July 18, 2025 • 27 mins
In this episode, Tudor interviews attorney Alan Dershowitz, who discusses the complexities surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein case, the legal implications of redacted names, and the importance of transparency in the justice system. Dershowitz emphasizes the need for a thorough investigation into accusations, the role of Ghislaine Maxwell, and the impact of conspiracy theories on public perception. The Tudor Dixon Podcast is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network. For more visit TudorDixonPodcast.com
Watch The Tudor Dixon Podcast on Rumble
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. We've heard all week
about the Epstein files, so we thought we would go
to the guy who knows the most, his attorney, Alan Dershowitz.
He's been litigating and teaching and writing about law for
more than sixty years, but also served as Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer.
Mister Dershowitz, thank you so much for joining me today.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
I want to talk about this because there's been so
much drama about this and I'm not a legal expert.
You obviously were on the case. I think there's a
lot that people don't understand about this. You've written an
op ed saying this isn't even up to the DOJ,
that the courts actually redacted these names and they can't
be released.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Well, two judges have redacted the names, largely to protect
the accusers, but also the accused. After all, if people
are accused, some of them are falsely accused, we have
to know everything possible about the accused. Give me an example.
A woman named Sarah Ranson, a CU wrote a whole
series of emails to The New York Post accusing Bill
(01:05):
Clinton and Hillary Clinton and Richard Branson of having pedophilic
sects with young people. She was then investigated. Ultimately, she
admitted to The New Yorker that she made up the
whole story. So you have a situation like that, you
can't just release the names of the accused. You have
to also release the information about the accusers so that
(01:27):
in the court of public opinion you can make a
judgment as to whether they're relevant. Not every accusation is true,
and not every accusation is false. You know, the Me
Too movement says, believe women, no, no, no, no. Investigate
every charge, but don't believe anybody because of their gender.
Many women tell the truth, some don't. Many men tell
(01:49):
the truth, some don't, and so we have to assess them.
So right now, what's being suppressed are the names of
some of the accused. I happen to know who they
are because I investigated the case. None of them are
public figures. None of them are people who are elected
office today. There are no smoking guns. But also what's
being suppressed are as negative information about the accusers because
(02:11):
they are deemed to be victims. Some of them are victims,
some of them are mixed victims and false accusers. It's
a very complex situation.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Well, so that's one of the things that Donald Trump,
the president, came out when they asked him a few
days ago about this. He came out and he said, look,
there's information out there that if it comes out and
these people are falsely accused, it ruins their life. Essentially,
I'm paraphrasing, but that's what he said. And I think
this is something that's hard for people to understand because
(02:40):
not everybody is a legal expert. But you know how
social media goes when something like this happens, Suddenly everyone
is a legal expert. I want to be clear. Pedophiles
are considered so vile that even when the most heenous
murderer gets into prison with them, they kill them in prison.
I mean, this is a serious accusation, and I have
(03:01):
respect for Pambondi and President Trump that they're not willing
to just put people's names out there and accuse them
of things that they haven't done. President Trump knows best
what this is like.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
Well, first of all, let's be very clear, not a
single person has ever been accused of being a pedophile
other than Jeffrey Epstein. Not a single person. Some people
were accused of having sex with twenty two year olds,
twenty three year olds, nineteen year olds. Nobody has ever
been accused of having sex with children, with young children,
and that's just false.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
So from this case, you don't have any information that
got I know.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
For sure that there's no accusation, no plausible, credible accusations
about that. The word is thrown around as if it
has a meaning, but it doesn't apply to a nineteen
year old or a twenty three year old or even
a seventeen year old. It applies to a twelve year
old or a thirteen year old or fourteen year old,
but those accusations are not there. So there's no pedophilia
(03:56):
involved here, and there's no trafficking. But he really believes
that Jeffrey Epstein was making money selling women to clients. No,
the accusation is that, you know, maybe he allowed one
of the people under his control to have sex with
Prince Andrew when she was nineteen or twenty years old,
(04:17):
for which he was paid fifteen thousand dollars. That's one
of the accusations. But let's not overstate them. And let's
also understand that there is a presumption of innocence in
the world. There is an FBI list. There is a
list of people that complaints were made about and those
names have been redacted. I know who they are. None
(04:40):
of them are people who are currently in office or
currently in the public. But there is such a list,
and the judges have done the redacting, and the judges
have supported the redacting, And if the media wants to
get those names, they ought to go to the judges
and make an application under the First Amendment to get
the names released. They'll be very dis pointed when they
see the names because they haven't heard of any of them.
(05:02):
They're just obscure people.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
There's this thing considered the FBI vault where all of
and there's Epstein files in the vault that you can
go online and you can see those files and then
you can issue a FOYA and you can ask for
more files. Would that are those files there available to
the public, just redacted? And that's what the people are asking.
(05:25):
They want the actual names.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
Yeah, and I think they're right. They should have the
actual names. But if you redact the names, you also
have to redact the information about negative material about some
of the accusers so that the court of public opinion
can fairly judge whether these people were appropriately charged, accused
or not. None of them have been charged with any crimes,
(05:47):
and for good reason, because there doesn't seem to be
sufficient evidence to charge anybody with crimes. So I can't
fault BONDI I can't fault Trump. I can't fauilt this administration.
