Fighting back: Alan Dershowitz uses his own case to explain need for 6th Amendment

My name is included on a list of “prominent” names recently released by the Justice Department in the so-called “Epstein Files.” I stand accused of receiving a massage by a woman on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane. No illegal conduct is alleged – the FBI document that circulated this claim notes that the accuser was not a minor – the problem is that everything and everyone associated with Epstein is now tainted.

But here’s the thing: The claim itself is untrue. It never happened.

Most others who have been accused have tried to bury the story. Not me! I’m publicizing it and fighting back against the false accusation. My hands are tied, however, because the name of my adult accuser is “redacted.” Nor is any context provided. Not where this flight was going, not the year this supposedly took place – not even the decade. Most importantly, not the identity of the accuser.

“[Redacted] stated that she gave him [Dershowitz] a massage on Epstein’s plane (not a minor).”  That’s all it says. The truth is that I never received a massage on an Epstein plane. I was not on an Epstein plane with any of his victims (as flight manifests will show), and I have never received a massage of a sexual nature.

There are two possibilities here. The first is that “Redacted” made up the story, which would be a felony. Or, second, the government’s criteria for redacting names is wrong.

Yet the government has redacted the name of my adult accuser, thus denying me the right to investigate her and find out, for instance, whether she has a history of deceit. If she is lying about having given me a massage – which I will swear under oath she is – than she has violated Section 1001 of the federal criminal code that makes it a crime to lie to a law enforcement official about a material fact.

All I want is to confront my accuser, a bedrock right of every American. No adult has the right to accuse anyone else without being confronted. I hereby waive all rights to privacy, confidentiality, or lawyer-client privilege, but I insist that the name of my criminal accuser be disclosed. If the Justice Department refuses, I plan to file a lawsuit.

Or Congress can subpoena me and my false accuser and subject both of us to the type of cross-examination contemplated by the Sixth Amendment’s right to confront “the witnesses against him.” I don’t know whether she may be a victim of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes, but I do know that I am a victim of this false accusation.

The same is true of others who have been named. The list of prominent Americans published by the Justice Department includes President Trump, whom an anonymous source claims “forced her head down to his exposed penis which is (sic) subsequently bite. In response Trump punched her in the head and kicked her out.”

Donald Trump has an absolute right to know the name of his accuser. The same is true of all the other people included on the list, but the names of all accusers have been redacted. The names of those anonymously accused include William Barr, Les Wexner, Bill Clinton, and others.

Publishing accusations while hiding the names of the accusers is reminiscent of what Joseph McCarthy did in the 1950s when he stood up in front of the Senate and announced “I have a list” and then leaked the names of accused communists, without disclosing the names of their accusers.

Partisan politicians and the media have played an insidious role in the current wave of McCarthyism. In the name of protecting minors and actual victims, they are publicizing accusations without giving the accused any opportunity to defend, beyond issuing routine denials, which are discounted by the public.

I was previously accused of misconduct in connection with Epstein by Virginia Giuffre. She may have been a real victim – but she wasn’t victimized by me. She ultimately admitted that she may have misidentified me and confused me with someone else. She withdrew her accusation and dropped her lawsuit. I would not have been able to achieve this result without knowing her name.

Everyone else who has been accused should have the same opportunity to disprove the charges. Indeed, had the unredacted files been released earlier, I would never have been falsely accused in the first place. The newly released files included an unredacted FBI interview with Giuffre that occurred in 2011, before her lawyers persuaded her to seek money by including me among the people she accused. Her lawyers were sanctioned by the court for including my name. The interview was originally redacted. Now it has been unredacted and the unredacted version contains indisputable proof of my innocence. My accuser was shown photographs of numerous people that Epstein knew; I was among them because I was one of his lawyers. When shown my photograph, she responded that I was “unaware” of any wrongdoing on Epstein’s part.

So the names of all adult accusers and all the relevant information should be released with no redactions by the Justice Department.

In our nation of laws, no adult should have the right to make anonymous accusations that are then made public. We should have learned that important lesson from the McCarthyism of the 1950s, but we obviously haven’t.