We now know that the alleged suicide letter from Jeffrey Epstein to Larry Nassar is a forgery and a fake. We will soon learn – if all the evidence is released – that some of the accusations and allegations are as phony as the letter. Some of the alleged survivors and victims never even met Epstein or others they have accused. They and their lawyers simply filed demands for money and got it without any proof. Others exaggerated what happened, while still others pimped underage girls to Epstein for $250 a girl.

The so called “smoking gun” complaint by Maria Farmer to the FBI back in 1996 proves the opposite of what Farmer and much of the media claim. In her complaint she never says that she, her sister or anyone else were ever abused. She doesn’t even claim Epstein had sex with her. If she had been victimized by Epstein she would have reported that to the FBI and they surely would have investigated it. Had they investigated Farmer, they would have found her to be a nut case who denies the Holocaust, believes that Jewish pedophiles control the world, and makes up stories that are easily disproved. If the FBI didn’t investigate, it’s because she merely said that Epstein had stolen artistic photographs she had taken of her partially nude underage sisters. The FBI doesn’t investigate theft, and semi-nude pictures of young girls taken by their artist sister hardly qualifies as the crime of the century. The Farmer complaint is the “dog that didn’t bark:” it’s the absence of any claim of physical abuse that is most relevant. 

Then there is Sarah Ransomme who claimed she had videos of Hillary and Bill Clinton, as well as Donald Trump and Richard Branson having sex with underage girls. She subsequently admitted there were no such tapes and that she made up the false accusations. If her accusations were to be released but her admission redacted – which is what the statute literally requires – the result would be unfair to the falsely accused. 

If all of the evidence is released with no redactions, it will become clear that the notorious Epstein case, with its “gotcha” partisan accusations from both sides, is essentially a modern replication of the awful McCarthyism of the 1950’s, which I experienced as a young student.

There are innocent Epstein victims who are telling the truth about having been abused, though many fewer than the media claims – just as there were real communists in the 1950s but far fewer than McCarthy claimed. . But there are also falsely accused innocents, as there were during the original McCarthyism. 

McCarthyism destroyed lives – many of them innocent – by promiscuously hurling accusations of communist affiliation, while denying those accused any semblance of due process or opportunity to defend themselves.

Nearly all the denials of civil liberties that characterized the original McCarthyism are being replicated in the new Epstein McCarthyism.

Among them are guilt by association, which implies that anyone who knew Epstein must be somehow complicit in his crimes; anonymous accusations which deny the accused the right to confront their accusers; guilt by accusation, which assumes that all accusations must be believed, even if made by alleged “victims” or “survivors” with histories of lying; suppressing evidence that would prove that some accusers may not be credible or may themselves have been perpetrators; attacking lawyers who defend accused perpetrators, and accusing them of being facilitators; refusal by politicians on both sides, as well as the media and civil liberties groups, to raise civil liberties concern, out of fear they will be accused of victim shaming and siding with perpetrators.

Let me begin with guilt by association, Democrats are suggesting that president Trump must be complicit in some wrongdoing because he was associated with Epstein, while Republicans are making similar claims with regard to former President Clinton. Both are in photos recently released by the Justice Department, though there is no evidence of any criminal behavior on the part of either of them, or on the part of many others whose names or photos have been released pursuant to the recent statute.

During the 1950’s Senator Joseph McCarthy would stand on the floor of the senate holding a list of government employees he claimed were communists or fellow travelers. Because he was a member of congress, he was immune from being sued for defamation. Similarly, current members of congress have threatened to read lists of accused sexual offenders.

Members of both political parties have demanded that the names of anyone accused of misconduct be disclosed while insisting that the names and backgrounds of their victim-accusers be redacted. This unfairness would deny wrongly accused individuals the right to confront their accusers and to present evidence regarding the credibility, or lack thereof, of false accusers. There is irrefutable evidence that some accusers have lied or exaggerated, while others, while adults, were themselves complicit in recruiting underage females for Epstein.

When someone accuses another of wrongdoing, they forgo any right of privacy or anonymity. Accusations are not the same as findings guilt following a fair evidentiary process, even in the context of sexual misconduct. The presumption of innocence must be applied in all cases.

During McCarthyism, many people were afraid to speak out against its abuses for fear of being accused of being sympathetic to communism. They were called “commy-symps” and some lost their jobs. Today, few if any politicians would risk being labeled “victim-shamers” or Epstein supporters. Even the media, civil liberties organizations and defense lawyers have remained silent about the denial of the most basic rights to those who have been and will be found guilty in the court of public opinion of guilt by association or accusation.

