The Shadow of the Names – Alan Dershowitz, Mike Johnson, and the Political Earthquake Around Epstein’s "Clients"

It was a sentence that felt like a smoke bomb - and at the same time like a revelation. Alan Dershowitz, longtime star attorney, Trump defender, retired Harvard professor, and once part of the exclusive circle that not only knew Jeffrey Epstein but also defended him, made a statement on Tuesday in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. One sentence stood above all: “Jeffrey Epstein never created a client list.” But as so often in this affair, it is not what is said that carries weight - but what remains unsaid.

Dershowitz, who joined Epstein in 2005 when the latter came under investigation for sexual abuse of minors, is now once again publicly aligning himself with the deceased. Or more precisely - with those who were never officially named but have long been regarded by the public as “clients” - the powerful, the influential, whose names haunt flight logs, court documents, and insinuations, without ever having appeared on an official list. Bill Clinton. Prince Andrew. Ehud Barak. And, time and again - Donald J. Trump.

Dershowitz denies the existence of such a list - and at the same time confirms that the FBI interviewed several alleged victims who did in fact name men as “clients.” So it was not an organized file, according to the argument, but rather scattered statements. But that is where the real political dynamic begins. Because while the president himself in recent days downplayed the issue - “Jeffrey Epstein? Someone nobody cares about.” - distrust has grown within the Republican base. And now, for the first time, one of Trump’s closest allies has publicly distanced himself: Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House. In an interview with rightwing podcaster Benny Johnson, he said: “It’s a very sensitive topic, but we should put everything out there and let the people decide.” A clear break from the president’s line, who has so far done everything to keep the matter quiet - despite earlier campaign promises to get to the bottom of the Epstein affair. Especially explosive - Johnson publicly demanded an explanation from Attorney General Pam Bondi. Earlier this year, she told Fox News that Epstein’s alleged client list was “sitting on my desk.” Now Johnson says: “She needs to explain herself.” It is time to clear up the issue so the Justice Department can focus again on “the real priorities.” But that did not happen. When Bondi was asked about Epstein at a Tuesday press conference on drug enforcement, she deflected. “Today is about fentanyl overdoses in our country. It’s not about Epstein. I’m not going to talk about Epstein.” And when asked again by NBC News, she remained evasive: “Our memo speaks for itself. We’ll get back to you if there’s anything new.” Regarding Trump’s statement that she should “release whatever she thinks is credible,” she responded cautiously - adding that she hadn’t seen “all of his statements yet.” The same scenario played out in Congress. Democrats failed in an attempt to mandate disclosure of the Epstein files by law - but announced they would continue to pursue the issue. On the House Judiciary Committee, they are now demanding formal hearings with Bondi, her deputy, and senior FBI officials. Pressure is mounting. Meanwhile, Trump is trying to bury the issue with bluster: “One year ago our country was DEAD, now it’s the HOTTEST country in the world. Don’t waste your time on Epstein - nobody cares!” A line that not only sounds callous but can also be interpreted as a warning to those demanding answers from him - within his own party. In this toxic mix of victim testimony, political deflection, and intraparty rebellion, Alan Dershowitz’s comment comes across as a preemptive defense. He claims to explain what supposedly never existed - and in doing so, provides a key to the paradoxical truth that is becoming increasingly clear: The list may not exist as a document. But it exists - in statements, in insinuations, in the fear of names people don’t dare to say aloud. And maybe that is precisely why this affair is shaking American politics in 2025 more than ever before. Because everyone senses that there are names that not only explain the past - but could decide the future.