The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - The Jeffrey Epstein Scandal Goes Global

Episode Date: February 9, 2026

It used to be seen as a passing, dirty, American sex scandal in the beginning, but over time it has also involved an ex-President, business, political and entertainment figures, and the current President. But now, over the past few weeks, the Epstein scandal threatens major figures in other countries. Today, on her regular Monday appearance, Dr Janice Stein of the Munk School at the University of Toronto has her say. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Van Sbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of the bridge. Jeffrey Epstein, the scandal now spreading around the world with people losing their reputations and their jobs. Janice Stein on this and the impact it's having. Coming right up. And hello there. Welcome to Monday. Welcome to our regular Monday episode coming up with Dr. Janice Stein for the Monk School, the University of Toronto.

Jeffrey Epstein is the discussion today and a few other things as well. But first, some other things I'd like to mention. Canadian journalism lost a giant over this weekend with news that Ellie Alboim had passed away. Now, many of you probably never heard of Ellie Alboim. many journalists have certainly heard of him because he's had an impact on that profession for the last 50 years. He was my boss when I was a correspondent for the CBC on Parliament Hill through the 70s, 80s, Ellie was the Bureau Chief of the CBC in Ottawa and under his guidance

a lot of different journalists found their way created reputations and were stalwarts in the profession most of it thanks to Ellie Albuoyne a great journalist a great mentor a great friend

Ellie was also a journalism professor at Carlton University for 40 years. In his last 15 or 20 years, he was also one of the leading consultants in the nation's capital, advising politicians and businesses. So this is somebody who had an incredible mark on the nation's capital, but especially so for journalists. and I look across the spectrum of Canadian journalists who've done well in the business, so many of them can point towards the learning lessons they achieved with Ellie Albuoyne. News of his passing over the weekend has,

you know, shaken the core of Canadian journalism. You know, literally within hours of the news coming out on Sunday morning, I heard from friends, colleagues around the world who wrote to me and we wrote to each other about Ellie's passing because he had had such a tremendous impact on all of them, some of whom went off into business, some of whom went into politics,

most of whom stayed in journalism. and we're with the CBC, with CTV, with various other Canadian news organizations, but also news organizations around the world, the BBC, at CBS, NBC, ABC, ABC, you mentioned Ellie Alboim's name to anybody who's had a hint of any Canadian involvement, and they'll know who you're talking about.

you will not be forgotten, and nor should he be. Monday morning, we also tell you the question of the week for Thursday, for your turn. The question of the week this week is about working from home versus working from the office. As you know, many governments, including the federal government, are stipulating that you've got to get back to the office to work. Now, I know it's always, whenever these phrases are used, there are people who say and should say, hey, I work at home. I've always worked at home. I will continue to work at home because that's my job.

I look after the kids. I run the house. So we do not forget that. And we acknowledge that. This question, though, as you know, is a, you know, it came as a result of COVID, really, where so many offices were shut down and people worked from home. And in many cases, some people are still working from home versus going into the office.

So I want to know your thought on it as we once again get closer to a move towards getting everybody back into offices. What's your feeling about that? Working from home versus working from the office. Give me your thoughts on that, but give me those thoughts in less than 75 words. They're fewer than 75 words, sorry. You write to the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. You have your answers in before 5 o'clock, or excuse me, before 6 o'clock. Actually, this week we're going to do it much earlier.

Before 3 o'clock. Eastern time. on Wednesday. All right, that's the deadline this week. 3 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday. Include your name and the location you're running from. Those are the conditions. Work from home versus work from the office.

Your thoughts on that this week on your turn for Thursday. All right. Tomorrow, by the way, it's, Reporter's Notebook with Rob Russo and Altheir Raj. And that's also available on YouTube tomorrow. We started doing Tuesdays on YouTube as well as Friday's a good talk. So keep that in mind, please. All right, let's get with it with today's...

Today's thoughts from Dr. Janice Stein, and they're all about the Jeffrey Epstein story. And there's lots to talk about on that. you'll find out right now with Dr. Janice Stein. So Janice, the name Jeffrey Epstein has been heard on our program over the past couple of years, but never more than just sort of a passing reference and a U.S. scandal kind of thing. The past week has shown us clearly that this is more than just a U.S. scandal. You see the Prime Minister of Great Britain, you know, in serious trouble.