I don't think the administrations in any way responsible. Let
me also tell you I've gone through the records. There's
no allegation that Donald Trump did anything improper or that
(06:09):
Bill Clinton did anything proper. These are all speculations that
are not based on evidence. You know. The one thing
that conspiracy theorists hate are hard, tough facts or the
absence of facts, and that's what that's what destroys conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
So you don't believe that if these files were fully unredacted,
they were fully released to the public, that there would
be people that could be accused of crimes within those files.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Yeah, they probably are some people who could be accused,
But whether they could be credibly accused, I don't know. No,
I don't think they can be accused of crimes because,
first of all, these are matters that took place in
two thousand and two thousand and one, two thousand and two,
twenty a quarter of a century ago, and some of
(06:58):
them resulted in civil law suits and settlements of cases.
But I'm not aware of anything that would result in
criminal prosecutions. And so I've been in favor of releasing
all the files from day one. From day one, I said,
I waive any privacy rights, any lawyer client rights, release everything.
(07:19):
Let the public judge based on full transparency. That's been
my position from day one.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
So obviously, we saw over the weekend this event where
a lot of young conservatives gathered and there were accusations
from Tucker Carlson that the State of Israel was involved.
You've been very consistent in saying that is not true.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
I know that for a fact for two reasons. One,
if Jeffrey Epstein had worked for any intelligence agency, the
first thing he would have done is told me that,
and told his other lawyers that, and asked us to
go to the government and get a deal, a better
deal for him. He didn't like the deal he got,
and that didn't happen. And that's one number Two. I
(08:01):
represented the Mozart I was their lawyer. Maybe I don't know.
Twenty years ago when Cyprus arrested five young Mozart agents,
and I pro bono represented them and helped them get out. So,
without disclosing specifics, I have very good sources in Israel,
and I can tell you from my sources there is
zero chance that Jeffrey Epstein ever had any connection with
(08:24):
the Mosad. The reason the story has taken on legs,
and the reason Tarker Carlson is making these claims, is
that Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend, Ghlaine Maxwell's father Robert Maxwell,
may very well have had connections to the Mozart but
not Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
What is that with Gilaine Maxwell? Is there something that
she would come out and say. I know that she's
been saying, well, I want to be able to talk
or testify in front of Congress, and there's been some
discussion about that. What are your thoughts there?
Speaker 2 (08:54):
I think she should if she knows much more than
anybody else. She was the one who arranged flights every
time I was his lawyer. Every time I had to
fly down, she would arrange the flight, She would arrange
for me to stay in a hotel. She was his
basic organizer, and so she would know everything. And so
I think she ought to testify in front of Congress
(09:16):
and be given immunity. You know, she's in prison right now.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
Is she someone that you think could be trusted? I mean,
this is.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Last she has evidence. I mean, don't trust anybody you
know trust would verify. But the point is, does she
have documentation or evidence. Does she have travel receipts, does
she have you know, other things physical evidence. For example,
there were claims that there are sex tapes involving Jeffrey
Epstein and the people to whom he lent the women.
(09:49):
There are no such sex tastes. There are, however, videotapes
that were taken by the police when there was a
robbery in Epstein's house and the Palm Beach police installed
a video camera in his public areas, in his living room,
and there are those videotapes. But I am not aware
of any sex tapes at all.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon podcast. So you've talked about these conspiracy theorists,
and that is one of the conspiracies, is that there
are hours and hours of videotape that he used as
leverage with these important politicians and celebrities. And Pam Bondi
(10:28):
when she first talked about this, she said, I have
these videotapes. I'm reviewing them.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Now.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
You just said these were tapes that were in public
areas of his home. They weren't in private areas. He
wasn't using them as leverage. And there have been other
legal experts that have come out and said, I don't
know of many criminals that keep a record of their crimes.
Can you just again verify those videos are not of
people engaging in lud acts.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
No, what happened is one of his employees stole some
money and stole a licensed gun, and he went to
the police, and the Palm Beach police installed the video
camera secretly in his living room. I was there. I
know exactly where the camera was, and it recorded people,
and ultimately the people who did the theft were caught
and fired. But I'm aware of no video cameras installed
(11:18):
in any bedrooms, or any tapes in anybody, or any
extortion that was used. You know, this is probably one
of the most fantasmo logical conspiracy theories ever. This just
just nothing to these claims. There's enough there in terms
(11:38):
of what Jeffrey Epstein did to make the public legitimately interested.
But he was not selling people to prominent people. He
was not taking videotapes. None of that is true.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
It plays on every parent's worst fear, your daughter gets
pulled into this. So I think there's this fantasy around
that of gosh, we got to expose this. It also
brings in high powered politicians that just blows up the story.
But so my question to you, as a legal expert
is why doesn't Attorney General BONDI just come out and
say what you're saying right now?
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Well, she should, and I think she will, and I
think she should also do one more thing, go to
the courts, go to these two federal judgments and say, look,
there's been all these accusations, let's clear the air. Let's
have transparency, produce everything, produce the names of those accused,
but also produce the information about the accusers so that
(12:33):
we can make a judgment as to whether the accusations
are true or false. Right now, No, there isn't enough
information to make that kind of judgment. That's just surmise
and speculation. We do have enough to conclude, beyond any doubt,
that he did not work for the CIA, for the
most sad for the shine for any intelligence agencies, that's
one hundred percent certain. The rest will become certain when
(12:57):
all the information comes out. But I have to tell
you people are going to be very disappointed because I
know the names of the people that have been redacted,
and there are names that are familiar to you or
anybody else. There are some, but there are people who
are now dead or retired, and we don't know whether
they're involved or not.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
So it's not the smoking gun that people are saying
that it is. Give us a little legal lesson, because
I think a lot of people are just expecting that
once the Trump administration got into office that they would
start just spewing FBI crime files out to the public.
