The Epstein Files and Those Lingering Doubts

 

My mother idolized Leon Botstein.

She followed both his careers — as president of her beloved Bard College, and as the world-class conductor of the American Symphony.

He has always been an impressive figure. I met him myself on two occasions. Once was at a Bard fund-raiser in Florida, where he was as attentive to my pre-teen sons as he was to my mother, whose annual donations were probably in the high two figures. The other time was at a talk he gave at the Romanian consulate in New York, on the subject of a rather obscure Romanian composer. He’s that kind of guy.

So when Botstein’s name surfaced in the Epstein files, it got my attention. My first thought was that I was glad my mother didn’t live to see it. But then I thought about what her likely reaction might have been.

Knowing Mom, I’m quite sure she would have defended him. She would have needed convincing beyond the collection of emails in the files, emails that are, in themselves, far from incriminating. She would not have gone for guilt by association. She’d have given him the benefit of the doubt.

As the Epstein tranches continue to pour in, this is something that will be coming up a lot: Who gets the benefit of the doubt?  With so many doubts out there, and so few certainties, how many conclusions are we willing to leap to?

I think it’s important to stipulate that many, if not most, of the people in these files will have had innocent interactions with Epstein. Like most successful con men, Epstein was a charismatic figure who collected contacts with “important” people from the arts, politics, media, science, and yes, academia. He threw great parties. He was good at making friends, and cultivating them. He was also good at sizing up those friends, probing for weaknesses, and looking for ways to fleece them.

I’m not saying he did or did not find such weaknesses in Botstein. But that’s the problem, isn’t it? We know there are sexual predators in those files, but we don’t know who they are. And we will make mistakes.

It’s one thing when there are incriminating photos and videos, but we won’t see those for a while, if ever. Most of the files are emails, and most of those are innocuous. So, in the absence of definitive information — most of which will not be forthcoming — it comes down to the benefit of the doubt. Which is very much in the eye of the beholder.

As one of those beholders, I’m prepared to give Botstein the benefit of a lot more doubts than I am, say, Howard Lutnick, whose reputation as a billionaire slimeball pre-dates, by decades, his association with Trump. To be sure, Lutnick has a lot more explaining to do than Botstein about his relationship with Epstein, but again, that doesn’t mean he’s guilty of anything. Or that Botstein is innocent.

The only real difference is me. I’d prefer Botstein to be innocent and Lutnick to be guilty. Just as my mother would have.

David Lat, a veteran legal reporter who has covered Big Law for 20 years, found himself in a similar quandary when he saw that Brad Karp — a man he has long known and admired — appeared often in the Epstein files. Karp has just been forced out as chairman of Paul, Weiss, the legendary law firm whose reputation was badly tarnished when it became the first of several big firms to grovel before Trump.

Lat has done a deep dive into the published files, from which he’s written a lengthy piece, well worth reading, about Karp’s dealings with Epstein. I won’t get into those dealings here because Lat does it better. But to me, the heart of the piece is Lat’s fight with himself, as he tries to curb his own biases and stay objective in the face of questionable behavior by someone he clearly likes.

Karp’s behavior was, by an order of magnitude, more questionable than Botstein’s, but like Botstein, it was mostly of a business nature. There is nothing but inference tying either of them to sex crimes, and the inferences are weak.

Lat scrutinizes everything he sees in the emails, and what he sees is that Karp had a number of business dealings with Epstein over the years, usually in the service of Leon Black, the private equity billionaire whose company has been among Paul, Weiss’ biggest clients. What he also sees is Epstein almost always initiating contact, and Karp almost always putting him off. Karp’s email replies are filled with excuses for bowing out of Epstein’s attempts to engage. That said, he both did favors for and asked favors from Epstein, which was, at the very least, unethical under the circumstances. Lat doesn’t flinch from any of it, but nor does he see any crime.

Botstein’s account of his contacts with Epstein follows along the same lines. He insists that every interaction was in the context of fundraising for Bard College, which had been in dire financial straits for many years. To Botstein, Epstein was a hot prospect, a high-roller who could be both a significant donor and a conduit to other significant donors. There is no question that this was Botstein’s life, but was there more to it than getting Epstein to open his wallet? I doubt it, but there's that word again.

As an aside, Bard’s financial issues are no different from hundreds of other colleges and universities. With federal support steadily drying up over many years, they are all strapped for cash. They are forced to rely on wealthy donors, and they have neither the resources nor the inclination to look too carefully into how those donors made their fortunes. It’s hard to say no to someone giving you money.

But the optics can get bad. Epstein asked Botstein to help Woody Allen’s daughter get into Bard, though there’s no evidence that Botstein actually acted on the request. Apparently, she was accepted on her own merits, but how do we know? But more to the point, any pairing of Allen and Epstein in the public eye is automatically a bad look. It creates doubts.

Especially when there’s this elephant in the room, namely Epstein’s first conviction in 2008. From that point on, Epstein was a registered sex offender, and was presumably shunned in the “legitimate” business world. Any contact with Epstein from 2008 on is being seen now as a sort of smoking gun, as a presumption of guilt.

But is it? Botstein indeed had plenty of interactions with Epstein after 2008, all of which he explains, but he doesn’t explain what really nags at us. Which is that Botstein — and Karp and Lutnick and all the others — knew Epstein was radioactive, yet they did business with him anyway. That may not be a crime, but it will always be damning.

In a way Botstein is lucky. His name, after all, has not been redacted in the published files, which, oddly, would seem a mark in his favor. In the Trump-Bondi coverup bubble, redaction is reserved for the worst offenders, the ones Trump most needs to shield. So being “unredacted,” while hardly an honor, might serve to mitigate a few doubts.

This will be of little comfort to Botstein, who knows that there will always be doubts standing between ‘unredacted’ and ‘exonerated.’

And while we can give him the benefit of those doubts, we can’t stop them from lingering.