Named in the Epstein files- does it mean you’re guilty?

The Epstein files are finally out, or at least, millions of pages of them are. And instead of closure, what we’ve got is chaos.

Around three million documents, including 2,000 videos and 18,000 photos, were released by the U.S. Department of Justice on January 30, more than a month after a court-ordered December deadline. 

The material spans multiple FBI investigations, witness interviews, internal emails, and prison records tied to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell.

But instead of delivering a neat list of villains, the document dump has sparked a bitter debate: Does being named mean you did something wrong? Or is the public now conducting trials by PDF?

The Debate: McCarthyism or Moral Reckoning?

On this week’s Global Eye, we didn’t tiptoe around it. We asked the question directly: are we witnessing a long-overdue moral reckoning or sliding into a new era of reputational McCarthyism? The temperature in the studio rose quickly.

At the center of the storm was Alan Dershowitz, the renowned criminal defense attorney and Harvard Law professor emeritus, whose name has long been entangled in the Epstein saga. Dershowitz was accused by Virginia Giuffre of involvement in Epstein’s sex trafficking operation, allegations he has repeatedly and forcefully denied. He was never criminally charged. After years of public and legal sparring, the two reached a 2022 settlement in which Giuffre stated she may have been mistaken in identifying him. The case was dropped.

But as became clear on air, a legal settlement does not end a public argument.

“Trial by Association”

Dershowitz argued that what we’re seeing now is not justice, but guilt by association. He warned that in the aftermath of the Epstein scandal, simply having crossed paths with the financier has become enough to trigger public suspicion, regardless of evidence.

He framed it as a civil liberties issue: If accusation alone can permanently stain someone’s reputation, he said, then due process has effectively been outsourced to social media. The comparison to McCarthy-era blacklisting wasn’t subtle. In that era, careers were destroyed based on allegations, whispers, and proximity, not proof. Dershowitz suggested something similar is happening today, amplified by viral outrage and a 24/7 news cycle. For the professor, this is about civil liberties and the precedent being set.

Owen Alterman: “Context Matters — So Does Power”

i24NEWS Senior Correspondent Owen Alterman pushed back by widening the lens.

He noted that invoking McCarthyism risks flattening the context and minimizing the gravity of what Epstein’s victims endured. Epstein operated for years in elite circles, with politicians, royalty, academics, and billionaires, and for a long time, faced minimal consequences. The case against him wasn’t built on rumor alone; it involved documented victims, financial settlements, and a pattern of institutional failure. Epstein’s 2008 plea deal was widely criticized as extraordinarily lenient, and it created a perception that power insulated him for years. That ultimately helped fuel public distrust in the justice system.

Alterman’s argument wasn’t that every associate is guilty, but that elite networks deserve scrutiny precisely because they often operate beyond public view. In his view, examining who enabled, ignored, or failed to ask questions isn’t mob justice; it’s investigative accountability. For victims and advocates, public scrutiny is one of the only tools that has ever forced accountability in cases involving wealth and power.

He drew a distinction between “trial by Twitter” and legitimate journalistic inquiry, emphasizing that transparency, not presumption of guilt, is the goal.

Orit Sulitzeanu: “Legal Innocence Isn’t the Only Standard”

Orit Sulitzeanu is the CEO of the Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel, and she took the debate into more uncomfortable territory.

The legal system, she said, often fails survivors. Most sexual violence cases never lead to convictions. Power imbalances, especially when wealthy, influential men are involved, make prosecution extraordinarily difficult.

For her, this isn’t just about criminal charges. It’s about moral accountability. She argued that even if certain relationships were technically legal, powerful figures who maintained close ties to Epstein after his 2008 conviction should face public scrutiny. “Abuse of power,” she said repeatedly, can exist even where criminal statutes fall short.

And she made another key distinction: compensation or settlements do not erase trauma. Survivors may receive money, she said, but they continue living with the long-term psychological consequences.

And if institutions historically failed victims, is heightened public skepticism an overcorrection, or a necessary one? Orit stressed that calling scrutiny “McCarthyism” can unintentionally silence victims by reframing accountability as persecution.

The Unresolved Tension

By the end of the segment, no one had fully persuaded the other. But what emerged was a sharper framing of the dilemma: If society reacts too aggressively, reputations can be destroyed without proof. If society reacts too cautiously, powerful systems may never be challenged.

The Epstein saga exposed more than alleged crimes; it exposed networks of influence and the fragility of public trust. That’s why the emotions remain so raw.

What We Actually Know From the Files

The numbers alone are staggering. With more than 3 million documents including videos, photos, emails, and materials from FBI probes, there’s a lot of content to go through, with some questioning whether the file dump was meant to be confusing on purpose. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche denies this, saying: “There’s not some tranche of super-secret documents that we’re withholding.” But survivors argue the redactions protect the powerful while exposing victims’ identities and trauma.

The latest tranche has however triggered resignations, investigations, and even arrests.

Former U.K. Ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson was arrested for suspected misconduct in public office after emails showed continued closeness with Epstein post-2008 conviction. He has not been charged and denies wrongdoing. Former royal Prince Andrew (Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor) was arrested in the U.K. for alleged misconduct in public office following newly surfaced communications, along with inappropriate photos with young women. He has not been formally charged and has consistently denied wrongdoing.

And a whole list of billionaires and tech moguls have been identified in the files, triggering mass anger, even if the documents don’t prove criminal activity.

Emails show discussions with Elon Musk about Epstein’s island and a 2015 dinner photo. Emails Epstein sent to himself included allegations about Bill Gates’ personal life and extramarital affairs. Saudi Businessman Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem has resigned, after the Epstein files revealed numerous exchanges between bin Sulayem and the financier, including discussing women, business deals and conversations suggesting bin Sulayem visited Epstein’s private island. In one email from 2009, Epstein told bin Sulayem he quote “loved the torture video.” Other high profile names include Google co-founder Sergey Brin, billionaire Richard Branson, and LinkedIn Co-founder Reid Hoffman.

And that’s just a fraction of the names mentioned. In many cases, the documents show: Email exchanges, Business discussions, Social invitations, Fundraising efforts, and References to women — some deeply troubling. But being mentioned in an email is not the same as being charged.

The Legal Reality

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Epstein died in 2019 while awaiting trial. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 of sex trafficking minors and is serving a 20-year sentence. Beyond Maxwell, there have been remarkably few high-level prosecutions connected to Epstein’s network.

Critics say that’s exactly the problem — whether it’s lack of evidence, sealed grand jury rules, or institutional failure, many Americans feel the full truth remains buried.

Ghislaine Maxwell is reportedly seeking clemency from Donald Trump, claiming she would “talk” if granted it. Trump has publicly rejected the idea. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have also opposed it. But the mere possibility has reignited speculation that the full story may never emerge without insider cooperation.

So Where Does This Leave Us?

The Epstein files were supposed to bring clarity. Instead, they’ve exposed three competing narratives: Survivors say the system still protects the powerful. Some accused say they are victims of reputational destruction without due process. The public says it still doesn’t trust what it’s being told.

Nearly three million documents later, the defining legacy of this case may not be just sex trafficking. It may be institutional distrust. And as analysts continue combing through terabytes of material, one thing is certain: This story is far from over.