Is there a precedent for that? I mean, has that
ever been done before that you just start releasing files
(13:38):
like that?
Speaker 2 (13:39):
No, but it should be done. I'd like to see
the files of the Robert Kennedy assassination, of the John
Kennedy assassination of Martin Luther King. You know, time passes
and history has its claim, so I understand the needs
sometimes to suppress material for the moment, but we're talking
(13:59):
about events that are and a half century ago in
cases of those assassinations, and in the Epstein case, the
events occurred a quarter of a century ago. So I
think the time has come for full, complete transparency and disclosure.
As far as I'm concerned, I hereby waive any rights
of privacy or any rights of confidentiality. If there's anything
about me in there, turn it out. I want everybody
(14:20):
to see it, because I know that the record will
prove that all I did was service Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer
in a professional way, in the same way that John
Adams defended the people who committed the Boston massacre and
Abraham Lincoln defended people accused of serious crimes. That's what
lawyers do. We defend the most seriously accused criminals, and
we do it proudly and without any reservations. And I'm
(14:42):
eighty seven years old almost, but I'm going to continue
as long as I the Good Lord gives me energy
to represent people accused of crime, even if people don't
like it, and that makes me unpopular. That's the job
of the lawyer, and it's essential under the Constitution.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
I think that's key that you say that, because for
people that don't know there were conspiracy theories about you
out there too, and I know you came out and
defended yourself, and to me, it's very meaningful to have
you say release it all, I know what's in there,
because that should calm a lot of these people down.
Who gets the sensational information.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
And in my case, the woman who accused me ultimately
admitted publicly in court documents that she may have confused
me and misidentified me with somebody else, and she dropped
all the suits, so you know, my name has been
completely totally cleared. I did nothing wrong. I've had sex
with other than my wife during the relevant period of time,
(15:42):
and so it resulted for me wanting everything out there
because if you have nothing to hide, you want everything
out there. Now, there are some people who do have
something to hide, and those are people who have gone
to court and sought to suppress some of the material,
and some of them have succeeded doing so.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
So there are people that don't want that information out there.
And I want to be clear about what you said
it is. I mean a lot of people don't want
people to know that they've been sleeping around outside of
their marriage and things like that. But what you're talking
about there are no twelve year old's, fifteen year old,
sixteen year olds in this case.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Not only that, but there are no well known people
in this case. The one thing I'm thinking of right
now involves a book that was written and the name
was redacted by the court, and everybody be interested in
knowing who he is. I know who it is, and
it's somebody nobody's ever heard of, so they would not
be interested in that. But the court has protected this
(16:42):
person because the court is uncertain that he's guilty, and
they don't want to produce the information about the accuser
because the accuser was also an alleged victim. So it's complicated.
But this is not something with as any fault on
the part of Pam Bondi, or on the part of
Donald Trump, or on the part of anybody in the administration.
(17:05):
This is the responsibility of courts, and they have exercised
their responsibility by not only keeping out the names of
some people who are accused, but also information about the accusers.
And I think the time has come now probably to disclose.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
Everything, and that is up to these judges. I just
want to reiterate that, and what a devastating situation for
so many good things to be coming out of this administration.
Right now, they're talking about cutting more waste, more financial
waste in the government, and here we have even people
on our side that are going after our side and
(17:42):
saying this is what we wanted. I think this is
so interesting because I'm now hearing this is not pedophilia.
These are not crimes that what the person who committed
the crime is serving the time or served the time.
You also say that you don't believe that there was
any funny business involved in his suicide outside of somebody
maybe helping him within the prison. So you think that
(18:04):
could have happened.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Well, I'm fairly sure that he could not have committed
suicide if all the rules have been followed, video cameras,
his cellmate remaining there, the guards on duty. There's something
something very very questionable about that. And my own suspicion
he wasn't his lawyer at the time, so I don't
(18:26):
have any first rate information, but my own suspicion is
that he paid off guards to allow him to commit suicide,
and some of the guards have been fired, so there's
some cooperation to that.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
How long was his prison sentence, Well.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
Remember he served as prison sentence. It was eighteen months.
That was back in the first decade of the twenty
first century. He hadn't been sentenced, he hadn't been convicted.
When he killed himself, he was seeking bail and that's
the only suspicious thing about it. He had a good
chance of getting bail, and that's why. I don't know
why he would have killed himself at that point in time,
(19:05):
but the evidence strongly suggests that he did. Look, there's
one great forensic pathologist who has said, Michael Biden, that
maybe he didn't commit suicide. I have no special knowledge
of that. I do have very special knowledge about the
absence of a list, very special knowledge about no Mosad,
But I have no special knowledge about the suicide.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
Yeah, I think that will always there always is a
little suspicion around a suicide. But I think anybody who
knows someone who has committed suicide, there's always those questions
of why would you do it? I mean, no one
can really understand what goes on in the mind of
somebody who decides to take their own life.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
Well, except that Jeffrey Epstein was used to living a
life of luxury. He had airplanes and mansions and the
idea of him having to spend the rest of his
life in rat infested jails and prisons is something that
I can understand him not wanting to do. I understand
as the timing of why he didn't wait to see
whether he got bail or not before he made the
(20:06):
final decision, irreficable decision to kill himself. That's the only
question that reminds in my mind. But I want to
make sure I limit myself to what I know for
absolute certainty, no mosad, no cia, relative certainty, no people
involved who we know about, no crimes, and then the
rest is speculation. Did he kill himself or whether are
(20:27):
the circumstances? So I want to distinguish those factors.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon podcast. So I'll ask you one more
thing that you may not know anything about. But there
is obviously the question of was there a true love
story between he and Gallaine or was this just business?
