The saying goes that hard cases make bad law, but in today’s climate, it seems that bad people create bad precedents that can unfairly ensnare innocent individuals.
The latest frenzy surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein files has shown just how quickly selective disclosures can weaponize reputations, turning casual associations into political ammunition.
Congress recently enacted a statute that requires selective release of accusations, while suppressing information that could disprove some claims.
This has already fueled partisan firestorms, dragging prominent figures like Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Mick Jagger, and Michael Jackson into the headlines—even when there is no evidence they committed crimes.
The Danger of Guilt by Association
Many Democrats suggest President Trump is complicit simply because he knew Epstein, while Republicans levy the same insinuations at former President Clinton.
This rush to judgment overlooks a basic principle: mere association, or even serving as legal counsel for someone later revealed to be a criminal, does not automatically imply wrongdoing.
Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes were horrific. Anyone complicit or silent in the face of known misconduct deserves scrutiny.
But assuming guilt for knowing him—or representing him legally—is a perilous path.
From 2005 to 2008, I defended Epstein as part of a plea bargain, yet that association should never be twisted into a mark of guilt for me or anyone else who acted ethically in that role.
Selective Disclosures Fan the Flames
The selective release of emails and photographs has led to unproven, often politically motivated accusations.
Those named have had little opportunity to respond, echoing the dangerous tactics of McCarthyism.
Like the communist witch hunts of the 1950s, this modern iteration—call it Epstein-McCarthyism—is built on accusations, assumptions, and guilt by proximity.
In McCarthy’s day, senators could publicly brand individuals as communists without evidence, denying them recourse.
Today, politicians on both sides threaten lists of alleged sexual offenders while suppressing exculpatory material, leaving accused individuals to defend themselves in the court of public opinion rather than in a court of law.
The Civil Liberties Erosion
This modern McCarthyism shares all the hallmarks of its predecessor: guilt by association, anonymous allegations, selective disclosure, attacking lawyers who defend the accused, and a refusal by media or civil liberties groups to speak out for fear of social backlash.
Denying individuals the ability to confront accusers or present evidence turns the justice system on its head.
In some cases, there is evidence that accusers have misrepresented facts, exaggerated claims, or even participated in recruiting for Epstein.
Yet these nuances are often hidden by selective releases, leaving the public to assume guilt without full context.
Presumption of Innocence Must Prevail
The presumption of innocence is not optional, even in cases involving sexual misconduct. Accusations are not convictions.
Half-truths and selective disclosures can be more damaging than outright lies, creating a cycle of distrust, speculation, and political posturing.
Sunlight—full transparency—is the antidote.
I have repeatedly called for complete disclosure, with no redactions.
Only then can the public judge the relevance, incriminating power, or exculpatory value of each document.
Anything less fuels a culture of suspicion and turns innocent people into scapegoats.
Ending Epstein-McCarthyism Through Transparency
The only way to curb this new wave of McCarthyism is for the government to release every document related to Epstein and allow anyone implicated to explain or defend their connections.
When transparency prevails, accusations can be weighed fairly, and innocent individuals no longer suffer in silence under the shadow of selective disclosure.
Justice demands not only punishment for the guilty, but protection for those who are innocent yet caught in the crossfire of political hysteria.
In today’s climate, that principle is under threat—and it is up to all of us to uphold it.
Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn