By Matt Underwood Dershowitz says he knows Epstein client list names: ‘But I’m bound by confidentiality’ – what a statement, huh? It’s like he’s dangling a carrot, but the carrot’s a list of potentially very powerful and ethically compromised people, and he’s claiming he can’t share. The immediate reaction, and it’s hard to disagree, is that he’s trying to protect himself. It’s the classic move: hint at knowledge, generate buzz, and stay relevant while subtly avoiding any real consequences. The question really is: why say anything at all if you can’t reveal the names? The answer feels pretty obvious, he’s using the information he supposedly has to his advantage.
This whole situation brings up a few interesting, and frankly, infuriating points. First, he confirms the existence of a list, even though we’ve heard denials and evasions for ages. Second, Epstein is dead. So, the argument of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) keeping the names secret seems a bit flimsy, right? It raises suspicions that he’s either making this all up, or the confidentiality has more to do with protecting those currently alive and well, and perhaps even himself. And let’s not forget Dershowitz’s history. He’s known for, shall we say, a particular approach to legal ethics. So, the idea of him “editing” the list or strategically revealing information to benefit himself doesn’t seem far-fetched at all.
It feels like a game of smoke and mirrors. What’s the point of saying you know something if you aren’t willing to share? Is this some kind of power play, a reminder to those who might be on that list of his potential leverage? If it wasn’t about self-preservation or some kind of agenda, the most reasonable thing to do would be to stay quiet, or to disclose the information through proper channels, regardless of any “confidentiality”. But of course, that would be the sensible and ethical thing to do, which seemingly isn’t on the menu here.
The response is not just about Dershowitz, it’s about the broader implication: is there one rule for the powerful and another for everyone else? If he is aware of the names, and they are involved in heinous acts, the moral obligation to come forward, if there’s a shred of decency, should outweigh any claim of confidentiality. The fact that he is saying this and not acting on it is deeply troubling.
There’s also a lot of skepticism, as one might imagine. People are understandably cynical. There’s the suspicion that he’s on the list himself, and this whole statement is simply a way to protect himself. Then there’s the outright disgust, the feeling that he’s a self-promoting individual who is willing to capitalize on a tragedy. People are angry, and rightly so.
Some suggest that this is about the power dynamic, a coded message to the people in power who are on the list. It’s a way of saying, “I know your secrets, and I’m here to play a part in the unfolding events.” He is letting them know that he needs to be at the table when the names are chosen. That is a disturbing thought.
One comment points out the absurd logic: if there is no list, as some have claimed, then how can Dershowitz know what’s on it? The implication being he is either lying or actively involved. And if he had a client involved in the matter, even if they are dead, he’s in an ethical bind by even talking about it. The entire scenario feels like a tangled web of self-interest, cover-ups, and abuse of power.
So, where does this leave us? With a lot of unanswered questions and a deep sense of unease. Dershowitz has once again inserted himself into the spotlight, but instead of providing clarity, he’s fueled the fire. The case of Epstein is a complex and disturbing one, and Dershowitz’s comments certainly add more fuel to the fire.