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Oh? No, it was a love story. I saw them together,
but it ended. It ended, and they remain friends and
close associates. And I think vary it to give her
immunity and let her tell the whole story. Because she knows,
probably more than any living human being, the whole story.
(21:09):
And I have to tell you, when the whole story
comes out, a lot of it will be hu hum,
A lot of it will be boring, boring, boring. This
is not the Bouditti case. This is not some of
these other cases. This is a case of one man
who had perverted sex with some people who are underage,
(21:31):
many people who are not underage. There was no big
trafficking or big conspiracy. But I think Glaine Maxwell, if
she's given immunity, could testify and disclose more than any
other human being what really went on.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
Her team is now saying, since this has come up
and the administration is saying there's nothing to release, that
she should be released from jail. What's your opinion of that.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
I think she's gotten a sentence that's far too long
for what was alleged. She did think it would be
the right thing to do to commuter sentence to time
served and let her testify and let her provide transparency
and all the evidence. I think that would be a
good final ending. Look. If Jeffrey Epstein hadn't committed suicide,
(22:16):
she never would have been prosecuted and certainly never would
have gotten this twenty year sentence that she got. She
is serving his sentence. Basically, she is a surrogate for him,
and that's just not fair to her.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
Wow. Interesting, I guess that's a perspective we've never really heard.
I do think that it's been so sensationalized that people
haven't dug deep into the actual facts of the case.
So I appreciate you being here today to talk to
us about it and tell us things that we didn't know.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
Happy to do it. I'm always interested in helping to
create transparency and truth. That's what the American public is
entitled to.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
Well, speaking of that, I want you to talk a
little bit about your book, because we talked about it
the last time you were on here, But just tell
people where they can get it. It's called the Preventatives Date,
the challenge of preventing serious harms while preserving essential liberties.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
Well, it's all about what's going on today in the world.
It's about deportation, it's about terrorism. It's about what the
United States did and the bombing of the Iranian nuclear reactors.
It's about when a government takes action not in response
but in anticipation of harms, and it tries to balance
the need to take preventive action against the need to
(23:25):
prevent violations of civil liberties. And you can get it
at Amazon dot com. The New York Times has canceled it.
They won't review it. They've reviewed Oh my book.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Are you serious? I didn't know that.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
Yeah. No, they won't review it. And they reviewed every
one of my books pretty much before I defended Donald Trump.
But as soon as I've defended Donald Trump, the New
York Times canceled me. Harvard Club of New York had
invited me to give a speech about the preventive state,
and then some people complained because I had defended Donald Trump.
(23:58):
So the part for the Harvard a Club canceled me.
The ninety second Street why I canceled me. So if
you want to fight back against this kind of cancelation,
go to Amazon. By the book. I think you'll enjoy it.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
You will enjoy it. I read it. It is like
I said the last time you're on it's essential for
anybody who is in office or running for office. But
if you're listening to this podcast, I know you're interested
in politics. It'll tell you so much and it'll just
make you more intelligent love. I love anything you put out.
I follow you. I think that you've been You've gone
from being a Democrat to being out there and speaking
(24:35):
on both sides. And I appreciate someone who's just willing,
like you said, to be transparent and expose the truth.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
More than No longer a Democrat, I am now going
to be working very hard to make sure the Democrats
do not regain the House of Representatives. I do not
want to see a Ways in positions of authority. I
don't want to see Mondami, I don't want to see
Bernie Sanders. These are people who endanger America. And so
(25:04):
I'm no longer I'm not a Republican, but I'm anti
the Democratic Party as it exists now. I quote Ronald Reagan,
I didn't leave the Democratic Party that left.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
Me the mom Donnie thing being in DC. Rokhanna came
out of the meeting with him and said, I've been enlightened.
I think he's very interesting. Even Debbie Dingle out of
Michigan is giving him accolades. She prides herself on being
a moderate. This guy is. I think the President's right
(25:34):
when he says he's a communist. The answers that he
has to things. They're not socialism. They go straight to communism.
When you say sees the means of production, that's communism.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Well, you know, whatever label you put it. He's very, very,
very dangerous to New York. He will destroy the city.
He's dangerous to the Jewish community. You know, he has
admitted that globalized the defot I means different things to
different people. That basically admits that to some people it
means killed the Jews. And he was prepared to support that.
(26:06):
He now says he doesn't support it. I don't trust him,
so I'm going to do everything in my power to
see him defeated. But right now, the polls show that
it looks like he will be the next mayor of
New York, and that will be a terrible, terrible thing
for New York. When you think about some of the
people who have been mayors of New York, some of
the great people who have been mayors of New York.
But he would be just awful for the city, awful
(26:30):
for the country, and offen for world peace. So I'm
completely in, totally against him.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
One of the most important cities in the world, probably
the most important financial city, in the world, and obviously
we are on your side and we'll be watching it
as well. Alan Dershowitz, thank you so much for joining
me today.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
Thanks for having me on your wonderful podcast. I enjoy
very much watching it.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
Thank you, and thank you all for joining us as
well on the Tutor Dixon podcast. For this episode and others,
go to Tutor Dixon podcast dot com, the iHeartRadio app,
Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts, and check
out the full video on Rumble at Tutor Dixon and
join us next time. Have a blessed day.
