Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse sat in stunned silence as yet another sealed file cracked open, revealing names long shielded by power and privilege—names that now pointed straight at elite corridors once thought untouchable.
In a fiery call heard around the world, a leading U.S. victims’ attorney demanded that Peter Mandelson be summoned to testify before a powerful congressional oversight committee. “This is a step toward real justice,” the lawyer declared, arguing the freshly unredacted Epstein documents expose networks that protected the powerful for decades. Mandelson’s documented ties—once dismissed as distant—now demand answers under oath.
For years, victims begged for accountability; today, the momentum feels unstoppable. Will Mandelson face the committee and finally speak? Or will old protections hold one last time, leaving justice hanging by a thread?
Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse sat in stunned silence as yet another sealed file cracked open, revealing names long shielded by power and privilege—names that now pointed straight at elite corridors once thought untouchable.
In a fiery call heard around the world, a leading U.S. victims’ attorney demanded that Peter Mandelson be summoned to testify before a powerful congressional oversight committee. “This is a step toward real justice,” the lawyer declared, arguing the freshly unredacted Epstein documents expose networks that protected the powerful for decades. Mandelson’s documented ties—once dismissed as distant—now demand answers under oath.
The push intensified on February 13, 2026, when Democratic Representatives Robert Garcia (ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform) and Suhas Subramanyam sent a formal letter to Lord Mandelson. They requested his “cooperation” with the committee’s investigation into Epstein’s sex trafficking operations, citing “critical information” he holds. The lawmakers pointed to evidence from the U.S. Department of Justice’s January 2026 document releases: financial transfers from Epstein to Mandelson-linked accounts totaling over $75,000 between 2003 and 2004, a supportive message during Epstein’s 2008 legal troubles, and emails suggesting Mandelson shared market-sensitive U.K. government information in 2009–2010, including details on a potential €500 billion eurozone bailout.
The letter emphasized Mandelson’s “extensive social and business ties” to Epstein, including a handwritten note calling him “my best pal” in Epstein’s 50th birthday book and his stay at Epstein’s Manhattan apartment in 2009. Garcia and Subramanyam urged a transcribed interview with committee staff, framing it as essential for victim justice. They set a response deadline of February 27, 2026. While the committee lacks authority to compel a foreign national like Mandelson, the request amplified global pressure amid the Epstein files’ fallout.
Victims’ advocates hailed the move as overdue accountability. Attorneys representing survivors have long criticized selective redactions and slow disclosures, arguing that unredacted materials reveal how enablers evaded scrutiny for years. Mandelson’s case exemplifies this: once a key New Labour figure, Business Secretary under Gordon Brown, and British ambassador to the U.S. under Keir Starmer (appointed 2025, sacked September 2025), his Epstein links unraveled his career. He resigned from Labour and the House of Lords in early 2026, then faced arrest on February 23, 2026, for suspected misconduct in public office tied to sharing confidential information—released on bail after questioning.
Mandelson’s lawyers at Mishcon de Reya maintain his innocence, calling allegations baseless and insisting emails were regrettable but non-criminal. He has pledged full cooperation with U.K. authorities and vowed to clear his name. Yet the congressional request adds a transatlantic dimension, potentially forcing public scrutiny of his Epstein relationship under oath.
For years, victims begged for accountability; today, the momentum feels unstoppable. With parallel probes—including depositions of figures like the Clintons—and growing outrage over DOJ handling, the call for Mandelson to testify resonates deeply. Will he face the committee and finally speak, offering transparency survivors crave? Or will old protections hold one last time, leaving justice hanging by a thread amid a web of influence that spanned continents?
Leave a Reply