The lawyer who once represented Jeffrey Epstein has claimed the public has missed a much larger scandal hidden within the recent release of high-profile photographs involving former presidents and global elites.
Writing in the Daily Mail, Epstein’s former attorney argues that the controversy surrounding images of Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and other famous figures has sparked a modern-day moral panic that risks undermining basic legal principles.
Epstein Files Spark Political Firestorm
The renewed focus on Epstein follows the Justice Department’s release of a new tranche of documents, including photographs showing Epstein socializing with political leaders, billionaires and celebrities.
Among those pictured were former President Bill Clinton, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Mick Jagger and Michael Jackson.
In the weeks leading up to the release, House Democrats also published selected Epstein emails containing vague references to President Donald Trump.
The selective disclosures have fueled partisan accusations, with Democrats targeting Trump and Republicans turning their attention to Clinton.
According to Epstein’s former lawyer, the scandal is not the photos themselves but the way they are being weaponized without evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
Guilt by Association Takes Center Stage
The lawyer stresses that while Epstein’s crimes were “terrible,” there is no proof that many of the individuals named or pictured were complicit.
“Merely associating with this bad person before his extensive criminal behavior was known… is not a proper basis for McCarthyistic attacks,” he wrote, noting that he himself represented Epstein legally between 2005 and 2008.
He warns that guilt by association is replacing due process, allowing accusations to flourish without factual scrutiny or legal safeguards.
Concerns Over Selective Disclosure
A major concern raised is the selective release of accusations while withholding information that could disprove them.
The former Epstein attorney argues that Congress has enabled a dangerous precedent by encouraging partial disclosures that amplify suspicion while denying those named the chance to defend themselves fully.
He claims that names of accused individuals are being exposed while accusers remain anonymous, preventing the public from evaluating credibility or conflicting evidence.
Drawing parallels to the 1950s Red Scare, the lawyer compares the Epstein backlash to McCarthyism, when accusations alone were enough to ruin careers and lives.
“McCarthyism destroyed lives – many of them innocent,” he wrote, warning that fear of being labeled a “victim-shamer” has silenced politicians, media outlets and civil liberties groups.
He argues that the same erosion of civil liberties is happening again, fueled by public outrage rather than verified facts.
Call for Full Transparency
The lawyer concludes that partial disclosures are worse than secrecy, insisting that full transparency is the only solution.
“Just as half-truths are often worse than full-out lies, so too half-disclosures may be worse than full disclosure,” he wrote.
He urges the government to release all Epstein-related documents without redactions, allowing the public to judge what is incriminating and what is not.
According to him, only complete openness can end what he calls the “new Epstein-McCarthyism” and restore faith in justice and due process.