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. We've heard all week
about the Epstein files, so we thought we would go
to the guy who knows the most, his attorney, Alan Dershowitz.
He's been litigating and teaching and writing about law for
more than sixty years, but also served as Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer.
Mister Dershowitz, thank you so much for joining me today.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
I want to talk about this because there's been so
much drama about this and I'm not a legal expert.
You obviously were on the case. I think there's a
lot that people don't understand about this. You've written an
op ed saying this isn't even up to the DOJ,
that the courts actually redacted these names and they can't
be released.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Well, two judges have redacted the names, largely to protect
the accusers, but also the accused. After all, if people
are accused, some of them are falsely accused, we have
to know everything possible about the accused. Give me an example.
A woman named Sarah Ranson, a CU wrote a whole
series of emails to The New York Post accusing Bill
(01:05):
Clinton and Hillary Clinton and Richard Branson of having pedophilic
sects with young people. She was then investigated. Ultimately, she
admitted to The New Yorker that she made up the
whole story. So you have a situation like that, you
can't just release the names of the accused. You have
to also release the information about the accusers so that
(01:27):
in the court of public opinion you can make a
judgment as to whether they're relevant. Not every accusation is true,
and not every accusation is false. You know, the Me
Too movement says, believe women, no, no, no, no. Investigate
every charge, but don't believe anybody because of their gender.
Many women tell the truth, some don't. Many men tell
(01:49):
the truth, some don't, and so we have to assess them.
So right now, what's being suppressed are the names of
some of the accused. I happen to know who they
are because I investigated the case. None of them are
public figures. None of them are people who are elected
office today. There are no smoking guns. But also what's
being suppressed are as negative information about the accusers because
(02:11):
they are deemed to be victims. Some of them are victims,
some of them are mixed victims and false accusers. It's
a very complex situation.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Well, so that's one of the things that Donald Trump,
the president, came out when they asked him a few
days ago about this. He came out and he said, look,
there's information out there that if it comes out and
these people are falsely accused, it ruins their life. Essentially,
I'm paraphrasing, but that's what he said. And I think
this is something that's hard for people to understand because
(02:40):
not everybody is a legal expert. But you know how
social media goes when something like this happens, Suddenly everyone
is a legal expert. I want to be clear. Pedophiles
are considered so vile that even when the most heenous
murderer gets into prison with them, they kill them in prison.
I mean, this is a serious accusation, and I have
(03:01):
respect for Pambondi and President Trump that they're not willing
to just put people's names out there and accuse them
of things that they haven't done. President Trump knows best
what this is like.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
Well, first of all, let's be very clear, not a
single person has ever been accused of being a pedophile
other than Jeffrey Epstein. Not a single person. Some people
were accused of having sex with twenty two year olds,
twenty three year olds, nineteen year olds. Nobody has ever
been accused of having sex with children, with young children,
and that's just false.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
So from this case, you don't have any information that
got I know.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
For sure that there's no accusation, no plausible, credible accusations
about that. The word is thrown around as if it
has a meaning, but it doesn't apply to a nineteen
year old or a twenty three year old or even
a seventeen year old. It applies to a twelve year
old or a thirteen year old or fourteen year old,
but those accusations are not there. So there's no pedophilia
(03:56):
involved here, and there's no trafficking. But he really believes
that Jeffrey Epstein was making money selling women to clients. No,
the accusation is that, you know, maybe he allowed one
of the people under his control to have sex with
Prince Andrew when she was nineteen or twenty years old,
(04:17):
for which he was paid fifteen thousand dollars. That's one
of the accusations. But let's not overstate them. And let's
also understand that there is a presumption of innocence in
the world. There is an FBI list. There is a
list of people that complaints were made about and those
names have been redacted. I know who they are. None
(04:40):
of them are people who are currently in office or
currently in the public. But there is such a list,
and the judges have done the redacting, and the judges
have supported the redacting, And if the media wants to
get those names, they ought to go to the judges
and make an application under the First Amendment to get
the names released. They'll be very dis pointed when they
see the names because they haven't heard of any of them.
(05:02):
They're just obscure people.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
There's this thing considered the FBI vault where all of
and there's Epstein files in the vault that you can
go online and you can see those files and then
you can issue a FOYA and you can ask for
more files. Would that are those files there available to
the public, just redacted? And that's what the people are asking.
(05:25):
They want the actual names.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
Yeah, and I think they're right. They should have the
actual names. But if you redact the names, you also
have to redact the information about negative material about some
of the accusers so that the court of public opinion
can fairly judge whether these people were appropriately charged, accused
or not. None of them have been charged with any crimes,
(05:47):
and for good reason, because there doesn't seem to be
sufficient evidence to charge anybody with crimes. So I can't
fault BONDI I can't fault Trump. I can't fauilt this administration.
I don't think the administrations in any way responsible. Let
me also tell you I've gone through the records. There's
no allegation that Donald Trump did anything improper or that
(06:09):
Bill Clinton did anything proper. These are all speculations that
are not based on evidence. You know. The one thing
that conspiracy theorists hate are hard, tough facts or the
absence of facts, and that's what that's what destroys conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
So you don't believe that if these files were fully unredacted,
they were fully released to the public, that there would
be people that could be accused of crimes within those files.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Yeah, they probably are some people who could be accused,
But whether they could be credibly accused, I don't know. No,
I don't think they can be accused of crimes because,
first of all, these are matters that took place in
two thousand and two thousand and one, two thousand and two,
twenty a quarter of a century ago, and some of
(06:58):
them resulted in civil law suits and settlements of cases.