May you even have to resign. Even though he's never been personally implicated, some of his decisions are clearly up for discussion. Now, Poland is opening up an investigation. Timothy Snyder, you know, reposted a link just over the weekend about that. Have we underestimated the scale of the Jeffrey Epstein, story in terms of international affairs, foreign affairs? You know, we likely have, Peter, and, you know, on multiple levels, we've probably

underestimated. There's the connections that you just mentioned. You know, in the United Kingdom, David Mendelsohn. Why is the ambassador? There's no more prestigious job in the... the UK foreign service and being the ambassador to Washington. It's like us, right, in Canada. That ambassadorship is the most valued thing there is.

And why is that? Well, because so much goes through Washington. So it's usually a close friend of the prime minister who can report directly to the prime minister. Well, David Menelson, it became apparent. in these last 10 days had a very close personal relationship with Epstein.

Who knows what got compromised? Because the story here is he told me judgment, which is what strikes me. There are these personal emails. There were the personal relationships. And Mendlinson is somebody

who had access to every important secret piece of knowledge that existed, frankly, between the United States and the United Kingdom. And yet, I mean, when I read those emails, Peter, it's almost incomprehensible to me. He, you know, these people knew, know about security. They're brief. They're trained. They understand that no email is secure.

an email is a public conversation that frankly anybody can access. So of course this is going to create a huge storm in Britain because it's the prime minister's judgment that's at stake then, where he, his most important, most trust in envoy is engaging in this kind of activity. Look, if Andrew's engagement was enough to get him kicked out of the royal family, which it was finally what does this tell you in Poland

I mean the same sort of story and in the Netherlands a member of the royal family as well drawn into this so I think we'll find traces of this the Clintons the ubiquitous Clintons

that was all I can say who never leave us no matter how we all wish we could move on from Hillary and Bill Clinton. We just can't seem to do it. And look, in this particular case, Bill Clinton, you certainly had a relationship with FSI. Hillary Clinton and I suspect this is the truth. We'll see. Hillary Clinton claims she know nothing. about it and that may well be the case.

You know, what was Bill Clinton the former president doing here? Again, former presidents, by the way, are briefed all the time on sensitive security issues. Any time that there's a national security crisis, usually, I don't know what goes on with this right house, but usually presidents make a real effort to brief former president so for two reasons one because they want them to be in the no and not misspeak but also because they often solicit their judgment and opinion they've been there they've been in the situation room they understand so really what this means when you look at it the first level is that I've seen was closely connected to people who are an inch away from some of the most important decisions the United States makes, but some with its, in many ways, arguably, its most important ally. You know, it is an incredible story when you start to piece all these different parts together. Let me just mention a couple of things.

I know you know this, but you mentioned a couple of times that it was David Mandelson. It's Peter Mandelson, right? Peter Mandelson. Yes, you are right. As far as the Clintons go, they want to testify and testify publicly on camera, on the record, in front of a congressional committee. At the moment, the committee run by the Republicans doesn't want them to testify publicly. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out. We all remember what happened in the Benghazi hearings when Hillary Clinton appeared.

she wiped the floor with those guys. She was, and it went on for hours, right? Like 12 or 13 hours. They had her and they never were able to pin her. Well, they were able to pin her down. She was able to pin them down. She was formidable adversary. Exactly.

Formidable. In this case, she likely knows not very much, I would suspect. Right. You never know, as you say, with the Clintons. Here we are 30 years later in the Clintons are still. It's still the dominant force bill. And then, of course, Hillary from later on when she ran for president. Let me get back to this.

