Peter Mandelson’s appointment as the UK’s ambassador in Washington has held a mirror up to Westminster’s difficult relationship with security.
What started as a salacious political saga has quickly turned into one of the largest intelligence scandals since the Profumo affair, threatening national security and the premiership of Sir Keir Starmer.
The Prime Minister has apologised to the public and to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for Mandelson’s “lies” about the true nature of his relationship with the convicted paedophile.
The vetting process that placed the Labour peer in Washington involved financial and background checks, face-to-face interviews with security officials, and assessment of known associates.
However, investigations into Mandelson would not have picked up emails from the Epstein Files, instead relying on the honesty of the subject during questioning, according to intelligence sources from the US and UK.
Vetting based on honesty
In taking up the role, Mandelson required a level of clearance referred to as Developed Vetting (DV) to allow him to access and view top secret documents and intelligence. This is the same for all ambassadors and high commissioners but particularly important for roles in the US, given long-standing intelligence sharing relationships across the Atlantic.
A rigorous vetting process then assessed criminal records, checks against security service files, financial reports, as well as an individual interview with a security vetting officer.
US and UK intelligence sources have said investigations into an individual would not trawl through their personal emails or reach into US intelligence without proper cause to do so. It is not known if official requests were made to the US House Oversight Committee or the US Department of Justice for any information relating to Mandelson.
Checks aim to keep sensitive information protected and away from the prying eyes of adversaries. The process is also there to consider any “potential vulnerabilities” faced by a nominee and “understand whether these can be or how best to mitigate those vulnerabilities,” according to the Government’s website on the matter.
A UK intelligence source said the UK vetting process is “solely based on what the applicant reveals”. Once a relationship between Mandelson and Epstein was disclosed, the only consideration is one of security risk, and any political risk is not considered.
The interview part of the process would include examining any relevant associations of the candidate, especially those with a criminal record, the source said.
Emails included in the latest release of the Epstein files would not have fallen into the domain of checks, unless requested specifically, they added.
“The bottom line is that vetting is normally only about security and potential vulnerabilities, not any political risk,” they said. “The idea is that people are honest about their personal lives without fear of retribution…the whole idea is to understand vulnerability rather than police their activity.”
A former UK intelligence official argued that “anyone that has financial exchanges with Epstein would have been known to US authorities”, suggesting that payments between the financier and Mandelson in the early 2000s should have been disclosed.
“The US would have conducted checks on Mandelson when he was nominated for the role,” the source added. “They [Downing Street] accepted the risk, they knew what they were – trying to blame [Security Services] isn’t going to work.”
Process to be scrutinised
After an energetic debate in the Commons on Wednesday, documents surrounding Mandelson’s vetting and approval for his post in Washington are set to be published imminently. The Cabinet is currently assessing documents it deems prejudicial to national security or international relations, which it sends on to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) for review.
In a letter to the Cabinet and the House of Commons, the ISC said the Government will be laying out documents in Parliament “very shortly”. The letter, signed by the committee’s chair, Lord Beamish, asks for an update on when they can expect to receive such files so that “additional resources” can be arranged to scrutinise them.
Your next read
square NEWSThe picture that motivated furious King to force Andrew into isolation
square EDUCATION AnalysisWhen the four-tier SEND system will begin – and how it could work
square WORLD Big ReadIs Trump well enough to lead? The experts weigh in
square LABOUR PARTY ExclusiveLabour ‘women in grey suits’ could be sent to tell Starmer to resign
Last December, the committee’s annual report highlighted a “critical” inability to examine the UK Government and spy agencies due to the control exerted over the committee’s staff by the Cabinet Office.
While accepting some “encouraging signs”, Lord Beamish said resourcing issues “at times left the Committee unable to perform its statutory functions.”
The report noted “a significant – and widening – gap” which has left committees “not equipped” in oversight of national security.
Hence then, the article about why mandelson s full epstein links weren t discovered by security vetting was published today ( ) and is available on inews ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Why Mandelson’s full Epstein links weren’t discovered by security vetting )
Also on site :
- Europe’s cyber agency blames hacking gangs for massive data breach and leak
- AI companies are building huge natural gas plants to power data centers. What could go wrong?
- The Trump Dictatorship Is Cracking Up