But I'm not aware of anything that would result in
criminal prosecutions. And so I've been in favor of releasing
all the files from day one. From day one, I said,
I waive any privacy rights, any lawyer client rights, release everything.
(07:19):
Let the public judge based on full transparency. That's been
my position from day one.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
So obviously, we saw over the weekend this event where
a lot of young conservatives gathered and there were accusations
from Tucker Carlson that the State of Israel was involved.
You've been very consistent in saying that is not true.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
I know that for a fact for two reasons. One,
if Jeffrey Epstein had worked for any intelligence agency, the
first thing he would have done is told me that,
and told his other lawyers that, and asked us to
go to the government and get a deal, a better
deal for him. He didn't like the deal he got,
and that didn't happen. And that's one number Two. I
(08:01):
represented the Mozart I was their lawyer. Maybe I don't know.
Twenty years ago when Cyprus arrested five young Mozart agents,
and I pro bono represented them and helped them get out. So,
without disclosing specifics, I have very good sources in Israel,
and I can tell you from my sources there is
zero chance that Jeffrey Epstein ever had any connection with
(08:24):
the Mosad. The reason the story has taken on legs,
and the reason Tarker Carlson is making these claims, is
that Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend, Ghlaine Maxwell's father Robert Maxwell,
may very well have had connections to the Mozart but
not Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
What is that with Gilaine Maxwell? Is there something that
she would come out and say. I know that she's
been saying, well, I want to be able to talk
or testify in front of Congress, and there's been some
discussion about that. What are your thoughts there?
Speaker 2 (08:54):
I think she should if she knows much more than
anybody else. She was the one who arranged flights every
time I was his lawyer. Every time I had to
fly down, she would arrange the flight, She would arrange
for me to stay in a hotel. She was his
basic organizer, and so she would know everything. And so
I think she ought to testify in front of Congress
(09:16):
and be given immunity. You know, she's in prison right now.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
Is she someone that you think could be trusted? I mean,
this is.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Last she has evidence. I mean, don't trust anybody you
know trust would verify. But the point is, does she
have documentation or evidence. Does she have travel receipts, does
she have you know, other things physical evidence. For example,
there were claims that there are sex tapes involving Jeffrey
Epstein and the people to whom he lent the women.
(09:49):
There are no such sex tastes. There are, however, videotapes
that were taken by the police when there was a
robbery in Epstein's house and the Palm Beach police installed
a video camera in his public areas, in his living room,
and there are those videotapes. But I am not aware
of any sex tapes at all.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon podcast. So you've talked about these conspiracy theorists,
and that is one of the conspiracies, is that there
are hours and hours of videotape that he used as
leverage with these important politicians and celebrities. And Pam Bondi
(10:28):
when she first talked about this, she said, I have
these videotapes. I'm reviewing them.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Now.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
You just said these were tapes that were in public
areas of his home. They weren't in private areas. He
wasn't using them as leverage. And there have been other
legal experts that have come out and said, I don't
know of many criminals that keep a record of their crimes.
Can you just again verify those videos are not of
people engaging in lud acts.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
No, what happened is one of his employees stole some
money and stole a licensed gun, and he went to
the police, and the Palm Beach police installed the video
camera secretly in his living room. I was there. I
know exactly where the camera was, and it recorded people,
and ultimately the people who did the theft were caught
and fired. But I'm aware of no video cameras installed
(11:18):
in any bedrooms, or any tapes in anybody, or any
extortion that was used. You know, this is probably one
of the most fantasmo logical conspiracy theories ever. This just
just nothing to these claims. There's enough there in terms
(11:38):
of what Jeffrey Epstein did to make the public legitimately interested.
But he was not selling people to prominent people. He
was not taking videotapes. None of that is true.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
It plays on every parent's worst fear, your daughter gets
pulled into this. So I think there's this fantasy around
that of gosh, we got to expose this. It also
brings in high powered politicians that just blows up the story.
But so my question to you, as a legal expert
is why doesn't Attorney General BONDI just come out and
say what you're saying right now?
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Well, she should, and I think she will, and I
think she should also do one more thing, go to
the courts, go to these two federal judgments and say, look,
there's been all these accusations, let's clear the air. Let's
have transparency, produce everything, produce the names of those accused,
but also produce the information about the accusers so that
(12:33):
we can make a judgment as to whether the accusations
are true or false. Right now, No, there isn't enough
information to make that kind of judgment. That's just surmise
and speculation. We do have enough to conclude, beyond any doubt,
that he did not work for the CIA, for the
most sad for the shine for any intelligence agencies, that's
one hundred percent certain. The rest will become certain when
(12:57):
all the information comes out. But I have to tell
you people are going to be very disappointed because I
know the names of the people that have been redacted,
and there are names that are familiar to you or
anybody else. There are some, but there are people who
are now dead or retired, and we don't know whether
they're involved or not.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
So it's not the smoking gun that people are saying
that it is. Give us a little legal lesson, because
I think a lot of people are just expecting that
once the Trump administration got into office that they would
start just spewing FBI crime files out to the public.