The most recent one for me anyway in terms of reading about it. And thanks to Timothy Snyder for reposting this article. But this is the issue that in some ways, it kind of drives at the heart of what Trump's relationship may have been with Epstein. because they were very close through the 90s and the early 2000s. And nobody's denying that. His name has mentioned thousands of times in the Epstein files. We don't know for exactly what, because a lot of it's been blacked out, apparently. But this issue in Poland, the investigation that's starting,

is trying to nail down the ties, really, between Russia and Epstein. and we've never quite understood what the ties between Russia and Trump were through that same period, like in the 90s and the early 2000s, when they were friends. So there may well be kind of a tugging of the strings together here on some of this stuff. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, you're absolutely right about that. No intelligence agency has been able to. come up with a convincing

explanation, much less a smoking gun with any kind of evidence, not the CIA, not any foreign intelligence agency that explains Trump's favorable treatment to Russia. And, you know,

I've had the opportunity occasionally to speak to what we call farmers, people who are retired, right? And, you know, You know, those kinds of conversations go like this, Peter. They go, please don't reveal anything that you can't reveal. But I'm going to tell you what I think.

And maybe you could just say yes or no. And right? You see why you have them that way. And some of these people are out five or six years. And so I remember asking, well, it's not money because, Because if it were money, he would just say so. And, you know, it actually wouldn't have a big impact on his face. No, it's not money.

It's not sex to be direct here because that's a classic way rush up blackmail is they set you up so that you're compromised. And then they say they're going to go public with it. It'll break up your marriage. it will do this, it will do that. Well, frankly, for Trump, given everything that has already come out, I don't think that's a very

effective blackmail tool. And so I said this, and they had nodded, you're right. So when you take away money or sex as an object to blackmail, they've never

found anything that can explain. So we're back at, well, he admires strongmen as a more general explanation. But this may well be the missing link herein may well be. And again, we don't know because so much is redacted, blocked out in the emails. But I think, you know, Tim is right to draw attention to this. It's a surprising story, and here I think you're right as well, which the public has not paid attention to. We'll see where this goes.

You know, I think there's a, for me, there's another level here, regardless of any specific story. This is a man, obscene, who accumulated wealth. originally him you know by ingratiating himself with very wealthy Americans Wexner in the United States, multi-billionaire with real estate investments and then we now know procured young women but built a global network around it which is just astonishing frankly

and to me it's astonishing you know at every level that otherwise what we think are people with good judgment in responsible positions in the United States, you know, in Europe, treated their emails with obscene, disclosed stuff in emails that no person who knows even the minimum about security would disclose. and so what causes a lapse in judgment, Peter? The access to young women that he'd provided? Well, wow, if that's the case, first of all, all these secret services failed. You know, Starmer's in trouble, but where was MI6?

How come they weren't? Their job is to monitor what Menelson was doing in Washington, And frankly, that's part of their job. Where, you know, where was the Dutch intelligence agency? Now, Poland. This is not only a failure of these individuals with labs structures, but what does it tell you about these intelligence services that didn't warn? How come no British prime minister was warned about Mendelso?

Well, let me counter that with this. What you can say about the Brits, perhaps about the polls, perhaps about the Dutch, is that, you know, within, literally within days of these things being made public, there was action, there was resignations, there were firings, and it started going up the ladder of responsibility. This has been boiling away for years in the United States. And I don't want to suggest there haven't been any,

And nobody's paid the price because some have, especially in the private sector. But politically? Nobody. I don't see it. Nobody. Nobody. But let me come back just for one second to the intelligence community. I can tell you we're going to get mail, as they say.

This stuff was made public. But they must have known something. Yeah. And they left these people in place. Right? They left these people in place. Well, you know, you don't do that. If the CIA knows somebody is being blackmailed,

they usually urge the president to remove that person because it's a vulnerability. And that's why they monitor people to make sure they're out blackmail. look for many of these people this is blackmailable these emails that's why they weren't released and even what was released or redacted and let's be honest

here Trump you know blocked the release for years until he was finally pushed to the wall by his own by the politics from his own base but geez the intelligence community must have known about this stuff and nobody lost their job

until the stuff became COVID But now, I agree with you that the Brits and the Dutch and the polls hopefully will be better than the United States. But this is still a massive intelligence failure as well as a political story. If this story is looking the way it's starting to look, like it's a much bigger story than your kind of dirty sex scandal in Washington. If it's much bigger than that, who's the, who could be the real puppet? master here. If it wasn't Jeffrey Epstein, was it Vladimir Putin?

