Release the Epstein Files — all of them

From the time I was first falsely accused of having sexual contact with someone I never heard of, I asked that every bit of evidence relating to Jeffrey Epstein be disclosed. Indeed, I wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal asking the FBI to open a criminal investigation of me so that I could prove beyond any doubt that the charges were made up. I agreed to waive any and all privileges if such an investigation were conducted.

I continue to demand that every bit of evidence be disclosed, because I know with 100 percent certainty that the evidence, if completely produced without exceptions, exculpates me, for the simple reason that I did nothing wrong. But much of the evidence has been withheld — and for no good reason. Only the guilty are protected by the withholding of evidence. The guilty include those who may have been sexually involved in the Epstein case, but the guilty also include anyone who deliberately made false allegations against innocent people.

We know there were some videotapes made by Epstein — and I suspect there is other evidence as well of who did and did not engage in improper conduct. The public interest would be served by producing the entirety of the evidence.

Those who have been accused — whether falsely or truthfully — include some of the most prominent people in the world: politicians, princes, celebrities, businessmen and others. Those who are totally innocent, like me, have the right to public disclosure of the evidence of innocence. Those who are guilty of serious crimes have no right off privacy.

The evidence falls into several categories. Some consists simply of names of people who Epstein knew. These includes his business associates, lawyers, accountants and friends. The names appear in telephone books, diaries, airplane manifests and other documents. They prove nothing inculpatory. Other names appear in accusatory documents, such as depositions or legal pleadings. There is no evidence to support the uncorroborated accusations, but they are believed by many. Then there is photographic or recorded evidence that proves some connection between the accused and the accuser but not any improper conduct. Finally — at least in theory — there is smoking-gun proof, such as inculpatory videos. No such evidence has been produced as yet against any accused person.

There is another category of evidence that is particularly important is cases lacking documented evidence: that is evidence that goes to the credibility or lack thereof of the “she-said-he said” accusers. And that is precisely the category of evidence that is being withheld by judges in this case. In “she-accused-he’s denied” cases, credibility plays a central role in deciding who the real victim is. But many judges assume, simply on the basis of uncorroborated accusations, that the accuser is the “victim.” But false accusers, especially those who falsely accuse innocent people for money, are themselves guilty perpetrators, even if they may also have been victims of others. And to protect these “victims,” the judges and prosecutors suppress any negative evidence that would undercut their credibility.  That is part of what is happening here.

So I’m urging that finally everything be made public. Nothing should be suppressed. No one — not those who were truthfully accused and not those who have falsely accused — should be protected from the truth. No exceptions. None! Only then will we know who the real victims and perpetrators are. It’s about time learn the whole truth.