Editors at National Review Online assess a current controversy involving an odious figure.
The release of the Epstein files was supposed to uncover a vast conspiracy of elite pedophiles, or at least expose people who were guilty of crimes but got a free pass from prosecutors.
Instead, it has led to Yale University suspending from his teaching duties . . . computer scientist David Gelernter.
What did Gelernter do? He didn’t commit any crimes or even do anything unethical. He sent an email to Jeffrey Epstein years ago that mentioned in passing that a female applicant for a job with Epstein was attractive.
Instead of the real-life QAnon scenario we were promised, the release of the Epstein files has embarrassed, and led to professional consequences for, a series of accomplished people who emailed and socialized with Epstein but didn’t abuse underage girls.
Should Larry Summers have been pursuing an affair with an adult fellow economist to whom he was apparently a mentor? No, of course not. But should we have violated every rule and norm around how we typically handle raw investigative materials in a federal investigation in order to nail Summers for a lapse that has nothing to do with what was the purpose of the release of the files?
We got to this place because voices on the right — including some that now have significant responsibility in the administration — stoked lurid conspiracy theories about Epstein for years. Then, Democrats opportunistically picked up the mantra last year when they realized that the release of files was a way to damage Trump politically. The dam broke in Congress in part because no one trusted Attorney General Pam Bondi to handle the matter in a competent, aboveboard manner.
President Trump has promoted conspiratorial thinking in general, and has been all over the map on the Epstein files in particular, over time. But he was correct when he said during the 2024 campaign that releasing them willy-nilly would catch up people who had done nothing wrong.