Is there a precedent for that? I mean, has that
ever been done before that you just start releasing files
(13:38):
like that?
Speaker 2 (13:39):
No, but it should be done. I'd like to see
the files of the Robert Kennedy assassination, of the John
Kennedy assassination of Martin Luther King. You know, time passes
and history has its claim, so I understand the needs
sometimes to suppress material for the moment, but we're talking
(13:59):
about events that are and a half century ago in
cases of those assassinations, and in the Epstein case, the
events occurred a quarter of a century ago. So I
think the time has come for full, complete transparency and disclosure.
As far as I'm concerned, I hereby waive any rights
of privacy or any rights of confidentiality. If there's anything
about me in there, turn it out. I want everybody
(14:20):
to see it, because I know that the record will
prove that all I did was service Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer
in a professional way, in the same way that John
Adams defended the people who committed the Boston massacre and
Abraham Lincoln defended people accused of serious crimes. That's what
lawyers do. We defend the most seriously accused criminals, and
we do it proudly and without any reservations. And I'm
(14:42):
eighty seven years old almost, but I'm going to continue
as long as I the Good Lord gives me energy
to represent people accused of crime, even if people don't
like it, and that makes me unpopular. That's the job
of the lawyer, and it's essential under the Constitution.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
I think that's key that you say that, because for
people that don't know there were conspiracy theories about you
out there too, and I know you came out and
defended yourself, and to me, it's very meaningful to have
you say release it all, I know what's in there,
because that should calm a lot of these people down.
Who gets the sensational information.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
And in my case, the woman who accused me ultimately
admitted publicly in court documents that she may have confused
me and misidentified me with somebody else, and she dropped
all the suits, so you know, my name has been
completely totally cleared. I did nothing wrong. I've had sex
with other than my wife during the relevant period of time,
(15:42):
and so it resulted for me wanting everything out there
because if you have nothing to hide, you want everything
out there. Now, there are some people who do have
something to hide, and those are people who have gone
to court and sought to suppress some of the material,
and some of them have succeeded doing so.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
So there are people that don't want that information out there.
And I want to be clear about what you said
it is. I mean a lot of people don't want
people to know that they've been sleeping around outside of
their marriage and things like that. But what you're talking
about there are no twelve year old's, fifteen year old,
sixteen year olds in this case.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Not only that, but there are no well known people
in this case. The one thing I'm thinking of right
now involves a book that was written and the name
was redacted by the court, and everybody be interested in
knowing who he is. I know who it is, and
it's somebody nobody's ever heard of, so they would not
be interested in that. But the court has protected this
(16:42):
person because the court is uncertain that he's guilty, and
they don't want to produce the information about the accuser
because the accuser was also an alleged victim. So it's complicated.
But this is not something with as any fault on
the part of Pam Bondi, or on the part of
Donald Trump, or on the part of anybody in the administration.
(17:05):
This is the responsibility of courts, and they have exercised
their responsibility by not only keeping out the names of
some people who are accused, but also information about the accusers.
And I think the time has come now probably to disclose.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
Everything, and that is up to these judges. I just
want to reiterate that, and what a devastating situation for
so many good things to be coming out of this administration.
Right now, they're talking about cutting more waste, more financial
waste in the government, and here we have even people
on our side that are going after our side and
(17:42):
saying this is what we wanted. I think this is
so interesting because I'm now hearing this is not pedophilia.
These are not crimes that what the person who committed
the crime is serving the time or served the time.
You also say that you don't believe that there was
any funny business involved in his suicide outside of somebody
maybe helping him within the prison. So you think that
(18:04):
could have happened.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Well, I'm fairly sure that he could not have committed
suicide if all the rules have been followed, video cameras,
his cellmate remaining there, the guards on duty. There's something
something very very questionable about that. And my own suspicion
he wasn't his lawyer at the time, so I don't
(18:26):
have any first rate information, but my own suspicion is
that he paid off guards to allow him to commit suicide,
and some of the guards have been fired, so there's
some cooperation to that.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
How long was his prison sentence, Well.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
Remember he served as prison sentence. It was eighteen months.
That was back in the first decade of the twenty
first century. He hadn't been sentenced, he hadn't been convicted.
When he killed himself, he was seeking bail and that's
the only suspicious thing about it. He had a good
chance of getting bail, and that's why. I don't know
why he would have killed himself at that point in time,
(19:05):
but the evidence strongly suggests that he did. Look, there's
one great forensic pathologist who has said, Michael Biden, that
maybe he didn't commit suicide. I have no special knowledge
of that. I do have very special knowledge about the
absence of a list, very special knowledge about no Mosad,
But I have no special knowledge about the suicide.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
Yeah, I think that will always there always is a
little suspicion around a suicide. But I think anybody who
knows someone who has committed suicide, there's always those questions
of why would you do it? I mean, no one
can really understand what goes on in the mind of
somebody who decides to take their own life.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
Well, except that Jeffrey Epstein was used to living a
life of luxury. He had airplanes and mansions and the
idea of him having to spend the rest of his
life in rat infested jails and prisons is something that
I can understand him not wanting to do. I understand
as the timing of why he didn't wait to see
whether he got bail or not before he made the
(20:06):
final decision, irreficable decision to kill himself. That's the only
question that reminds in my mind. But I want to
make sure I limit myself to what I know for
absolute certainty, no mosad, no cia, relative certainty, no people
involved who we know about, no crimes, and then the
rest is speculation. Did he kill himself or whether are
(20:27):
the circumstances? So I want to distinguish those factors.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon podcast. So I'll ask you one more
thing that you may not know anything about. But there
is obviously the question of was there a true love
story between he and Gallaine or was this just business?
