Is the 'Epstein client list' scandal overblown? After days of reported infighting, a presidential scolding, and a general sense that no one knows how to handle it, a surprising voice has emerged to declare that there's no real scandal at all.
A few days ago, Alan Dershowitz claimed that the evidence in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal really did exist, because he had access to it. "I know the names of the individuals, I know why they're being suppressed. I know who's suppressing them," Dershowitz told Sean Spicer, "but I'm bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases, and I can't disclose what I know. But, hand to God, I know the names of people whose files are being suppressed in order to protect them, and that's wrong."
That comment got misinterpreted by some to mean that the Department of Justice and Pam Bondi had suppressed an Epstein client list for reasons unknown. Over the last few days, though, Dershowitz has clarified his argument significantly -- and says the problem isn't the DoJ at all. And Dershowitz says he knows for a fact that the "Epstein client list" is a media myth:
Dershowitz, in an extensive interview Monday with Newsmax's "The Record With Greta Van Susteren," also commented that he has "seen the names" of people accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and that there "are lists of names," but "there's nobody currently serving in office" among them, so the controversy over a list is a "nothing-burger."
"I don't think you can fault Pam Bondi or the Justice Department," when it comes to releasing any redacted or sealed materials, Dershowitz told Van Susteren. "They don't have the authority to release this redacted material or the sealed material. I think — I can't know this for sure — that they've released everything that they are able to release."
Some of the documents, said Dershowitz, are grand jury testimony.
"Some of it is material that's been redacted, some of it sealed by the court, and it comprises several things," he said. "There are some that include accusations made by people I know, the people who have been accused, and some of it involves negative material about the accusers. And the courts have redacted those in order to 'protect the victims.'"
Dershowitz told Greta Van Susteren that there are lists associated with the Epstein case, but none of them involve a so-called "client list." They are lists compiled by investigators of victims and potential perpetrators, along with flight logs that have already been made public, as has Epstein's mundane contact list. Even the claims about "sex tapes" may be overblown, Dershowitz told Van Susteren, as the cameras in Palm Beach got installed after a burglary and were primarily focused on external security. Nor does Dershowitz think that Epstein ever worked for the Mossad, as Epstein would likely have disclosed that to Dershowitz in order to negotiate a better deal with prosecutors, since Dershowitz has represented the Mossad on a couple of occasions.
Dershowitz also showed up on Chris Cuomo's show last night to make the same arguments, but before either interview, he told the National Desk on Friday that Pam Bondi and the DoJ had actually released everything they could. The real problem is federal judges who refuse to reveal grand jury testimony that would make everything public:
This exchange at the 5:35 mark makes it clear that Dershowitz thinks that the current administration is being as transparent as possible, and that the idea that they have something to hide is absurd:
HOST: Do you believe the Trump administration is being fully transparent with what they've disclosed so far, or do you think they're withholding any sort of documents or information regarding this case?
DERSHOWITZ: No, they've been absolutely transparent. They have nothing to hide -- everything about Trump himself has been previously disclosed. I think people who are failing to disclose information are federal judges, and perhaps others, maybe some others as well. But I don't see any blame that can be placed on the Justice Department.
You know, it's so easy for the media to point fingers and say, "The Justice Department is at fault," "there's a client list," "it's being suppressed" -- that all overstates it. It's much more complicated and nuanced than that.
This makes a lot more sense than how this sounded yesterday. It's been my long-standing assumption that there isn't any real "client list" created and/or maintained by Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. If such a thing existed, the names on it would have leaked long before now. That's especially true if Trump's name were on such a list.
So why are the grand jury records being "suppressed," as Dershowitz alleges? Don't forget that Maxwell's case isn't fully complete yet. She's still pursuing an appeal to the Supreme Court, in which the DoJ submitted a response filing yesterday. If the court orders a new trial, then those records will need to remain under seal. If the Supreme Court rejects the appeal in the next few weeks or months, FOIA demands may finally release those records. But as Dershowitz points out in these interviews, the line between victims and perps are fuzzy in this case. Documentaries on the case have noted that some of the recruiters for Epstein were previously victims of the Epstein-Maxwell sex trafficking enterprise, who got groomed into recruitment themselves. That made charging decisions incredibly difficult for prosecutors at all phases of this case.
As for the names of any alleged "clients," that too is not a cut-and-dried affair. First, the testimony in that regard might be hearsay rather than actionable testimony. Further, it is standard practice to not name people who will not get indicted in such investigations, for obvious reasons. Dershowitz wants full disclosure anyway so that the public can make their own assessment of the accusations as well as the credibility of the accusers, and that's understandable given what he went through by being falsely accused of participating in the trafficking. It would be unusual, however, for the DoJ or any other prosecutor to release the names of not just alleged participants who didn't get indicted, but also the identities of the victims making claims against those people.
Basically, this means that there's not really much more to see at this stage than we've already seen. We can blame Bondi for unnecessarily raising expectations on multiple occasions on what was being hidden. But other than that, this has been another tedious round on the Epstein merry-go-round, when everyone should at least wait for the Maxwell case to reach its final disposition before demanding grand jury testimony ... which is apparently the only material left to disclose.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member