Americanswers... on 5Live! Why haven't more Americans faced charges over Epstein?

0:00This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

0:06How did the United States build the largest soft power empire in the world with the help of some tiny metal objects? I'm Tristan Redmond, one of the hosts of the Global Story podcast from the BBC. To mark 250 years of the United States, we speak to Roman Mars of 99 % invisible. This soft power, this influence was an incredible invention. For more, listen to The Global Story on bbc.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

0:59Iran. And we have an interesting little update on the protest quilting and crafting movement. Welcome to AmeriCanswers.

1:10AmeriCast. AmeriCast from BBC News. You hear that sound? Oh, I think when I hear that sound, it reminds me of money. Nicolas Maduro yuffed around and he found out. This is a big cover-up and this administration is engaged in it. This guy has Trump derangement syndrome. I have four words for you. Turn the volume up.

1:36Right, let's start with the Winter Olympics. Big drama on the ice yesterday is the USA beat Canada 2-1. The first time since 1980 that the US men's team have won gold at ice hockey. Lots of speculation about the game due to, obviously, ongoing tensions between Donald Trump and Canada. We've got a question from Karim in South London. It says, doesn't Kash Patel have better things to be doing given he's FBI director? Explain what we're talking about here, Anthony. Kash Patel travelled to Italy on official business, his press secretary says, security concerns. But there were some criticisms that he was going there just to soak up the atmosphere at the Olympics.

2:19Denied. They denied it left and right. But then we had a video coming out from Kash Patel in the locker room after the U.S. won the gold medal, chugging a beer. Someone had put a gold medal around his neck. He was cheering. He was dancing. So that has generated more criticism that Kash Patel, who had already been open to criticism for using FBI jets to go to sporting events within the U.S., But more criticism that he was misusing his his authority and the accoutrements of his office while one, there was a shooter, someone, a possible attempted shooter at Mar-a-Lago one Sunday. And to Nancy Guthrie, the mother of Samantha Guthrie, the television personality, is still missing in Arizona.

3:02So, yeah, it's a bit of a controversy. So this feels to me a bit like one of those stories where everyone gets very cross because it's Donald Trump's administration. But politicians of all parties in all countries have found very important reasons to take themselves off to sporting events in the past. They have. They maybe haven't drawn quite as much attention to themselves, though, as Kash Patel has. Posting on social media him celebrating with the players. And then the whole thing has become a metaphor for the tensions between Canada and America. You've got the White House posting a meme of an eagle, like the American bald eagle, stomping on something that may be a Canadian goose.

3:39Donald Trump posted an AI video of himself on the ice hockey rink, going around the place, crashing into Canadian players and eventually punching one at the end of all of this. It's been a way of the United States really piling onto Canada and going back to this whole idea about them wanting to turn Canada into the 51st state of the United States. I think actually we've got a clip of Donald Trump wading into the ice hockey controversy. Let's take a listen. I just told my people two minutes ago, I didn't know they'd be calling. I said, we're giving the State of the Union speech on Tuesday night.

4:16I could send their military plan or something. But if you would like to, it's the coolest night. It's the biggest. We're in.

4:28What would really be cool, and we'll do the White House the next day, we'll just have some fun. We have medals for you guys. and we have to, I must tell you, we're going to have to bring the woman's team. You do know that. I do believe I probably would be impeached, OK? And how's that going down online, Mariana? As you might imagine, a lot of this content is proving divisive. I mean, the thing is, is that Donald Trump, and I guess there are lots of people who've been sharing this stuff saying, look, he comes across as really genuine and everyone's laughing and getting on and a lot of people really loving the kind of competitiveness and the patriotism and all of that kind of thing.

5:10Those comments about the women's team have been received less favourably in some areas of social media, particularly people who don't like Donald Trump very much and also who are big advocates for women's sport. And also there have been quite a lot of people, particularly Canadian people, who have not loved the memes and content. For me, I think it's a flavour of what we might see during the World Cup, Although, admittedly, the United States are much less good at football than they are at ice hockey. Yeah, he might get a taste of his own medicine. We'll have to wait and see what happens. Let's crack on because we've got loads of questions.

5:42John in Yorkshire has emailed in. This is about Iran. He said, is Trump going to war or is the imminent attack on Iran a special military operation? Now, we've got a clip. This is Stephen Wyckoff, who's Donald Trump's Middle East envoy, speaking to Fox News at the weekend, describing how Donald Trump was feeling about the current situation with Iran. He's, I don't want to use the word frustrated, it's almost because he understands he's got plenty of alternatives. But it's curious, he's curious as to why they haven't, I don't want to use the word capitulated, but why they haven't capitulated. Why under this sort of pressure with the amount of sea power, naval power that we have over there, why they haven't come to us and said, we profess that we don't want a weapon, so here's what we're prepared to do, and yet it's hard to sort of get them to that place.