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Oh? No, it was a love story. I saw them together,
but it ended. It ended, and they remain friends and
close associates. And I think vary it to give her
immunity and let her tell the whole story. Because she knows,
probably more than any living human being, the whole story.
(21:09):
And I have to tell you, when the whole story
comes out, a lot of it will be hu hum,
A lot of it will be boring, boring, boring. This
is not the Bouditti case. This is not some of
these other cases. This is a case of one man
who had perverted sex with some people who are underage,
(21:31):
many people who are not underage. There was no big
trafficking or big conspiracy. But I think Glaine Maxwell, if
she's given immunity, could testify and disclose more than any
other human being what really went on.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
Her team is now saying, since this has come up
and the administration is saying there's nothing to release, that
she should be released from jail. What's your opinion of that.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
I think she's gotten a sentence that's far too long
for what was alleged. She did think it would be
the right thing to do to commuter sentence to time
served and let her testify and let her provide transparency
and all the evidence. I think that would be a
good final ending. Look. If Jeffrey Epstein hadn't committed suicide,
(22:16):
she never would have been prosecuted and certainly never would
have gotten this twenty year sentence that she got. She
is serving his sentence. Basically, she is a surrogate for him,
and that's just not fair to her.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
Wow. Interesting, I guess that's a perspective we've never really heard.
I do think that it's been so sensationalized that people
haven't dug deep into the actual facts of the case.
So I appreciate you being here today to talk to
us about it and tell us things that we didn't know.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
Happy to do it. I'm always interested in helping to
create transparency and truth. That's what the American public is
entitled to.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
Well, speaking of that, I want you to talk a
little bit about your book, because we talked about it
the last time you were on here, But just tell
people where they can get it. It's called the Preventatives Date,
the challenge of preventing serious harms while preserving essential liberties.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
Well, it's all about what's going on today in the world.
It's about deportation, it's about terrorism. It's about what the
United States did and the bombing of the Iranian nuclear reactors.
It's about when a government takes action not in response
but in anticipation of harms, and it tries to balance
the need to take preventive action against the need to
(23:25):
prevent violations of civil liberties. And you can get it
at Amazon dot com. The New York Times has canceled it.
They won't review it. They've reviewed Oh my book.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Are you serious? I didn't know that.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
Yeah. No, they won't review it. And they reviewed every
one of my books pretty much before I defended Donald Trump.
But as soon as I've defended Donald Trump, the New
York Times canceled me. Harvard Club of New York had
invited me to give a speech about the preventive state,
and then some people complained because I had defended Donald Trump.
(23:58):
So the part for the Harvard a Club canceled me.
The ninety second Street why I canceled me. So if
you want to fight back against this kind of cancelation,
go to Amazon. By the book. I think you'll enjoy it.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
You will enjoy it. I read it. It is like
I said the last time you're on it's essential for
anybody who is in office or running for office. But
if you're listening to this podcast, I know you're interested
in politics. It'll tell you so much and it'll just
make you more intelligent love. I love anything you put out.
I follow you. I think that you've been You've gone
from being a Democrat to being out there and speaking
(24:35):
on both sides. And I appreciate someone who's just willing,
like you said, to be transparent and expose the truth.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
More than No longer a Democrat, I am now going
to be working very hard to make sure the Democrats
do not regain the House of Representatives. I do not
want to see a Ways in positions of authority. I
don't want to see Mondami, I don't want to see
Bernie Sanders. These are people who endanger America. And so
(25:04):
I'm no longer I'm not a Republican, but I'm anti
the Democratic Party as it exists now. I quote Ronald Reagan,
I didn't leave the Democratic Party that left.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
Me the mom Donnie thing being in DC. Rokhanna came
out of the meeting with him and said, I've been enlightened.
I think he's very interesting. Even Debbie Dingle out of
Michigan is giving him accolades. She prides herself on being
a moderate. This guy is. I think the President's right
(25:34):
when he says he's a communist. The answers that he
has to things. They're not socialism. They go straight to communism.
When you say sees the means of production, that's communism.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Well, you know, whatever label you put it. He's very, very,
very dangerous to New York. He will destroy the city.
He's dangerous to the Jewish community. You know, he has
admitted that globalized the defot I means different things to
different people. That basically admits that to some people it
means killed the Jews. And he was prepared to support that.
(26:06):
He now says he doesn't support it. I don't trust him,
so I'm going to do everything in my power to
see him defeated. But right now, the polls show that
it looks like he will be the next mayor of
New York, and that will be a terrible, terrible thing
for New York. When you think about some of the
people who have been mayors of New York, some of
the great people who have been mayors of New York.
But he would be just awful for the city, awful
(26:30):
for the country, and offen for world peace. So I'm
completely in, totally against him.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
One of the most important cities in the world, probably
the most important financial city, in the world, and obviously
we are on your side and we'll be watching it
as well. Alan Dershowitz, thank you so much for joining
me today.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
Thanks for having me on your wonderful podcast. I enjoy
very much watching it.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
Thank you, and thank you all for joining us as
well on the Tutor Dixon podcast. For this episode and others,
go to Tutor Dixon podcast dot com, the iHeartRadio app,
Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts, and check
out the full video on Rumble at Tutor Dixon and
join us next time. Have a blessed day.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.