Harvard Law heavyweight Alan Dershowitz has dropped a bombshell, demanding immunity for Ghislaine Maxwell to spill the beans on the sordid Jeffrey Epstein saga.
The Hill reported that with Maxwell behind bars for aiding Epstein’s vile sex trafficking operation, Dershowitz insists she holds the key to unlocking hidden truths, while lawmakers battle a tight-lipped Justice Department and criticism mounts over unfulfilled promises of transparency from the Trump administration.
Jeffrey Epstein, a financier with a shadowy past, first dodged serious consequences a decade before 2019 with a plea deal on prostitution charges that many slammed as a slap on the wrist.
By 2019, federal sex-trafficking charges caught up with him, only for Epstein to die by suicide in his cell before facing a jury.
Enter Ghislaine Maxwell, convicted of orchestrating Epstein’s predatory schemes and now serving a 20-year sentence while appealing her fate.
Dershowitz, who once defended Epstein, isn’t mincing words about Maxwell’s role. “She knows everything,” he declared on “Fox News Sunday,” painting her as the linchpin who arranged every detail of Epstein’s twisted world.
His solution? Grant her use immunity and haul her before Congress to testify, arguing there’s no downside to compelling her to talk since she might even be willing. “If she were just given use immunity, she could be compelled to testify,” Dershowitz insisted.
He believes this legal shield would strip away any reason for Maxwell to stay silent, potentially exposing critical details.
While progressive voices might cry foul over leniency for a convicted enabler, the pursuit of justice demands we weigh whether buried truths outweigh prolonged punishment. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is catching heat for dragging its feet on releasing Epstein files despite earlier pledges of openness.
Lawmakers like Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Ro Khanna of California are pushing hard, crafting bipartisan measures to force the Justice Department’s hand, even threatening a discharge petition for a vote on disclosure.
The Justice Department, for its part, recently signaled no more revelations are coming, but did request a federal court to unseal grand jury testimony from both Epstein’s and Maxwell’s cases.
Dershowitz isn’t impressed with just grand jury snippets, noting they’re often too narrow to paint the full picture.
“Grand jury information is narrowly tailored by prosecutors,” he explained, arguing that broader discovery materials and depositions from Maxwell’s case hold far more weight.
His push to reveal “all of that” aligns with a conservative frustration over bureaucratic stonewalling—why should the public be kept in the dark when justice hangs in the balance?
Adding fuel to the fire, a recent Wall Street Journal report claimed President Trump sent Epstein a cheeky note for his 50th birthday back in 2003.
Trump swiftly denied the claim and filed a lawsuit over the story, a move that underscores the sensitivity of any perceived ties to Epstein’s orbit.
While the left may pounce on such allegations to score points, it’s worth remembering that mere mentions don’t equal guilt—a principle Dershowitz echoes when he says the public should judge credibility for itself.
“Just because somebody’s name is mentioned doesn’t mean very much,” Dershowitz cautioned, urging unredacted disclosures about accusers’ reliability. In a culture quick to convict via social media, this reminder cuts against the woke rush to judgment, favoring facts over frenzy.
Names alone aren’t evidence, and conservatives should champion a system where truth, not narrative, dictates outcomes. As Maxwell fights her conviction, questions swirl about what else she might reveal if given the chance.
Could her testimony dismantle lingering mysteries, or would it simply muddy already turbulent waters? Her appeal keeps the case alive, and with it, the hope—or fear—of more revelations.
The bipartisan push by Massie and Khanna signals this isn’t just a partisan skirmish but a rare unity in demanding accountability. Yet, with the Justice Department playing gatekeeper, one wonders if entrenched interests fear what full transparency might expose.