6:34So what's going on there? John in Yorkshire saying, is he going to war or is it a special military operation? There are talks going on at the moment about Iran, well, what the US wants them to get rid of, their nuclear weapons programme, as well as some of their ballistic missiles and some other things, and Iran isn't giving much indication that it's prepared to do that, and you could hear Steve Wyckoff, who is one of the people involved in the negotiations, are basically saying, yeah, Iran are not giving the US what they want. What's really fascinating is that Wyckoff also yesterday was saying that the Iranian regime is about a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material.

7:12And so that's the level of the threat they're telling people. This is why they might need to consider taking military action. Well, it was less than a year ago, it was last July, that those B-2 bombers were flown halfway around the world and drop huge bunker buster bombs on the Iranian nuclear programme. And that was when the Trump administration was saying the nuclear sites were completely destroyed and obliterated and that it would take years to bring them back into service. So it's quite something that they're now a week away from bomb making, which is what the administration is telling us as they're preparing people for the idea that there might be military action.

7:49And if there is, it won't be probably the kind of short, sharp action we saw last July. it may be something that's more involved and more prolonged. Well, let's see then. So all eyes on that for another week's time. Let's turn our attention to tariffs. Downey Street has said, no reciprocal action is off the table if the US does not honour its tariff deal with the UK. But then went on to say that, in case someone does not want a trade war, Dave is emailed from the self-styled Seven Valley headquarters of America. Thank you for that, Dave. Very good. Dave says, given that Mr Trump's tariffs have been judged to be illegal and exceed his authority as President of the United States of America, could he be held personally liable for losses suffered by individuals and organisations as a consequence of the tariffs which were seemingly imposed by Mr Donald Trump personally as they could not be ordered by the President?

8:37I apologise if this question seems somewhat partisan. Rest assured it is simply a curious inquiry. Anthony, this feels like it's very much in your wheelhouse. Constitutionally, could individuals' organisations sue Donald Trump? Not Donald Trump personally, not for official actions that he has done, either civilly or criminally. The president has been very clearly ruled immune from that sort of thing at this point. Now, the United States could be sued. In fact, it has been and will be sued again to try to recoup some of the tariffs that have been taken from these companies over the past year now that those tariffs have been ruled illegal.

9:16The Supreme Court didn't directly say whether those lawsuits would be successful or not. They didn't say anything about these refunds, but they just handed it back to the lower courts, which are going to have to decide if refunds are in order and how they would be handed out. One of the big objections the Trump administration had during these legal proceedings was that it would be a big mess to try to figure out who gets what money and giving all of this money back. But there are companies like Costco, the big retailer here in the U.S., that have already started the legal ball rolling. They want their money back, even as Donald Trump, and we've seen in the past few days has started to try to find new ways to impose tariffs, in some cases like the UK and Australia, tariffs that are even higher than the ones that they had before after they struck the deal with Trump at the White House.

10:04Let's move on to a voice note that we've got from Andy in Reading. Now that Andrew Martin-Rinza has been arrested for conduct unbecoming, has anyone in the US been named let alone arrested by association with Jeffrey Epstein where are all the names in the millions of the documents released so it's a good question this and one that lots of listeners have asked that the the fallout from the release of these files seem to be far greater in the UK than in America yes because you've got two really high profile people in the UK and being criminally investigated and it's worth noting of course that he has denied all wrongdoing in relation to his dealings with Jeffrey Epstein.

10:48There are lots of other names around in the United States. Some people, I mean, people have lost reputations as a result of this, but jobs as well. People have resigned jobs at the top of law firms and things like that. So they would say that they had personally paid a pretty high price, but it's not quite to the extent of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor or even Peter Mandelson. And there's not quite so much international attention on them as there is in the two Brits. But what we're no closer to, it seems, in the United States or in Britain is anybody being held accountable for abuse of Jeffrey Epstein's victims.

11:24So it's, as you know, misconduct in a public office that's being alleged against Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, something similar, possibly maybe coming for Peter Mandelson. But none of that is to do with, you know, actually the sex trafficking that we're talking about. And we don't appear to be any closer in the United States to anyone being investigated, let alone arrested for that. Anthony, what do you put that down to? Is it a lack of hard evidence that the chatting on emails is more about the sort of apparent sharing of documents they shouldn't have been and all that? Actually, not everything was put down?

12:00Or is there an institutional reluctance to wade into it? What do you put that down to? I think it's a bit of both. Maybe the hard evidence, the kind of documented contact between the former prince and Jeffrey Epstein was one of the reasons why he's been so caught up in this. The same goes for Peter Mandelson. All of these emails. But there are email correspondents with prominent Americans. Les Wexner, who is a retail tycoon who funded Epstein, who gave considerable amounts of money to be managed by Jeffrey Epstein. The reason Epstein in the 90s became such a prominent figure, he has been implicated but has not been charged.

