Earlier in the session, McSweeney told MPs that he “didn’t feel” he had got all the truth from Mandelson in the three responses. This will be political dynamite, assuming Starmer gets ahead. But later in the case, McSweeney corrected himself – saying he had these doubts in September, after it emerged that Mandelson was better friends with Epstein than he let on (“it was like a knife in my soul”).
“I didn’t think he was lying (at the time). I thought he was telling the truth, and that was the basis on which I thought we were going forward,” said McSweeney. “But I also thought if I was wrong, if he was lying … that could be taken into (advanced review).”
In other words, each part of the system was dependent on the other to make a decision.
Barton, too, said he was “concerned” about Mandelson’s Epstein links and expressed displeasure with No 10 National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell, but added: “There was no way or way or mechanism for me to put that on the table.”
Barton confirmed Trump’s transition team also expressed concern, as previously reported by POLITICO. “Those close to Trump felt blindsided by the announcement on short notice, let’s say,” he said.
3) Political appointments to deal with the damage of Brexit
Mandelson’s nomination came after Trump won the November 2024 election. If Kamala Harris had won, suggested McSweeney, Mandelson – a cunning operator known as the “Dark King” in Westminster – would not have been nominated.
