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?”
The Federal Move That Could Reshape Los Angeles — And Reignite America’s Homelessness Debate
Los Angeles has spent years trying to confront one of the most visible and politically difficult crises in America: homelessness.
Billions in public spending, emergency programs, housing initiatives, outreach campaigns, and years of policy experimentation have attempted to address conditions that continue to affect neighborhoods across the city. Yet despite unprecedented investment, public frustration has remained high.
Now, a major federal funding suspension and an expanding review process are placing Los Angeles’ homelessness response system under a level of scrutiny that could carry consequences far beyond Southern California.
At the center of the controversy is the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LASA), an agency that has played a central role in coordinating housing and homelessness programs throughout the region.
Federal officials, according to reports and public discussion surrounding the review, have raised concerns regarding oversight practices, financial controls, administrative safeguards, and whether current structures sufficiently protect taxpayer resources.
The move has immediately transformed what was once primarily a local policy challenge into a national political and governance debate.
A Growing Federal Spotlight on Public Spending
The latest developments emerged after reports indicated that federal housing-related funding connected to homelessness initiatives may face temporary suspension while investigators continue reviewing operational and financial procedures.
Officials involved in the review reportedly cited concerns involving internal controls, compliance structures, accountability mechanisms, and broader questions surrounding program effectiveness.
While no final findings have been announced, the decision alone signals an unusually aggressive level of federal oversight. That shift matters.
Los Angeles has become one of the most watched examples in the national homelessness conversation because of both the scale of the crisis and the scale of spending directed toward solving it.
Over recent years, agencies connected to homelessness response efforts have overseen enormous funding streams intended to support emergency shelter, housing access, outreach operations, treatment services, case management, and stabilization programs.
Supporters argue those investments reflect the complexity of modern homelessness.
Critics increasingly ask a different question:
If so much money has been invested, why do visible conditions remain so difficult across many communities?
Why This Debate Has Become Politically Explosive
Homelessness has evolved into one of the defining political issues in Los Angeles.
Residents continue raising concerns about encampments, public safety, sanitation, addiction treatment capacity, mental health services, and the availability of permanent housing solutions.
Political leaders across ideological lines have faced growing pressure to demonstrate measurable progress.
As frustration rises, spending itself has become part of the debate.
Supporters of stronger oversight argue that public trust depends not only on funding programs but also on proving that those programs deliver results.
They say transparency becomes especially important when large taxpayer investments are involved.
Others caution that judging outcomes purely through visible street conditions ignores the broader reality of homelessness policy.
Services often extend beyond shelter alone and include medical care, prevention programs, outreach networks, legal assistance, long-term housing support, and crisis intervention systems.
From that perspective, measuring success is more complicated than counting visible encampments.
The Numbers Conversation — And Why It’s More Complicated Than It Looks
One reason the issue continues generating national attention is the scale involved.
Reports frequently reference tens of thousands of individuals experiencing homelessness across Los Angeles County, making the region one of the largest service environments in the United States.
Those figures have fueled public calculations comparing total expenditures against estimated population counts.
Critics argue those comparisons suggest inefficient spending.
Program defenders respond that such calculations oversimplify costs associated with housing development, healthcare delivery, addiction recovery services, staffing, infrastructure, emergency response systems, and compliance requirements.
Both arguments now collide under increasing public scrutiny.
And that tension may ultimately become one of the defining policy battles of the coming years.
The Debate Expanded Beyond Homelessness
The federal review has also reignited broader conversations surrounding governance, public accountability, and institutional trust.
Questions have emerged about how large public-service systems operate, how oversight should function, and whether existing structures incentivize measurable outcomes.
Separate public debates have referenced concerns involving voter registration practices among vulnerable populations and how administrative safeguards should operate in public-facing systems.
Election officials and legal experts have repeatedly emphasized that isolated cases should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of widespread systemic abuse.
At the same time, critics continue arguing that stronger oversight remains necessary to maintain public confidence.
These debates increasingly overlap, creating a conversation that now extends well beyond homelessness itself.
Los Angeles Faces a Difficult Balancing Act
City leaders and organizations connected to homelessness programs have pushed back against suggestions that large-scale wrongdoing has been established.
Supporters warn that interruptions to funding could impact services relied upon by vulnerable residents.
That concern highlights the central challenge facing policymakers.
How do governments demand stronger accountability without disrupting care for people already living in crisis?
There are no easy answers.
But one reality appears increasingly difficult to ignore:
Public patience is wearing thin, and expectations for measurable outcomes continue rising.
What Happens Next May Extend Far Beyond California
Investigators, auditors, oversight officials, and legal authorities are expected to continue reviewing available information before any final conclusions are reached.
Until that process concludes, many allegations remain questions under examination rather than established findings.
But the broader impact may already be unfolding.
Because what happens next in Los Angeles could shape how cities across America structure homelessness programs, measure performance, distribute funding, and restore public trust.
This story is no longer only about one agency.
It has become a test of whether America’s largest cities can convince voters that ambitious social programs are capable of delivering visible results in an era of growing demands for accountability.
