Opinion - The modern-day witch hunt: Epstein McCarthyism

Supporters of individuals who claim to be victims of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein are urging members of Congress to publicly announce the names of alleged perpetrators on the congressional floor. Several lawmakers have expressed willingness to do so. By reading these names during House or Senate sessions, they would be shielded from legal consequences under the Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

This approach echoes tactics used by Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisc.) in the 1950s, when he publicly listed supposed communists in the Senate. Constitutional protections prevented those named, even if innocent, from pursuing lawsuits. Today, if Congress members disclose names from alleged victims, both lawmakers and accusers could claim immunity, leaving falsely accused individuals without legal recourse and presumed guilty based solely on unproven claims.

The current focus on alleged Epstein abusers mirrors the anti-communist frenzy of the 1950s, where due process was often overlooked. Personal experience demonstrates this risk: I was falsely accused years ago, but successfully sued my accuser and proved my innocence. Had my name been publicly read in Congress, I would have been denied the chance to contest the false claims in court.

Victims advocates reportedly have a list of 20 alleged abusers, some of whom are prominent figures. Based on extensive legal review of Epstein-related records, I know that some named are entirely innocent. Publicizing these names can irreparably damage reputations without legal remedy, similar to the McCarthy era.

Efforts to obtain all relevant documents, recordings, and information to uncover the truth are often blocked by courts, the FBI, and media, while new statutes even allow the Justice Department to redact information that could question accuser credibility. Attempts to challenge these accounts may be labeled as victim-shaming.

It is crucial to balance the rights of alleged victims with those of potentially falsely accused individuals. However, current conditions make this balance difficult. Accusers are often automatically considered credible, while those accused are presumed guilty based only on allegations. This approach undermines the principles of due process and presumption of innocence.

Some alleged victims have provided false statements or have financial motivations, and those publicly accused in Congress cannot contest credibility in advance. For instance, one accuser retracted claims involving high-profile figures such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Richard Branson. Other statements by accusers may similarly raise doubts about reliability.

The rush to publicize allegations resembles the McCarthy-era suppression of constitutional protections in the name of justice. Good intentions should not override the rights of the innocent. Historically, anti-communist efforts ignored these rights, and today, efforts to combat sexual abuse face similar risks of infringing constitutional protections.

As Justice Louis Brandeis warned a century ago, the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men and women of zeal well-meaning but without understanding. This caution is highly relevant in the current climate of public accusations related to Epstein.

Author: Olivia Parker