LONDON — British broadcaster and former MP George Galloway has delivered one of the most explosive claims yet in the long-running Jeffrey Epstein scandal, stating on his program MOATS (Mother of All Talk Shows) that the convicted sex offender had what Galloway described as the “run of the palace” at Buckingham Palace.
The allegation, dismissed by some as unproven, cuts directly against years of official reassurances that Epstein’s proximity to power was limited, incidental, or exaggerated.
“This is not rumor,” Galloway told his audience. “This is about access. Epstein wasn’t knocking on closed doors—he was walking through open ones.”
Palace Denials Meet a Credibility Problem
Buckingham Palace has not confirmed Galloway’s claim, and historically has responded to Epstein-related scrutiny with carefully worded silence or narrow denials. But critics argue those denials no longer carry the weight they once did.
The palace previously minimized Prince Andrew’s relationship with Epstein, only for photographs, flight logs, witness testimony, and legal settlements to later establish that the association was far deeper and more sustained than initially acknowledged.
That history matters.
When institutions withhold information for years—only to concede facts incrementally once evidence becomes unavoidable—their blanket denials invite skepticism, not trust.
“Run of the Palace”: What the Phrase Implies
Galloway’s phrasing was deliberate. Having the “run of the palace” does not imply a casual visit or ceremonial event; it implies comfort, access, and familiarity within one of the most secure and symbolically powerful institutions in the world.
If Epstein had such access, it would suggest:
Repeated or privileged invitations
Endorsement or sponsorship by insiders
A catastrophic failure of judgment at senior levels
None of these implications have been meaningfully addressed by palace officials.
A Pattern, Not an Anomaly
Epstein’s career was defined not by secrecy, but by visibility paired with impunity.
He socialized openly with heads of state, intelligence-linked financiers, academic leaders, and royalty. His private jet logs, black book, and settlement agreements repeatedly revealed circles of influence that institutions initially denied—until evidence forced admissions.
Time and again, the pattern has been the same:
Denial
Minimization
Partial disclosure
Silence
Galloway’s allegation lands squarely within that pattern.
The Question Isn’t “Is There Proof?”—It’s “Why Is There No Transparency?”
Defenders of the palace argue that no public documentation has emerged confirming Epstein’s access to Buckingham Palace. But critics counter that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence—especially when the institution controlling the records refuses to release them.
Royal visitor logs, security records, and correspondence related to Epstein have never been made public.
If the claim is false, transparency would end the matter immediately.
Instead, the public is asked—again—to accept assurances from the same structures that previously failed to disclose the full scope of Epstein’s royal connections.
Galloway’s Charge: Institutional Protection
Galloway framed the issue not as gossip, but as an indictment of elite protection networks.
“Epstein didn’t survive because he was clever,” Galloway said. “He survived because powerful people let him.”
That accusation aligns with growing international concern that Epstein functioned less as a rogue criminal and more as a protected asset, shielded by his utility to powerful interests.
An Unanswered Reckoning
Whether or not Galloway’s claim is ultimately substantiated, it exposes a deeper unresolved issue: the refusal of elite institutions to fully account for their role in enabling Epstein’s access and longevity.
Until comprehensive records are released, palace denials will continue to sound less like refutations—and more like rehearsed damage control.
And as history has already shown in the Epstein case, today’s “unfounded claim” has a way of becoming tomorrow’s confirmed fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment