that he should resign

on the basis that he has only just made public that he stayed in contact with Epstein for a long period after his conviction and that he believes all of embarrassing revelations are still to come out relating to their friendship, both professional and personal. Do you think it's tenable for someone to be holding down a position like the UK ambassador to the US once you've made an admission of that nature? I think it's certainly politically difficult. And I think in an ideal world, what you would do is you would look at the actual facts, and somebody would try to sort through that and make a judgment,

taking everything into account. I think in today's world, those kind of judgments are hard. As I say, I think right now this is a hot political topic, and anybody associated with Epstein is toxic. On the other hand, I think that if you look at it in a perspective, which I think is important to do, I think that ideally people would step back and try to understand what the facts are. For the people who collaborated, participated, I think we have gone far, far too lightly. We've simply let people skate who were.

integral and participants in the sex trafficking. On the other hand, what I'm concerned about is that the targets tend to be the targets that have the most public attention as opposed to the people who actually are the worst wrongdoers. From everything you have gleaned about this, how many other men, and I presume we're talking predominantly men here. Do you think you have enough information about that should warrant a criminal prosecution in relation to Epstein? I think there are between 10 and 20 men that we have enough information on that should entail a prosecutorial investigation. I think the number who I would be confident if I were a prosecutor of bringing a prosecution right now, just based on what I know

is fewer than that, considerably fewer than that. But I think we know enough to know that there are more than a dozen men who the government has enough information on that would justify at least a prosecutorial investigation, a serious prosecutorial investigation. And that hasn't happened. Is one of those men Prince Andrew? Yes. You believe you've seen enough evidence to warrant a criminal prosecution of Prince Andrew.

If you're stressed about back taxes, miss the April deadline, all your books are a mess. Well, don't wait. The IRS is cracking down. Penalties add up fast, 5% per month, and up to 25% for not filing. Tax Network USA can help. They've assisted thousands of America. from employees to business owners and people who haven't filed for years.

They have direct access to powerful IRS programs and expert negotiators on your side. Tax Network USA knows how to win. You'll get a free consultation and they may even be able to reduce or eliminate what you owe. So don't wait for the next IRS letter. Call 800-958-1000 or visit t-nusa.com slash peers. That's tnusa.com slash peers for expert help on your taxes. 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. It comes in crystal form.

There was no messing around. Just dissolve, sit 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, get 20% off for life, plus a free

frother and glass beaker with the pure bundle. Visit peaklife.com slash peers. That's peak, P-I-Q-U-E-Life.com slash peers. Not a prosecution, but certainly an investigation.

I would be cautious about saying who should be prosecuted and who should not be prosecuted. But one of the things that has frustrated us, as you and I have spoken about before, is it both in the U.K. and the United States. He was basically given a pass. And I think there's enough on the record that we have that there should have been a prosecution, prosecutorial investigation. And if there had been, either there would have been a prosecution,

or they could have said that they had determined that there should not be. Now we're in this situation in which, in some senses from a reputational standpoint, it's almost worse because you don't have a finding, you have all of the implications. There's been a sustained campaign,

in particular, to discredit the infamous photo of Prince Andrew Gillane Maxwell and Virginia Dufre when she was 17 years old. Right. We're going to come on to Gillian Maxwell, who obviously has been at the center of news cooperating with the Trump DAJ. But in terms of that photograph, do you believe that photograph is genuine? And what do you think of the campaign to try and discredit it? There is no question at all that that photograph is genuine.

genuine. We've actually traced it back to the place where it was developed. There is absolutely no question at all that that photograph is genuine. And I think that the attack, the sustained attack on that photograph was not only misguided, but really outrageous. And I think that one of the things that it did was it totally destroyed. Prince Andrews reputation and his credibility. It was something that, as I've said before, he would have been much better off accepting and trying to explain perhaps

than this misguided and totally baseless attack on its genuineness. What do you make of the development involving Gilles-Mexwell, which many people are seeing, is maybe a precursor to her getting pardoned by Donald Trump? Well, I certainly hope it's not a precursor to getting pardoned by Donald Trump. I think it was, again, undesirable. It looks like she's being given favorable treatment

in return for saying things that is positive to the administration. The administration doesn't need her to vouch for it. And I think showing that's kind of favoritism to her really was not only wrong, but I think it backfired. I think people are unhappy with that. And I would hope that the administration doesn't go any further. In relation to Gilein Maxwell's culpability, she obviously was convicted, do you think there's any doubt about her role with Epstein, her complicit role in aiding and abetting him with the abuse of these so many young girls?

