A threshold question: Harvard law professor emeritus and former Jeffrey Epstein attorney Alan Dershowitz issued the definitive debunking of the stupid Jeffrey Epstein “client list” myth that the Axis of Unethical Conduct has been clinging to lately four days ago. Why wasn’t this major news, especially since the same paper it was published in, the Wall Street Journal, was getting Axis-wide babble over their far less substantive story about how Donald Trump penned a risque birthday card long ago in a galaxy far away?
Well, we know why, don’t we? The Dershowitz column undermines the “Get Trump!” effort, so it isn’t news that’s fit to print. Despicable.
In “The Inside Scoop on Jeffrey Epstein: I was his lawyer. I know things that court orders won’t allow me to disclose,” the Dersch reveals…
- “I was Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyer. I know the facts, some of which I can’t disclose because it is privileged or subject to court-imposed sealing orders. But what I can disclose makes several important things clear…”
- “Epstein never created a ‘client list.’”
- “The FBI interviewed alleged victims who named several “clients.” These names have been redacted. They should be disclosed but the courts have ordered them sealed. I know who they are. They don’t include any current officeholders.”
- “There has also been speculation about incriminating videos taken by hidden cameras in Epstein’s guest bedrooms. There are videotapes, but they are of public areas of his Palm Beach, Fla., home.”
- “Open records show an acquaintance between Epstein and Mr. Trump many years ago… I have seen nothing that would suggest anything improper or even questionable by Mr. Trump.”
- “I have absolutely no doubt that Epstein never worked for any intelligence agency. If he had, he would surely have told me and his other lawyers, who would have used that information to get him a better deal.”
Dershowitz concludes, “Conspiracy stories attract readers, viewers and listeners. They are also fodder for political attacks. The Epstein case has generated more than its share of such theories, and there is nothing more annoying to gossip mongers than when stubborn facts (or the absence of facts) get in the way of a juicy theory. Sorry to disappoint you, but there is really nothing much to see here, beyond what has already been disclosed.”
End of story, end of controversy. Sorry Democrats, CNN, MSNBC, MAGA Maniacs, but you have made utter fools of yourself. Again. Epstein’s lawyer knows what he’s talking about, and you don’t. Now, as he has done before, Dershowitz is playing a bit fast and loose with the ethics rules and ought to be at least reprimanded, but he won’t be. An attorney is bound by attorney-client confidence duties even after the client is as dead as Epstein. He cannot ethically, for example, say that his client had no client list any more than he could reveal he did have a client list, without Epstein’s consent, which Dershowitz obviously doesn’t have and can’t get. The rules forbid lawyers from revealing “secrets” that are detrimental to a client or that the client would not want to have revealed, and if there is doubt, the presumption that the secret should remain a secret is the required default conclusion. It is unethical for Epstein’s attorney to reveal what his client told him, and what he didn’t tell him. Again, bars should discipline Dershowitz for this, but the King’s Pass has protected the professor before, and will again.
Frankly, it ticks me off.
But that’s the unethical part. The ethical part is that Dershowitz is performing a public service by cutting this stupid, stupid controversy off at the knees. He is in the perfect position to do it except for the legal ethics violation, and it is the right thing for him to do because nobody else can.
Jamie Raskind, Symone Sanders, the New York Times’ Axis mouthpieces and the rest deserve to be shut up and humiliated; so do Kash Patel and Dan Bongino. Dershowitz should be considered absolutely credible and beyond challenge on this matter. He is risking (well, theoretically) professional sanctions to set the record straight. Not only does he have nothing to gain by lying about the client list, he has a great deal to lose. Revealing a dead clients’ secret for a good cause is one thing, but lying in public about a case is a far more serious ethics breach, one that might even be prosecuted against the great Alan Dershowitz.
Two more points:
- Dershowitz, a liberal Democrat, has been a pillar of integrity regarding Trump’s various legal travails for years now. This is another example. this is Ethics Hero territory.
- Pam Bondi should resign. She said there was a client list and even implied that she had read it. She lied to the public. She can’t be trusted.
Ethics Alarms 
I think it’s spelled Dershowitz.