Is that beyond the stretch of imagination? You know, it wasn't Jeffrey Epstein, for sure. So I think that's exactly the next question for me is where in the intelligence community was this information? because some intelligence agency had to have this information, Peter. Some, there's, I mean, let me, let me be honest here. Emails or open documents. Cell phone conversations are trackable and you can listen to them with any kind of access.

And so it would, I would be astonished if some intelligence agents, He hasn't had this stuff for quite a while. So who did? I mean, clearly, it looks like the Brits did not, or they wouldn't have left Mendelsohn in place as long as they did. The CIA did not. No, the CIA should not have had, because the CIA, just like CIS, is not supposed to conduct espionage activities

against American citizens. That's an FBI job, not responsibility, not a CIA job. Did one of the several Russian intelligence agencies? I'd be very surprised if one of them

didn't have a chunk of this, unredacted, by the way, information. How will we know? I don't know. well know, but it is at least, it is hypothetically an explanation for somebody, for something that nobody has been able to successfully answer all these years, which is what is Putin's fall on Trump?

No one has answered that question. You never know. Maybe we're getting closer to finding out now. You never know. Let me ask you this before we move on, because we got a couple of the things we want to check in on. You've mentioned a number of times about how, you know, emails are open.

They are. Phone calls are open. Is anything secret anymore? You know what the best thing? Well, it's interesting. Anything secret, not social media. You know, one that's gotten a lot of attention lately, signal,

which is an end-to-end encrypted. Now, wait, just for a second, what does the end-to-end, the encrypted mean? The owner of the service does not have the keys. So when an agency approaches the owner of the service and says, give me the keys to de-encrypt this message, they don't have the keys. They distribute those functionally, not in practice, to the signal users. Okay, go ask any experienced person how hard it is to break into signal. They'll laugh, right, if you're expert at it.

So what's the last remaining to me? Safe place to have a conversation is on a landline. A landline to landline. Who has those anymore? Oh, I do. But you can't do it with a cell phone at the other end, right? It's got to be a landline conversation. And by the way, that's why when you go into a meeting in Ottawa,

you leave your cell phone outside. Right. Because even when your cell phone's turned off, it's still tracking and it can still be recording. no cabinet minister ever brings the cell phone into a cabinet meeting. They're locked boxes outside where they lock their cell phones and every piece of digital equipment that they have. If you do that and there's no bugs anywhere in the room, that's confidential.

But for the rest of us, landline to landline. You know, I thought you were going to say the proverbial park bench, you know, in the middle of nowhere. That's the only place you can be. But you know what? If you're on a park bench and one of you has a cell phone. Yeah, exactly. And you know, I've spent some time dealing with the security forces on various matters.

And I can remember asking one of the fellows who was working on a mobile phone, trying to take it apart, right, and determine what was in it. And I said, can you is there a cell phone that can that you could not break into if you had to and he said no said i can can break into anything and he said no matter what kind of shape it is in it may have you know being in an explosion and being destroyed i can still tell you exactly what was in there and i can cover it yeah so i guess we should all remember that uh okay through about laptops yeah yeah yeah And it's astounding.

There is no privacy functionally left. And as we move into a more and more digital world, you know, who's going to make landlines anymore? The companies won't support them for very long. I think the best advice is to assume that nothing is secret anymore. That's right. Yeah. And that's why these email caches and now it's true they were written years ago,

but they're still astounding to me. I'm absolutely astonished. Right. And even when you delete, it's still there. Yeah, that's right. It's right forever. Yeah, exactly. Okay, going to take our break and then we come back and we got a couple of things we want to check in on.

We'll do that right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to the Monday episode of The Bridge. That means Dr. Janice Stein from the Mug School, the University of Toronto. You're listening on Series XM. Channel 167, Canada Talks are on your favorite podcast platform. Glad to have you with us, no matter which platform you are on. Okay, a couple of things we want to touch base on.

