Epstein, Wittgenstein, And The Dershowitz Conundrum

Alan Dershowiotz is now claiming, of all things, that Jeffrey Epstein did in fact have a "client list", that he's seen it, but he's bound by confidentiality not to reveal who's on it. This goes to the question of what in fact is a "client list". The link says, "A new FBI, DOJ memo released on Sunday concluded Jeffrey Epstein did not have a client list that he used for blackmail." This strikes me as a key distinction. According to CNN,

The search for explosive deep-state secrets hidden inside the federal Epstein investigation began coming apart weeks into the second Trump administration.

By mid-March, as hundreds of FBI agents were ordered to work overnights and weekends to review thousands of pages and hours of video from the investigation, there were no bombshells in the files. It became clear that officials had no reason to change the conclusion reached under Attorney General William Barr, who had himself reviewed some of the materials, that the sex offender had died by suicide, according to people familiar with the matter.

. . . But a major problem soon emerged: Most of the material still being held by investigators could not be released under federal law, which protects the privacy of Epstein victims and people not charged with crimes. FBI and Justice officials realized that releasing thousands of pages blacked out by redactions wouldn’t help resolve the issue on right-wing social media, where Trump allies have fanned conspiracy theories about Epstein.

In other words, after Epstein's death, his numerous residences apparently contained an enormous volume of disorganized records, which I suspect even now have never been adequately sorted and characterized. They may well have included tapes or photos of untoward activity by Epstein or others, but they also would have included bills, receipts, letters, memos, time sheets, financial statements, and heaven knows what else from secretaries, pool cleaners, attorneys, carpenters, painters, pilots, investors, gofers, housekeepers, gardeners, and any nunber of others who did business with Epstein but had nothing to do with sexual misconduct.

It's actually hard for me to imagine a single list among all this undifferentiated stuff that contains just the names of specific individuals whom Epstein was either blackmailing or conspiring with for purposes of trafficking. Why would anyone create such a record? This alone suggests to me that Attorney General Bondi is sincere in her claim. In any case, what's come up here must be thousands of names that could on one hand include victims, but on the other must also be a much greater number of people who aren't charged with crimes, neither of which category can be released.

Right in the middle of this we find Alan Dershowitz, who by his own admission met with Epstein numerous times and even visited the island for purposes that never appear to have involved trafficking.

Mr Dershowitz said that Epstein had lent his Florida home to him and his family, noting that he “would have never allowed” his grandchildren to stay at the house if he knew about Epstein’s crimes.

“That eventually turned out to be the location for so many questionable and illegal activities,” he said. “And yes, I was on the island. Once my wife, my daughter and I were on vacation in the Caribbean and he had just bought the island ... He asked us to come and say hello ... No young people on the island, no Lolita Express or anything.”

. . . Flight logs have previously revealed that Mr Dershowitz flew on Epstein’s private jet – nicknamed the “Lolita Express” – multiple times between 1998 and 2005. In 2015, he admitted that he had once received a massage at Epstein’s home.

Since then, he has repeatedly defended the massage, saying that there was nothing untoward about the encounter – telling The Hill TV’s Rising show that it was carried out by a middle-aged woman named Olga.

Dershowitz's problem has been that

In a December 30, 2014, Florida court filing, [Virginia] Giuffre alleged she was sexually trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein, who lent her to people for sex, including Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. The motion claimed that Dershowitz was also an eyewitness to the sexual abuse of other minors.

A multi-year series of lawsuits and countersuits ensued, with all parties eventually reaching a settlement in 2022.

Giuffre said that, given the traumatic circumstances of being trafficked by Epstein and her age, she realized that her identification of Dershowitz might have been a mistake.

So why would Dershowitz now claim that he's seen "the list", but he can't disclose who's on it?

🚨@AlanDersh said he saw the entire Epstein list while proving his innocence:

"Documents are being suppressed to protect individuals. I know the names of the individuals. I know why they're being suppressed. I know who's suppressing them. But I'm bound by confidentiality." pic.twitter.com/2bx7SwozN3

— Sean Spicer (@seanspicer) July 10, 2025

In his interview with Sean Spicer, he's simply going the long way around of saying the names he's aware of include both victims and Epstein associates not connected with or charged of crimes, which by federal law and confidentiality of court proceedings neither he nor the Justice Department can release. If that's "the list", then it isn't really "the list".

What's particularly incongruous is that by his own assertions in the matter of Giuffre, Dershowitz himself was wrongly harmed by being falsely identified as among Epstein associates, even though he committed no crime. But in his latest public remarks, he simply acknowledges that any so-called "list" would include the names of people who had committed no crimes, and these would be everything from pool men to Harvard donors.

What intriges me is that, although I'm highly sympathetic to a neo-Thomist like Edward Feser, I find myself in reflecting on current events more likely to fall back on the analytical linguist Ludwig Wittgenstein (photo above). The idea that there is a "list" of Epstein "clients" is a problem of language, not a problem with an empirical solution. Every time we try to ask "who" is on the "list", we get an answer that we have no actual idea who qualifies to be on the list, because almost any name we come up with is probably not connected with Epstein's sex trafficking, but certainly can't be convicted in any trial at this stage.

This includes Bill Gates, Alan Dershowitz, Steve Bannon -- probably even Bill Clinton as well. Heck, the DOJ has just cleared Prince Andrew. But considering the damage Virginia Giuffre did to her own credibility over the past decade, it's likely that any assertion she made in a putative trial of anyone on "the list" would not survive cross-examination. Publication of names on any "list" would be nothing more than an exercise in defamation, something the MAGA far right won't acknowledge -- but neither will Dershowitz, nowithstanding he spent years clearing his own name. This is all nothing but a will-o'-the-wisp, or as Wittgenstein would put it, the solution to the problem is seen in the disappearance of the problem.