Nah, he’s spelled it wrong for years…
I’ve been following Dershowitz a long, long time and he has stated multiple times since one of the females falsely accused him, and subsequently retracted her statements, that the justice department should release 100% of the documents related to the Epstein case. The court has sealed and redacted far, far too many documents in this case, who the heck are they protecting, is it falsely accused famous men or justifiably accused famous men? Dershowitz has stated that he has seen every page of the documents. He has also stated that he has absolutely nothing to hide and would welcome a 100% release.
“He cannot ethically, for example, say that his client had no client list any more than he could reveal he did have a client list, without Epstein’s consent, which Dershowitz obviously doesn’t have and can’t get. The rules forbid lawyers from revealing “secrets” that are detrimental to a client or that the client would not want to have revealed, and if there is doubt, the presumption that the secret should remain a secret is the required default conclusion. “
I am not sure how saying there is no client list is detrimental to Epstein. It would seem that making a definitive statement on this subject would benefit Epstein’s legacy. However, I do believe the presumption should be that there is no list unless and until one is produced. I would also say that how we define the term “list” is extremely important. Are we talking about a Rolodex with client information – he handled many people’s finances – or are we talking about the equivalent of a Madam’s black book of clients and their preferences. I would suggest if it is the latter Epstein would not keep one, Maxwell would and that has not materialized given that she was the procurer.
As much as I like him Dan Bongino should have stayed in his time slot with his radio show. (The only upside is Vince Coglianese took over the time slot) There he could make claims without having to prove them just as MSNBC hosts do all the time. I am afraid that taking the Deputy Director position forced him to have to refute his “receipts” he offered on the radio program. That would undermine his ability to regain his audience when a new administration takes over. Bondi like so many others had no difficulty jumping on the Epstein client list train and got way too far out over her skis. I am willing to allow her mistake provided she straightens up and flies right from here on out. I am more forgiving than Jack.
A lot of people are making a lot of money keeping these questions in front of the public. I agreed with Trump when he said people should be focused on more important things. Right now nothing is more important than the Brennan, Comey, Obama involvement in pushing Russian meddling and suppressing all information that contradicted the preferred narrative that smeared Trump.
Maybe Epstein wanted people to think he had a client list, like Sadaam’s weapons of mass destruction fake out. Who knows? The point is that his lawyer’s knowledge of that is still a confidence.
Ok. But doesn’t that assume that Epstein claimed he had one. Who concocted the idea of a list? With all the speculation that grew out of the revelation that he enlisted young girls to serve the needs of some wealthy friends isn’t it plausible that the concept of the “list” was born of such speculation.
Would it have made a difference if Dershowitz stated he was Epstein’s lawyer and is unaware of any such list instead of their is no list.
No, he’s not supposed to talk or write about any of that, at all. Ever. He shouldn’t lie about what he knows…what he learns from representing a client is supposed to be confidential until the stars turn cold.
this did bug me about A.D.’s statement.
why was he talking?
however, I also thought that confidentiality and privilege are there so that people can confide bad behavior (sorry, on my phone; no room for nuance or editing that will obliviate my comment).
if A.D. knew OJ had an alibi for the night of the murders, (even if that did not come out in the trial), it is difficult to imagine that disclosing the alibi that cast OJ in a good light would be unethical
-Jut
Unfortunately, the people who are inclined to believe every conspiracy theory under the Sun (if there truly is such a thing as the Sun) will just say that Dershowitz is also compromised. People won’t be satisfied until there’s a list that says Epstein gave children to every politician that they hate. Since such a list doesn’t exist, they’ll never drop the Epstein bit. It will join the JFK and Moon landing as an evergreen subject for conspiracy peddlers.
One of the memorable findings by scholars who study conspiracy theories is that once people get hooked, they will pretty much embrace any conspiracy that has the salient features they prefer. So belief / nonbelief is strongly correlated across conspiracies that logically are mutually exclusive. My favorite example of this is that people who believe that Princess Diana was murdered by the Royal Family because she was dating Dodi (with or without the claim of a pregnancy) are ALSO more likely to believe that actually, Princess Diana faked her death and is still alive …living… somewhere (maybe with the undead JFK Jr.?