One is Iran. You know, I keep looking at various reports on how these negotiations between the United States and Iran, you know, brokered by any number of different people in countries. And they just keep going on and deadlines keep passing. I ain't the latest deadline with something like June or something. Trump saying you've got till June to sort this out. The same thing with Russia and Ukraine. You know, deadlines keep passing.

The Iranian thing, one assumes the Iranians will keep going to meetings because they don't want to get bombed. So they're not going to walk away from anything. what do you make of what's going on here? So the Iranians are going to rag the puck to use a Canadian expression for as long as they can because you're absolutely right, as long as their negotiations with the Americans, it's going to be tougher to use military force. Right now that's not a big problem for the United States because they're still moving assets into the region.

But, look, Peter, we said the same thing about Venezuela. You cannot keep a large force deployed forever. And the United States is pulling assets out of the Caribbean away from the Pacific, moving it back into the Gulf. There are squadrons of fighters now deployed in the Gulf. It can't go on for months. Frankly, this has to come to a head one way or the other. And so if you pay attention to what they're saying in public, there's no deal right now. That's for sure.

But there was an interesting back conversation going on in and around Washington. And Wendy Sherman gave voice to that on Sunday, really. And here's the back conversation. We may take out the Ayatollah, Ham. but there is a real risk that we will get worse than this regime. And what does she mean by that and others like her? And she means that the clerics who are frankly in their 80s, they're older. They're more conservative.

They're more cautious. There are some radical younger revolutionary guards who will, be far more aggressive than Iran has been in the past will not meet any of the expectations of Iranians who want the

Republican guards gone because yes how many ordered the killings but the Republican guards and the Basis are the ones who executed on them and the numbers from what I'm reading we don't have an accurate number Peter but they are larger but people who do

these calculations. They're the largest in Iranian history. And there's some speculation that this may be the largest killing by regime in the period of time of its own citizens. Those are the actions of a desperate regime that will do anything to stay in power. You have a desperate regime. You're rolling the dice. Let me put it to you that way. The calculations they make are not likely to be what we would call rational because they're so desperate to stay in power. So what I'm picking up is a kind of orange light blinking here. After the Trump rhetoric, this may be much more dangerous than you think. This could be longer than you think. The outcome may not be what you think it is. And this could cause significant, and you know, why June, by the way, as a deadline? It's November midterms.

That's why June, right? And the last thing you want, Mr. President, is to be involved in an ongoing war where Americans are being killed in the run up to those elections. I get a sense that those messages are starting to be circulated in and around the president. Well, you know, as we've said before, the American history in the Middle East is not a good one, no matter whether it's Republicans or Democrats, there have been, you know, setbacks and disasters on hand there in the past. Okay.

there was something else I was going to ask on that particular front in terms of Iran. Oh, I know what it was. Do you watch Tehran? Do you watch the TV series? Yeah. You know, it's an Israeli television series. Yes. And no matter how you may feel about Israel these days,

one thing you can say is their television production companies are pretty damn good. Tehran is really well done. just as Fowder was really well done. Yeah, you know, spy thrillers, right? And it's all about Iran. Yeah, they have lots of people that can provide expert in life and simulate real life situations, Peters. Yeah, no, it's, I would highly recommend it.

You know, it's subtitles, so you've got to be able to read and watch at the same time. But it's really, it's very good, very well done. Okay. I'm moving on from Iran. And just that one before we move on, now that you've brought it up, all the stories about the scope of penetration of Mossan, the Israeli intelligence agency inside Iran are more or less correct. Yeah.

It is the most penetrated society right now, which is what's contributing in part to the paranoia inside the regime, right? That's why, you know, some of the leaders are in bunkers. You don't know who to trust. No, listen, I'm sure the CIA is in Iran as well. But I don't think is any doubt that the success of the American raid last summer on the nuclear facilities was largely at a result of the intelligence they were getting from Assad. And the defense help they got from the Israelis as well to get their bombers into.

Iran without any difficulty. Okay, Russia, Ukraine. What have you got to report there? Is this the same kind of dance that we're watching going on with Iran? It is. And there, by the way, the June deadline, you know, Trump was, I want this done by June. And that is the midterm elections driving this.