12:48And while there have been allegations around him, there hasn't been any kind of evidence that has been presented for legal proceedings. He just actually was spoken to by members of Congress this last week where they came to his mansion in Ohio and interviewed him. And he said that he had been duped by Jeffrey Epstein, that he had been suckered essentially and conned by him and pleaded no knowledge of any of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. So I think there's a high there's been a high bar by the Justice Department to bring some sort of charges beyond Jelaine Maxwell, of course, who was in prison for conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein.

13:28But that reluctance could be a reflection of how the justice system here in the United States works and the reluctance to hold people to power account, some people would say. But also the fact that the documentary evidence just is not quite there for the kind of case that you would need to bring a conviction, at least in the prosecutor's view. And what a lot of the Epstein survivors would say, of course, is that's because these crimes were not properly investigated. The evidence isn't there because the FBI or the police haven't gone looking for it because they never took the complaint seriously.

14:01And it would seem now as well that it still isn't any kind of in-depth investigation that would try and uncover the evidence that would be needed to prosecute any of these men. We should stress that Andrew McBadden-Winsor has not been charged. He was arrested and then released and denies all wrongdoing, as does Peter Mandelson. A couple of lighter items to finish on. We'll start with quilts and then we'll do cows. we've got a quilting update so a couple of weeks ago AmeriCaster Alison Thomas in North Norfolk got in touch about the crossover between crafting and quilting which she's big into and protests and how her social media crafting social media being dominated by people wearing red hats in protest to the Nazis and so on and we've got a development.

14:43We do yeah so she and Alison got in touch like you say about about we spoke about those hats a bit and also about how just people were quilting anti-ice messaging relating to what happened in Minneapolis and now in front of me in my hands I have a wonderful AmeriCast quilt segment and she sent several um it's got the AmeriCast logo and then it's got us flags around the outside with gold stars is absolutely lovely and we did say we'd love a quilt so we really appreciate these are treasured bits of quilt Alison I'm not well I'm not being rude Alison but I mean it's about the size of a sheet of A4 it's not going to keep me that warm yeah but it's like it's like a quilt sample.

15:19I think we can put up in the studio, you see, if it's like this. In the Worldwide Headquarters, we have little framed photos, so we can probably display it. I wouldn't know if I haven't been. I don't have been, haven't I? I was last summer. I was allowed in there especially. But then there was the injunction, I'm not allowed in there again. Someone will pick that up. Alison, we like that. Thank you for sending in. And there's a nice red one as well, sort of red check thing with some stars and stuff. Yeah, thank you so much. They're amazing. I wish I could. Keep going, Alison. By Christmas, maybe I will have a whole quilt.

15:51Because now she's 30, she's going to just be staying in under a blanket, watching box sets. Now, we've also had, this I really like, we've had a text from Amy. She says, I'd love to ask the AmeriCast team why a cow seemed to turn up during the recent Emergency Tariff podcast. My mum and I are sure we heard a moo between roughly 14 minutes, 30 seconds and 15 minutes. Well, we've had a listen back and we think we found what she's talking about. Let's see if you can spot the cow as well. Republicans, particularly Republicans in swing districts, battleground districts, who are probably happy that this decision came down the way it did because these terrorists, if you look at polls, aren't very popular.

16:34Sorry, sorry, we've got to hear that again. I was expecting it to be, because I hadn't heard it, I expected it to be much like in the distance. Yeah, like outside, there's a cow outside, not a cow leaning into the... Can we hear it again? Republicans, particularly Republicans in swing districts, battleground districts, who are probably happy that this decision came down the way it did, because these terrorists, if you look at polls, aren't very popular. Is that not Justin just going, hmm? I think it's Justin. Do we think it's Justin being particularly bovine? Yeah, that's what he does with these things.

17:04I can tell you I did not have any cows with me when I was recording on Friday. Well, we'll ask Justin and we'll try and get to the bottom of that next week. Well, once again, we've covered an awful lot of ground there.

17:24OK, we've just come off the air on Five Live with Matt Charlie. Marianna's had to dash off and do other things, but Anthony and I are still here because we've had so many questions from you on tariffs and the implications of the court ruling, and we wanted to chat a little bit more about it. There's one more question in from Jim in Aberdeen, who is asking, has any previous president criticized or indeed insulted the Supreme Court so severely? Now, those he appointed have disappointed him. Is there any way he can unappoint them by claiming their decisions threaten national security, for instance?

17:57J.D. Vance has been talking along those lines. And he also wants to know, does the Supreme Court decision matter? Because, as I understand it, he says they previously ruled that the president, whatever he did in his role, was legal. Does this give the president the authority to do as he pleases? And even if it doesn't, what can they do? How many divisions do they have? So that's lots and lots of questions in one there, Anthony. Let's try and unpack it. So let's start with that Supreme Court ruling earlier, where they basically said, if the president does something when he's acting in the role as president, it is therefore legal.