I think the record at her trial was, was conclusive. I think you can't read the testimony and look at the evidence in that trial and have any conclusion other than the conclusion that the jury reached. In relation to Andrew, there is a move by people in Congress that he should be brought to the United States and be prosecuted and be made accountable. Would you, I mean, it is highly unlikely that that scenario is going to happen. But would you encourage it to happen? Do you think that justice would be served if that was to happen? I think justice might very well be served.

I would be troubled by prosecutions that are essentially generated by the legislature. I think that is something that the prosecutorial agency should be responsible for. I think one of the issues is what happens when the prosecutors don't do their job. And I think that that has been the situation here. I think this has been a situation where you have had just prosecutorial failures, serious prosecutorial failures. And in that situation, maybe the legislature is the only vehicle that you can turn to. But I think it's certainly undesirable from a procedural standpoint.

There's a general sense that there has been a cover-up. and that because Donald Trump's name appeared in the Epstein files, we knew that originally from Elon Musk, who told the world, his name is in the files, that he, and along with Democrat politicians, there's no one really with a vested interest politically in seeing full transparency here and seeing everything released. Do you think that from everything you know, would it serve the American public interest

if literally everything that is there is revealed to the public? Absolutely. Absolutely. I think that it all ought to come out, and it all ought to come out now. You ask about a cover-up. There's no doubt there's been a cover-up. There's no doubt that people have held back stuff to protect rich and powerful people. There's no doubt that the prosecutors have, frankly, been overwhelmed by Epstein and people supporting Epstein. and people who have vested interest in Epstein files not being totally made public. I think the American people will only have confidence when it all comes out. So I think that, I think Congress is doing a great service here.

And as I said at the beginning, God bless the American Congress. Because without that, much more would still be hidden. hidden, but it all ought to come out. And I think that's in the interest of the administration. There is nothing in there that is going to implicate Donald Trump, for example. I don't believe there's anything in there that's going to implicate any current member of the administration. So let it come out and, you know, take out the names of the victims. But let all of the evidence come out and let the American people see it. Virginia Dufray has transpired, left a memoir posthumously,

which is now going to be published in October. Have you seen the contents of this book? I have not. I have not. I knew that she was considering writing it. I didn't know how far that had progressed, and I've not seen the contents. From everything that you...

But I think it will... I was just going to say, David, from everything that you, from your conversations with Virginia, you know, many, many conversations, do you think that this book could cause a sensation? Could she start in the book posthumously naming names, other names? I think she might. Her mission from the beginning, and she said herself, was to attack the sin more than the sinners. I think she was devoted her life after she escaped Epstein to trying to make sure that what happened to her didn't happen to other people. I think she was much more interested in that than in pursuing sort of personal vindication against individuals. So I'm not sure how much she will name names in there as opposed to talk about the circumstances. But she does have names to name. I know that. How many victims do you think there were of Jeffrey Epstein?

It's so hard to say, but hundreds. I had two clients, both recruited by Maxwell and Epstein the same month, one in Santa Monica, California, one in Johannesburg, South Africa. This was an international operation that funneled dozens of young girls to the mansion and the ranch and the place in Florida and the island year after year after year. So it was a very large number of people. We have names for over 100, but there are many people whose name we don't even know. Is this one of the worst scandals of its kind you've ever encountered?

I think it is. I think it is on several levels. I mean, it's a terrible scandal and tragedy just in terms of the sex trafficking. But it's also a terrible scandal and tragedy for the failure. of everyone who should have been paying attention to this. Everybody in the media, prosecutors, lawyers, this is a failure of the justice system at large. It is a failure to protect these most vulnerable people in our society. And one of the things that I think is really disturbing,

Because the only time this really gets any traction is when there's a political aspect to it. I'm not sure we ever would have gotten the prosecutors to go after Epstein and Maxwell even if you'd not had the scandal involving Acosta, who, of course, he was U.S. Attorney at the time of the sweetheart deal, but by the time the Miami Herald articles were written, he was He was Secretary of Labor. And without that political hook, I'm not sure we ever would have had the attention. And if the birthday book didn't have Donald Trump and Bill Clinton in it, I'm not sure it would be getting anything like the attention it is.

So I think that we are still failing these young women because we're not vindicating them. We're not going after the people who abuse them. It's much more a political exercise. And I think that's unfortunate. Yeah, I completely agree. David Boyes, always great to have you on Uncensor. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you.

Thank you. Good to talk to you. Pittsburgh and Unsensad is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask the 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 Uncensored Media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.