Early in the hearing, McSweeney told MPs that he “didn’t feel” he had got the whole truth back from Mandelson in those three answers. This would be political dynamite, given Starmer pressed ahead anyway. But later in the hearing, McSweeney corrected himself — saying he acquired these doubts in September, after it emerged Mandelson had been better friends with Epstein than he let on (“it was like a knife through my soul”).
“I didn’t think he had lied [at the time]. I thought he had told the truth, and that was the basis of which I thought we were going ahead,” said McSweeney. “But I also thought if I was wrong, if he had been lying … that might be picked up at [developed vetting].”
In other words, each part of the system was relying on the other to make a judgment call.
Barton, too, said he was “worried” about Mandelson’s Epstein links and expressed reservations to No. 10 National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell, but added: “There was no space or avenue or mechanism for me to put that on the table.”
Barton confirmed Trump’s transition team had voiced concerns too, as previously reported by POLITICO. “Those around Trump felt blindsided by the announcement at short notice, shall we say,” he said.
3) A political appointment to deal with Brexit damage
Mandelson’s appointment happened after Trump won the November 2024 election. If Kamala Harris had won, suggested McSweeney, Mandelson — a wily operator known as the “Prince of Darkness” in Westminster — would not have been appointed.