3rd February 2026
You probably have seen the disclosures of the emails purportedly from Lord Mandelson from when he was business secretary.
On the face of it, these emails raise serious questions which warrant further enquiry and investigation.
(And if you want speculation about legal liability this really is not the blog for you.)
There are also questions we can ask of this documentary evidence, and observations that we can perhaps make.
*
First of all: no documentary evidence exists in a vacuum.
Every text has, well, a context.
(Think about the words text and context.)
The Epstein files are not a disinterested archive.
The documents were collected for a purpose and were stored for a purpose.
According to the relevant legislation, the disclosed documents comprise “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in DOJ’s possession that relate to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein”.
So one question that can be asked of the documents disclosed so far is: do they explain the prosecutorial decisions (and also the defense and any judicial decisions) in respect of the “the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein”?
If there is a gap between what has been disclosed and what these documents need to explain, then one can get a sense of what documents have not (yet) been disclosed (whether for good reasons or bad).
Of each document one should ask: how does this document relate to “the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein”?
For if the document does not relate to the that investigation and prosecution, then it should not have been collected, and it would not have been disclosed.
*
From a cynical perspective, there is always corruption in and around government.
What seems to have been revealed with these United Kingdom disclosures emails is clumsiness and arrogance.
A less clumsy and less arrogant approach would have meant such emails never existing.
Westminster and Whitehall is full of leaks: off the record briefings and so on.
There is complex and thriving entire unofficial information economy in SW1.
The sort of state information seemingly forwarded by Mandelson to Epstein is similar to documents which are routinely forwarded or briefed to journalists and advisers and lobbyists and researchers and think tanks.
“Sources close to….”
“Friends of…”
“Whitehall insiders say…”
Such unauthorised communications and disclosure are rife in Westminster and Whitehall.
What Lord Mandelson appears to have done is an especially significant breach involving highly market sensitive information.
But if so, its significance is really of scale, and not of type.
*
There appears to be many documents covered by the Epstein files disclosure legislation that, contrary to the terms of the statute, have not been disclosed.
No government discloses adverse information easily or voluntarily, or indeed often at all.
Especially if, as with the Trump administration, there is a generally casual and indeed defiant attitude towards mandatory legislation and court orders.
Maybe there will inadvertent disclosure of documents that will seriously damage the Trump presidency, if such documents actually exist.
But it is difficult to believe that the (current) federal government would knowingly disclose such documents, regardless of what the courts and Congress say.
Little or nothing, however, can stop a government disclosing documents that adversely affect others.
*
Every document has a context, and every disclosure also has a context.
And so the questions to always ask are:
– what does the document relate to, and what does it not relate to?
and
– why was this document disclosed – now and by whom and for what purpose?
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
A cynical person might observe that – from what little we have already seen – that the Epstein files represent one of the most significant troves of “kompromat” of which the general public have ever become aware. It is easy to hear “Jeffrey Epstein” and immediately make a connection to inappropriate conduct with under-age girls, but the Mandelson disclosures tell us something more. Epstein traded in influence and information – and clearly had no scruples about acquiring either.
After her acrimonious parting from Trump – over this very topic – US Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor-Green stated in multiple interviews that her split with the President came over his continued refusal to release the Epstein materials and “name names”. Although we have only her word for it, President Trump was reportedly reluctant to release the files because many of the individuals identified in them were people he claimed as friends.
It is also worth noting that kompromat does not suddenly become worthless because of the death of the person who collected it.
Or perhaps we could think of that in a slightly different context:
“I would like you to do us a favor though…”
Also for context: it’s worth noting that when the FBI raided Epstein’s Upper East Side town house, their own internal documentation for evidence collected includes references to hard drives containing gigabytes of video data. As far back as 2019, Maria Farmer – an individual who claims to be a victim – stated that Epstein used CCTV cameras in his residences for “monitoring private moments”. I mention this because there appears to be a significant effort underway to portray the heart of the Jeffrey Epstein story as being one based on “documents” – which is all that we have heard about so far – yet the FBI records suggest that the most significant evidence may well have existed in formats other than text.
Finally, it is worth noting that almost all the headlines driven by reporting on what has been released from the Epstein evidence to date has highlighted either political opponents of President Trump [such as Bill Clinton], or very public non-US citizens, such as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson. From everything we know about Jeffrey Epstein, it stretches credulity to the breaking point to think that what we have seen to date represents anything remotely significant from these files.
As DAG says, we have to keep in mind the context. And so far, both the context and content of what has been disclosed do not appear to have scratched the surface of what may be there.
If anyone believes that the disclosure exercise has been carried out without fear or favour I have a bridge on offer.
Thoughtful blog as always.
An obvservation based on coprorate experience of a DoJ case.
The DoJ has very efficient digital e-discovery tools and processes, with significant reach, scope and scale. In circumstances where no great effort is made to hide email and communication trails, its a safe bet the DoJ will obtain a copy of it.
It is also a safe assumption that it is capable of identifying those aspects that can be weaponised to suit its particular purpose.
Those same capabilities are identical to those needed to redact or otherwise bury aspects of those documents.
Its unlikely we will know what particular viewpoint the DoJ was using when it processed the Epstein files, for years, if not never.
We do know however that digital data is remarkably hard to fully delete or redact. Its likely journalist careers will be made from this data in month, years and possibly decades to come…
An irregular verb from “YES MINISTER”:
I brief
You leak
He breaches Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act
Fair and important points about the relevance and selectivity of the disclosures and their motivation and targets.
And there might well be established practices about ‘off the record’ Whitehall leaks as there are about police ‘leaks’ of arrests etc, but all I can say that on the face of it Mandelson’s acts were treacherous to his country, government, and party and implicitly self serving rather than for any higher political or public purpose, whether right or misguided.
Surely a company director tipping of a third party about confidential financial transactions impacting on share price, would be in breach of company law, and depending on circumstances, potentially insider trader criminal sanctions?
The puzzle in my mind is why did Starmer send Mandelson to Washington at all. Certainly at one level Mandelson seems to fit the White House culture quite well – a slimeball who knew where the bodies are buried etc etc. But why did Starmer not twig that sending Mandelson could/would blow up in his face.
Mandelson was selected in November 24 and appointed in Feb 2025 and lasted until September 25, the Epstein Files Transparency Act came in November 25 after Trump was cornered into signing it. But the EFTA had been in the works for months and was widely supported in the US. We wonder why McSweeney championed Mandelson as an ‘unconventional’ but necessary choice – what was so necessary about it and in November 24 too – didn’t No 10 read the newspapers.
Having been cornered into signing Trump could usefully use the Epstein Files act to blacken his own opponents and I suppose Starmer is of little value to Trump so some mud will not come amiss. All smells of bad planning to me – unless Mandelson holds yet more dirt. We shall see.