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.  

The winning vote for New York City’s mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani — slightly more than 50 percent of the electorate, including more than 30 percent of Jewish voters — tells us that 80 years after the Holocaust, New Yorkers are prepared to vote for an antisemite, not necessarily because of his anti-Jewish bigotry, but despite it. 

Without making any comparisons or analogies, we must recall the 1932 voting in Germany, where Hitler and his Nazi party received a plurality of the votes, not necessarily because of his antisemitism but despite it. 

Hitler campaigned on reducing unemployment, ending the Depression, and making Germans proud of their heritage. Antisemites voted for him, but so did ordinary Germans who simply wanted a better life. They were prepared to ignore or discount his hatred for Jews. 

Hitler’s success during his first few years in keeping those promises turned many ordinary Germans into the antisemites who willingly supported anti-Jewish laws and ultimately the Holocaust. I am not suggesting that Mr. Mamdani’s victory will lead to such dire results, but if he succeeds as mayor — if he makes New York more livable and affordable without bankrupting it — many more people will follow him into his dark hatred of all things Israeli, Zionist, and Jewish. 

The 30-plus percent of Jews who voted for him either don’t believe this or don’t care. Many of them are radicals first, anti-Trumpers second, anti-American third, anti the current Israeli government fourth, and anti-Israel fifth.

The difficult question is whether the Mamdani supporters who voted for a candidate who refuses to recognize Israel as the Jewish state while recognizing the numerous Muslim states, represents the future of the democratic party or indeed the future of New York. 

Alternatively, did Mr. Mamdani win largely because his two opponents were politics-as-usual candidates who represented the establishment and the past? Could he have beaten, for example, the capable and highly qualified police commissioner, Jessica Tisch, if she had run against him in a one-on-one election? We don’t know, although it is possible we may learn it if Ms. Tisch decides to run against him in the next election.

For me, as a liberal Jew who grew up at Brooklyn, the deepest concern is that antisemitism and anti-Israel bigotry are no longer disqualifying factors in a New York election. That would not have been the case several years ago. Yet if it has become true in New York, it is probably true in much of the rest of the country and clearly in much of the rest of the world.

The double standard applicable to everything Jewish, including Israel, has become normalized. What you can say today about Jews in Israel cannot be said about other groups or even other nations. 

The hard right has always had, and still has, a Jewish problem, as remanifested by Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, and others. The hard left now has a similar problem, as represented by Mr. Mamdani, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Senator Bernie Sanders, and many university faculty members, administrators, and students.

The animus on both ends of the political spectrum is based on the claim that Jews are “privileged” because of their wealth and accomplishments, along with the idea that Israel is privileged because of its support from America. Whatever the reasons, Jews and their national state are caught in a pincer movement between the hard right and the hard left.

This is not new. During the 1930s, the only thing Hitler and Stalin had in common was their hatred for Jews, Zionists, and cosmopolitans. In the Soviet Union “cosmopolitanism” was used  by hard-left communists as a euphemism for Jews. Today “globalism” is used by hard right neo-fascists as a euphemism for Jews, proving once again that Jews are caught between the red and the black.

Jews have always thrived at the center, though many individual Jews have been associated with extremes on both sides. America too has thrived at the center. Notwithstanding recent electoral successes by a handful of extremists, America is still a centrist country. So Mr. Mamdani’s victory may spread to other blue cities, but it is unlikely to bring socialism and anti-Israel bigotry to other parts of the country, whether light red or light blue.

We live in a dangerous world in which extremism on both sides is gaining traction. The Mamdani election is a symptom of a potentially contagious disease, but we have the ability to prevent its spread by maintaining the centrist tradition of America that has made us the most successful country in the history of the world.