Alan Dershowitz Says He’ll Gladly Testify On Jeffrey Epstein
Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, who has faced accusations related to his former client Jeffrey Epstein, strongly stated on Newsmax on Friday that he would like the House Oversight Committee to call him in to testify publicly. He also demanded that the names of those accusing him and others be made public.
“I’m delighted that there are public hearings,” Dershowitz told “Bianca Across the Nation.” “I invite them to call me. I’m happy to testify.”
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have agreed to testify before the committee. Hillary Clinton has called for the hearings to be conducted in public.
Alan Dershowitz noted that the former president is listed in connection with Jeffrey Epstein, but the names of Clinton’s accusers have been redacted.
“Clinton’s name is on the list,” Dershowitz argued. “It says Bill Clinton, not a victim in Epstein’s case, claimed she was invited to an orgy with Clinton but did not attend.”
“You know, again, let’s have a public hearing, but let’s name these accusers,” he added. “These accusers have no right to accuse and then hide behind anonymity.”
Dershowitz stated that in his own case, “it says not a minor,” so that factor should not be considered when deciding whether to release the identities of the accusers.
“What right does an adult woman have to level an accusation of false, totally false accusation against me and hide behind redaction and anonymity?”
Alan Dershowitz was part of Jeffrey Epstein’s legal team in 2007, during which they negotiated a non-prosecution agreement in Florida. He later continued to represent Epstein as civil suits against him expanded.
Dershowitz was no longer serving as Epstein’s legal counsel in July 2019, when Epstein was facing charges of sex trafficking involving minors.
One month later, Epstein died in a New York correctional facility, and his death was ruled a suicide.
In an interview with Newsmax, Dershowitz stated that it is “McCarthyism” and “unconstitutional” not to release the names of the accusers.
“I’m delighted that we’re going to see public hearings,” he said. “Let them call me to the public hearings. I’ll tell them the truth about what happened.”
Dershowitz added that he won’t claim any privileges.
“I won’t claim any inability to remember,” he said. “I remember everything, and I know a great deal about it. But they won’t call me because they’re not interested in the truth. They’re interested only in gossip.”
However, the ongoing controversy about Epstein “is really not about Jeffrey Epstein anymore,” said Dershowitz.
“This is about the worst form of McCarthyism that has afflicted America since the 1950s,” he said.
Dershowitz continued that the Justice Department has released a list of “prominent names,” but “every single name of every accuser has been blacked out.”
“So, for example, let’s turn to me,” Dershowitz said. “It says blank, blank, blank, blacked out. Stated she gave him a massage on Epstein’s plane. Parenthesis. Not a minor.”
“I was never on Epstein’s plane with a young woman,” he insisted.
“So let’s understand that this is an adult, a woman who was on Epstein’s plane, she says,” said Dershowitz. “I was never on Epstein’s plane with a young woman. I never got a massage. This is total defamation, a total lie.”
But he added that he can’t disprove the claim “because they won’t give me her name.”
Dershowitz also responded to allegations suggesting that Epstein had connections with Israel’s Mossad.
“It’s an absurd theory. He was not a Mossad agent,” said Dershowitz.
Dershowitz also insisted that Epstein “was not suicidal.”
“The lawyers told me that he was told he had a good chance of getting out on bail Monday or Tuesday, following the weekend when he allegedly killed himself, so there’s a good argument that he didn’t kill himself,” said Dershowitz. “But then you have to ask yourself, who killed him?”
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