The difference is, I think, that there has been so much more work done on the Russia Ukraine process than there has been on a run. There's no work at all at really been done there. And there's two or three big issues that are outstanding. It all depends on how you frame this issue, right, Peter? You can frame it as Timothy Snyder and others would, that this is resistance to aggression and any capitulation.

We'll just open the door to Russia in other parts of you. Eastern Europe and there's good history to support that argument, frankly. You can frame it as well, no, he's got a particular obsession with Ukraine. And there's a lot, there's evidence to support that too.

And we're now arguing about the last 20% of the Donbass. And given the terrible price, and you hear this from some of Ukrainians now, given the terrible price this regime is paid in Ukraine, if they were sure,

that this was the last round. And if they were confident that these security guarantees would really hold, well, 20% is a price that some of them now would be willing to play. This is their worst winter yet. For the Russians, they've dug in on this 20%. They want the whole of the Donbass, even though they haven't conquered that last 20%. There's two other sticking points, the security guarantees,

for Putin, it is still a red line that any Western forces be deployed even behind the lines once a ceasefire and agreement is reached. And then the other big one is the Zaporizia nuclear plant, which the Russians want. And there's no reason for them to have it, frankly. and it's crucial to meet Ukraine's energy needs. Ukraine's energy infrastructure is totally battered. It is freezing cold this winter all over Ukraine. It is the worst winter of a war that is, you know, lasted from February 22 on.

We are into the fifth year of this war longer. then we're approaching the length of World War II for a civilian population that is really, really suffering in the cold. And that's what the Russians are doing. They want to break the energy infrastructure. Three big issues. And you have to ask yourself, given our earlier discussion, what leverage does the United States have over Russia to force concessions, frankly? So if you want it done by June, who's he going to push? you can only push your grain

yeah yeah there was an interesting poll load in Hungary this past week which showed for the first time not necessarily the first time but the first time with a significant lead for Victor Orban's opposition

Orban has democratically won elections in Hungary for quite some time and convincingly, right? People aren't happy with a lot of the things they're not happy with the governments around the world right now. But Orban, who has had the staunch support of Donald Trump, including just this week, Trump, you know, putting out a thing saying he supports him in the next election, which comes up, I think, in the next, later this year, early 27, one of the other. But at the moment, the opposition leader has got like a nine-point lead. A big lead. Big lead, which would be a bit of a shocker in Hungarian politics and European politics for that to happen, because it sort of in some ways came out of nowhere.

You know, Peter, this is the most optimistic story of the week. Right. To me. I took so much encouragement from this story because he, you know, Orban was Trump before Trump. You know, I have a country that's smaller, not the United States, but this was the right-wing populist playbook. And Orban was the first man to the game. Let me put it that way. And has a base in the same way that Donald Trump.

has a base that cares about those same sense of issues you know the playbook is so similar white Christian male left behind antivoke all the same sets of issues

and and Orban has won repeatedly not so in Poland where there was a back and forth but Orban has won repeatedly why do I find there's such an optimistic story because even for a leader and a movement that is so entrenched, there's a possibility you can defeat these people at the polls.

No government is forever. And you don't vote the opposition in. You vote the government out. I mean, that's one of the most fundamental rules of politics. And if the Hungarians can do it, after all is time. and I hope they can, frankly. If they can do it, well, the rest of, you know, other right-ling populist governments, let me put it this way,

can be defeated at the polls too. Now, what's really crucial about Orban, he didn't tamper with elections. Right. And didn't claim that they're stolen and didn't seize ballot boxes and didn't interfere with the machinery of elections. That was the one guardrail that he did not cross all this time.

So that's an important one. And the guy he could possibly lose to is a former, you know, a supporter of his and was worked alongside of him. His name is Peter Magyar. But he's the one who's leading the opposition now. And we'll see. we all know. We can learn from our own experience

that a lead a year away from an election doesn't mean a victory. No. But it's, you know, but it still tells you. I mean, it's an encouraging story. Let's take, you know, let's build on an optimistic story for what I said. A population that has had a war map.

Four years now, you might argue all, you know, you squeezed out all the opposition politics. But there is a public that becomes frustrated with the government. It's a 10-year shelf life, right? More or less. And if you can survive it and you can keep the fundamental guardrails in place, the story isn't, the history does not end. It's the other side of Francis.