18:31Why does that not mean that his tariffs are legal? Well, you know, he can't be held criminally responsible for his official actions, but that doesn't mean that he gets to do them. And he could say, I'm going to keep the tariffs on, but the people under him who would be following that direction are certainly liable for violating the law. They could be held personally or professionally responsible for that. And other courts could step in and block these tariffs from being gathered. So, yes, Donald Trump kind of floats above the law as the president for criminal liability. But the U.S. government that has to enforce the policies, they are very much open to courts telling them what to do.

19:15So Donald Trump has tried to find new ways to put on tariffs to circumvent the Supreme Court decision. He's pointed to other authorities under the law and already imposed a 15 percent temporary tariff, citing a different provision of a different tariff law. But he can't go back and just ignore the Supreme Court as much as he would like to, because the people around him won't follow that and courts will step in. And of course, Jim was saying how much he'd criticized and insulted some of the Supreme Court justices. He said that he was ashamed of them, that their families ought to be ashamed of them.

19:48And he really had a go on Friday. And we're going to see another showdown on Tuesday night when he's delivering the State of the Union address. The justices will all be lined up in the audience right in front of him. and we may well see some fireworks then. Because, I mean, among the people who voted against him, effectively, six of the nine justices found against Donald Trump, two of them were ones that he had appointed himself, Naira Gorsuch and Amy Comey Barrett. So it's an interesting question, isn't it, Anthony, from Jim, about can he unappoint them in some way? Because the famous thing about being made a Supreme Court justice is that it is an appointment for life.

20:26Right. There is a provision to remove Supreme Court justices, but it's out of Donald Trump's hands. It's the impeachment process, which is the same process that removes precedents. The House of Representatives, the majority would have to vote, and then two-thirds of the Senate would have to convict. So it is a very high bar to remove a Supreme Court justice from a lifetime appointment, even if the person who appointed them. But Donald Trump was clearly not happy. He said he was ashamed of certain members, And I think he was speaking, as he mentioned there, about Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gore, such ashamed for not having the courage to do what was right for the country.

21:05He said that they were lapdogs and fools and called it a disgrace. And to get back to the question, has previous presidents spoken that way about the Supreme Court? Certainly not publicly. There have been presidents who have been very critical of the Supreme Court decisions. We've talked about Andrew Jackson in the past, talking about the Supreme Court making their ruling but not being able to enforce it. And actually, if you remember, Barack Obama, during one of his addresses to Congress, criticized Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court. It was a campaign finance decision saying it was going to open the door to money, overwhelming the political process.

21:47And he said that as those justices were down there right in front of him as he was giving the speech. And Samuel Alito, who is still on the court mouth, not true. And it became a big blow up where the president had the temerity to call out a Supreme Court in the middle of a speech. Well, that's nothing compared to what Donald Trump did in that press conference we saw on Friday. Yeah. And the other thing we were talking earlier about some of the fallout from the tariffs decision in terms of what happens now going forward. and lots of companies who are going to ask for refunds because it's important to remember that once a tariff's imposed, it's not the foreign company shipping goods to the United States who pays it.

22:27It's the importer. So it's Toys R Us shops, for instance, who are bringing in toys from China. They're the ones who have to pay the tariff. And a lot of them are going to say they want that money back. But in many cases, they will have passed at least some, if not all of it, onto consumers with higher prices. So are we going to get any money back is a question that people are going to start asking. Right. And I think that that seems unlikely and in part because of the uncertainty that's still out there with Trump trying to impose new tariffs using different laws. I think a lot of the importers, a lot of the companies that sell products that have been brought in from overseas are going to be very reluctant to roll back prices without knowing that the new order will definitely be tariff free, that they're going to be free of all of these tariffs going forward.

23:15They don't have that kind of certainty. And in fact, Donald Trump has been very active on Truth Social today, saying that he was going to be punishing countries that try to go back on the deals he struck, that if they don't confirm the deals like the EU has yet to do, then they will be singled out for particular attention. He's criticized the Supreme Court again. He's talked about these new tariffs he's going to be putting on that will not only be very easy to do, but even more harsh and high than the tariffs he originally had. So all of that new uncertainty is being injected in there. Companies are going to try to get refunds of the tariffs already collected.

23:56But I don't think they're going to be in any kind of a mood or disposition to want to immediately hand it back to the consumers, not with so much doubt about what happens next out there. He can't threaten higher tariffs, can he? I thought the new statute that he's using to give him the authority, he says gives him the authority to impose tariffs, puts a limit of 15 % on it, doesn't it? He can't go around threatening 50, 60, 70 % tariffs against countries he doesn't like. Not under that law. And that law was designed to address a balance of payments deficit, which is not clear is even the problem here.