As unreleased Epstein files loom over Washington, a key insider now says there is “nothing” in them that incriminates President Trump—raising hard questions about who is really driving this scandal and why.
Story Snapshot
- Alan Dershowitz, Epstein’s former lawyer, says unreleased files contain nothing that incriminates President Trump.
- Dershowitz argues several high-profile Epstein accusers have been debunked and are motivated by money.
- He urges full disclosure of accusers’ backgrounds and prosecution of those who fabricate allegations.
- The case highlights how weaponized accusations can be used to smear political opponents and distract from real victims.
Dershowitz’s central claim: no Epstein file evidence against Trump
Alan Dershowitz, a longtime Harvard law professor and former attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, has stated that there is nothing in the unreleased Epstein files that would incriminate President Donald Trump. Drawing on his direct involvement in Epstein-related litigation and document reviews, he argues that the evidence simply does not support attempts to tie Trump to Epstein’s crimes. His comments push back against years of media speculation suggesting some hidden bombshell waiting to be deployed.
Dershowitz frames this point as a matter of legal fact rather than partisan loyalty, emphasizing that if such evidence existed, he would have seen clear indications in the material already processed through courts. By stressing documentary records rather than rumor, he challenges the narrative that Trump’s enemies only need one more document dump to prove a massive cover-up. His stance underscores a broader concern among many conservatives about justice systems bending to political pressures instead of sticking to verifiable proof.
False accusers, financial motives, and the cost to real victims
Dershowitz goes further by calling out specific accusers he believes have been discredited, including Sarah Ransome and Maria Farmer, arguing their claims collapsed when tested against evidence. He contends that many allegations circulating around the Epstein orbit are driven more by money and publicity than by a genuine search for justice. From his perspective, civil suits, book deals, and media appearances can create powerful incentives to stretch, embellish, or invent accusations against deep-pocketed or high-profile figures.
By warning about financially motivated fabrications, he highlights a problem that deeply worries conservatives: when the system rewards sensational accusations, truly innocent people can be smeared permanently without trial. Dershowitz argues that this dynamic does not just damage wrongly accused individuals; it also dilutes the credibility of real victims. When fraudulent or exaggerated claims contaminate the public record, juries and the public may grow skeptical of everyone, making it harder for genuine survivors of abuse to be heard and believed where it truly matters.
Epstein’s perversion, secrecy, and who really knew what
While defending Trump from unsubstantiated linkage, Dershowitz does not sugarcoat Epstein’s lifestyle. He acknowledges Epstein’s perversion, citing details such as Amazon purchases of schoolgirl uniforms as indicators of a twisted sexual appetite. These specifics confirm that Epstein was not some misunderstood financier but a predator whose behavior left disturbing traces in everyday transactions. At the same time, Dershowitz maintains that only a limited inner circle understood the full scope of that depravity while it unfolded.
That distinction matters politically because opponents often imply that anyone who met, flew with, or visited Epstein must have known and approved of his conduct. Dershowitz’s account instead suggests a compartmentalized world where Epstein carefully hid his worst activities from many associates. For conservatives fatigued by years of “guilt by association” attacks, this reinforces a basic constitutional value: individuals should be judged by evidence of their own actions, not by innuendo based on who once appeared in a photograph or guest list.
Calls for transparency, accountability, and equal justice
Dershowitz urges that the backgrounds of Epstein accusers be made fully public, arguing that the country cannot sort truth from fiction if only one side of each story is revealed. He believes juries and citizens deserve to know not just what accusers allege, but also their prior statements, contradictions, financial arrangements, and any history that might bear on credibility. His position aligns with a long-standing conservative concern that anonymity and one-sided secrecy can invite abuse of the legal system.
He also calls for prosecuting those who fabricate accusations, stressing that false claims are not victimless acts. When people lie about criminal abuse or invent links to political figures for profit, they undermine due process and weaponize the courts against disfavored targets. For readers who watched the Russia-collusion saga, impeachment battles, and other investigations built on thin or shifting stories, this resonates as another example of systems meant for justice being twisted into partisan tools rather than neutral forums anchored in facts.
Protecting real victims while rejecting political show trials
Despite his criticism of fraudulent accusers, Dershowitz repeatedly emphasizes the need to identify and support real Epstein victims who deserve justice. He warns against letting political agendas, media theatrics, or fundraising opportunities overshadow the central goal of punishing actual perpetrators and compensating those truly harmed. In his view, the Epstein files should be used to uncover and prosecute real criminal conduct, not as a backdrop for partisan storytelling targeting whichever political figure is currently in the crosshairs.
For conservatives in 2025, his message fits into a broader pattern: institutions too often chase headlines and partisan advantage instead of equal justice under law. The push to find something—anything—against President Trump in the Epstein records mirrors earlier efforts to criminalize political disagreement rather than confront genuine threats like open borders, censorship, and runaway bureaucracy. Dershowitz’s insistence on evidence, transparency, and consequences for fabricators reflects core constitutional values: presumption of innocence, due process, and a justice system that serves truth instead of ideology.