What Jeffrey Epstein did was terrible. If anyone was complicit in his crimes, they should be punished. If anyone was aware in real time of his ongoing crimes and remained silent, they should be criticized. But merely associating with this bad person before his extensive criminal behavior was known – or being his lawyer and defending him legally, as I did – is not a proper basis for McCarthyistic attacks.[1]

The great judge Oliver Wendell Holmes once quipped that hard cases make bad law. It is equally true that bad people create bad precedents that are ultimately applied to good people. The frenzy over the Epstein files has already caused a dangerous statute to be enacted by Congress, requiring the selective disclosure of accusations but not of information that might disprove some of those accusations. It also caused partisan accusations against political enemies who did nothing wrong. Just as half-truths are often worse than full-out lies, so too half-disclosures may be worse than full disclosure. From the beginning, I have called for full disclosure of everything, with no redactions. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, especially in politics. Full disclosure is the best remedy to the new McCarthyism. Let a fully informed public, not government officials, judge what is relevant, incriminating or exculpatory. Selective disclosure is censorship, and government censorship rarely produces the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Moreover, it generates distrust and conspiracy theories that create a never-ending cycle of accusations and counteraccusations.

The only way to end the new Epstein McCarthyism is for the government to disclose every document and permit any one whose names, images or emails are among them to explain, defend or justify their past connections to Epstein.

Advocates for alleged victims of the late sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein are calling for members of Congress to read out the names of accused perpetrators on the floor of Congress. Several members have agreed to do so. By reading these names on the House or Senate floor, they would immunize themselves from any legal consequences, thanks to the Speech and Debate clause of the U.S. Constitution.

This tactic was employed by Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisc.) in the 1950’s. He read out lists of alleged communists and fellow travelers on the Senate floor. Under the Constitution, named individuals who were completely innocent of such charges could not sue.

If members of Congress now receive lists of names from alleged victims and read them on the floor, both the members and the accusers would claim immunity from lawsuits. This would deny a legal remedy to anyone who is falsely accused. Those named would be presumed guilty merely on the basis of unproved accusations.

The current frenzy over Epstein lists is in fact reminiscent of the frenzy over communism in the 1950s. In the midst of such frenzies, few seem to care about the due process rights of those who have been falsely accused.

I was falsely accused several years ago but was able to sue my accuser and produce evidence of my total innocence. As a result, my false accuser withdrew her allegation and settled the case by acknowledging that, as a young person, she may have misidentified me or confused me with someone else. Had she provided my name to a member of Congress who then publicized it, I would have been denied the opportunity to disprove the false allegation in the courts.

The same is true of others who may be falsely accused. Victims’ advocates have said they have a list of 20 alleged abusers, including prominent people. I know, based on my legal representation of Epstein and a thorough review of the records, that at least some of those on the list are innocent. Like those accused by McCarthy, their reputations will be hurt by being included on the list, and they will have no legal recourse.

From the day I was falsely accused, I demanded release of all the documents, recordings and other information that would help get to the truth. But information that might raise questions about the credibility about the accusers has been suppressed by the courts, by the FBI and by the media.

Even the statute just passed by Congress allows the Justice Department to redact negative information about the accusers. Anyone who tries to impugn their accounts will likely be accused of victim-shaming.

We must strike a balance between the rights of alleged victims and the rights of those who may be falsely accused. But the atmosphere today makes it difficult to strike an appropriate balance. All accusers are deemed to be victims and survivors, without regard to the evidence or lack thereof. And all accused are deemed guilty merely on the basis of accusations by alleged “victims” or “survivors.” That is not the way due process is supposed to work.

Nor is this an elevation of form over substance. Some of the alleged victims have lied, and some may be peddling false accusations for money. Those whom they accuse with a reading from the House floor will be deprived of the right to challenge their credibility.

One accuser, for example, retracted her story of having sexually incriminating tapes of Bill and Hillary Clinton, President Trump and British businessman Richard Branson. Others may have said things in the past that impugn their credibility.

Due process and the presumption of innocence are often the first casualties of the kind of frenzy we are seeing with regard to the so-called Epstein files. Good people tend to ignore the pesky Constitution when they are certain that truth and justice are on their side.

Those who battled against the dangers of communism — and those dangers were real in the 1950s — refused to allow the constitutional rights of the innocent to get in the way of ridding our nation of the few communists who held positions of influence in government and other institutions.

Similarly today, those battling against guilty sex offenders refuse to acknowledge the constitutional rights of those who may be falsely accused. As with McCarthyism, they even attack lawyers who represent potentially guilty clients. Also, as with McCarthyism, liberals and civil libertarians are often afraid to speak up against these constitutional violations.

That is why the warning given by Justice Louis Brandeis a century ago is so relevant today: “the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men [and women] of zeal well meaning but without understanding.“

Among the key witnesses in the Jeffrey Epstein saga – the person relied on by Netflix and its documentary series “Filthy Rich” – and the “survivor” frequently interviewed by CNN, MSNBC and other media is Maria Farmer. She was allegedly the first “victim” to report Epstein to the authorities. She also accused Ghislaine Maxwell, Leslie Wexner and others – all of whom are Jews. It now turns out that she may have been motivated by the antisemitic attitudes she has long harbored to falsely accuse prominent Jews of sexual misconduct. This is some of the bigotry Maria Farmer spewed during a recorded two-hour interview that can be heard online: 

“I had a hard time with all Jewish people.”

“I think it’s all the Jews.”

“They think Jewish DNA is better than the rest of us.”

“All the Jewish people I met are pedophiles that run the world economy.”

“They are ‘Jewish supremacists’” and they are “all connected” through a mysterious organization called MEGA, which is run by Leslie Wexner who is “the head of the snake.”

Farmer claimed to have evidence that the Israeli Mossad hired Jeffrey Epstein to video tape prominent American political leaders committing acts of pedophilia so that Israel could blackmail them into doing their bidding, and that the entire conspiracy was under the protection and direction of “The Rothschilds.”

These antisemitic canards sound like they could have come directly from “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and other classic antisemitic forgeries and screeds, but all of this and more come from the bigoted brain and malicious mouth of Maria Farmer.

There is more, much more, of the same in the two hours of conspiratorial ranting that can be heard in the interview, which is being widely praised and circulated by white supremacist and antisemitic groups and individuals.

Farmer’s obvious antisemitic bigotry doesn't prove, of course, that she is lying about everything she said.

Even bigots are capable of telling the truth, though their claims should always be viewed with skepticism.

But the suppression of her odious Jew hatred raises serious questions about the objectivity of those who have interviewed her without disclosing her relevant bias. As far as I know, this antisemite has never been confronted during her interviews with her own bigoted words, so her credibility or lack thereof can be assessed by listeners and viewers. You can be sure that she would have been treated differently if she had been a member of the KKK or other White supremacist group and had accused only African Americans  

Moreover, there is additional evidence of her mendacity. Although she hadn't accused me directly of any wrongdoing, she has provided a sworn affidavit claiming the following:

“4. Alan Dershowitz was an individual who came to visit Epstein at his New York mansion a number of times when I was working for Epstein. Dershowitz was very comfortable at the home and would come in and walk upstairs. On a number [of] occasions, I witnessed Dershowitz at the NY mansion going upstairs at the same time there were young girls under the age of 18 who were present upstairs in the house.”

The problem is that Farmer acknowledges that she terminated her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein in early simmer of 1996 – after she was allegedly raped by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell on Leslie Wexner’s premises.

She never entered Epstein’s New York home after that.

But I didn’t meet Epstein until well after that, as I can prove.

She couldn’t possibly have ever seen me in Epstein’s house, because I was never in his house at any time that she could possibly have been there.

Moreover, on the few occasions when I was in Epstein’s New York house, well after Farmer was gone, I never went into the private areas of that home.

I was generally with my wife or other lawyers or academics, in the public areas – dining room, living room, den – and never saw any young girls around.

Why would Farmer make up such an easily disprovable story about me, and swear to it under pains of perjury, which she may now suffer?

Because I’m a prominent Jew? Part of MEGA? An Israeli agent?

There have been suggestions from the very beginning about antisemitic statements or sentiments expressed by some of the witnesses.

Now we have proof – from the mouth of one of the most prominent witnesses herself – that she is an antisemite who falsely accuses Jews.

Even if true about others as well, this would not excuse or mitigate Epstein’s crimes.

But it would raise questions about the credibility of their accusations against others.

The bigoted motives of accusers are always relevant to their credibility.

Throughout history, antisemitism has motivated false accusations. Maria Farmer’s overt antisemitism must be investigated beyond her own bigoted public statements.

These revelations, which were known to Netflix – and could easily have been uncovered by other media – they mendaciously presented Farmer as a credible witness, also raises questions about the credibility and ethics of Netflix and the producers and directors of the Epstein series.

They withheld from their viewers this and other damning information in order to present a false picture of their primary witness. The time has come for the responsible media to investigate all the principals – accusers and accused alike – in the tragic Epstein saga.

The #MeToo movement has done a great feat in exposing predatory men, but as with every movement, it's subject to exploitation by those who misuse it for financial gain, revenge and other personal benefits.

As philosopher Eric Hoffer once cautioned, “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

Every woman who alleges she has been abused should be listened to and taken seriously. This means that their allegations should be thoroughly investigated.

But investigation is a double-edged sword. For most women, any investigation will confirm the truth of their accusations, because most women are telling the truth; for some, however, it will expose biases, bigotry and possibly perjury.

Maria Farmer’s claims should be thoroughly investigated, especially in light of the bigotry that has come from her own mouth. If she has lied under oath and continues to lie she should be prosecuted.