Okay, almost argument. You know, Frank argued the history ended with democracy, the triumph of democracy. And I think for us, the story really is history doesn't end with the triumph of right-wing populisms. Going to close out on this. We've got a couple of minutes for this one. You know, much the country is watching the Olympics over these next two weeks. And it gives everybody kind of a break from everything else. You watch, you know, curling and downhill skiing and hockey and all of that.

And, you know, having been there at so many different Olympics over the years since the mid-80s, you always looked at them and saying, wow, this is quite something, you know, people from all over the world, even people who are in conflicts right now, they've got their athletes from their countries, and they're there together on the field or at the opening ceremony or whatever. Does the Olympics at all play any role in the big geopolitical picture anymore? you know they are at the official level when you watch the opening in the closing ceremonies and this one had a stirring speech about common humanity as they all do but the Olympics have always been political always been political you know going back probably to the most famous case um which was in the 1936 Olympics in Germany and that you It was a great movie about the runners in that Olympics in the summer Olympics, but the Winter Olympics too where athletes went to a Nazi rule of Germany.

And after that, you know, Olympics have been filled with boycotts of one kind or another. And those are, you know, they boycotted Russian athletes after the occupation, after the invasion. of Ukraine. So Russian athletes at this Olympics, Peter, are not competing for Russia. They're competing as individuals, right? There were calls to boycott Israeli athletes and American athletes and the United States because of what they're doing in Minneapolis. And of course, that was going to fail. But there's always political undercurrent at the Olympics. So when I look back at the history Olympics, I asked the other question. Was there ever any kind of diplomatic breakthrough at the Olympics as a result of opposing sides,

following the same rules, but in this case, the rules are of sport, right? You actually don't get to college shots. The referee does. You don't. So even when you're on both sides of the conflict, just following the rules together. have it impacted and people ever have backroom conversations? Nope. Nope. I went and looked. Um, there's nothing that we can actually trace other than a feel good moment. But we've never had a real diplomatic breakthroughs that came out of a game. You know, there were a number of people,

including the Pope who tried to get a ceasefire in Russia, Ukraine. I think. think as a result of the the Olympics called on for one didn't happen so that kind of fits with your your theory okay we're past our due time here so we have to wrap it up for this I'm going to ask you you watched every

Olympic ceremony you've been at the mall Peter you've been there first hand how did this one rank which one do you think was most dishonesty. Well, yeah, hey, the Vancouver one was pretty good. The Atlanta one, when

Muhammad Ali lit the flame. That was a moment. I mean, that was like it was a jaw dropper. Yeah. The last time I was in Italy. I was there and it was Luciano Pavarotti who sang at the opening

ceremony. It was the last time he sang in public before he died. And he wasn't well then. but it was still Pavarotti, you know, it was amazing. I always look at those, I just look at opening ceremonies to the Olympics as trying to imagine that most of the world is in that moment watching the same thing. They are. You know, billions of people.

And they'll have different agendas and different thoughts about what's happening. But we're all, we're kind of, you know, together for a moment. and no matter what the display might look like on the field in front of you, it's still pretty, you know, invigorating and optimistic in some sense. So we'll hope for that here. All right, Janice, thanks so much for this. We'll talk again seven days. Even a week.

Dr. Janice Stein, Munk School, University of Toronto, and her thoughts on a variety of things today. but especially so, more than the first half of the program, was dealt with the expanding nature of the Epstein scandal. We're in effect, it goes global. It's going to be interesting to see as the drip, drip, drip continues as to how far it goes. And when we see resignations and firings and you name it,

In other parts of the world, are we going to start to see it at some degree at ground zero of this story, which of course is in the United States? There have been some resignations, but you know what I'm talking about. All right, that's going to wrap it up for this day and the start of our latest week of the bridge. Tomorrow, the Raj Russo report. Althea Raj, Rob Russo, will be into television. all things, Ottawa. I look forward to that. And then the rest of the week goes on, as always. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening on this day. Talk to you again in less than 24 hours.