Daniel Richman was, once upon a time, a federal prosecutor. The New York Times saw fit to point this out when he published an opinion piece by him on Monday, along with the fact that he is currently a Columbia University law professor.

Daniel Richman was also, once upon a time, a leaker for James Comey. In fact, he leaked notes that Comey took during his time as FBI director under Donald Trump’s first administration to The New York Times, effectively kickstarting the special counsel investigation into Russiagate that went nowhere.

The New York Times didnotpoint this out. One can easily guess why: Not just because it’s a conflict of interest, but because he’s now arguing against putting government documents out into the public square for reasons one can easily guess at.

Richman’spieceis titled “The Epstein Files Should Never Have Been Released.” His argument is effectively in the title, noting that while vague talk about “accountability for people in power” may make it “hard to see a downside” to the Jeffrey Epstein document release, “the release of millions of pages of the Epstein files” are both “a sign of institutional failure and a cause for concern.”

However, the particulars of the argument are worth noting — especially these paragraphs:

Calls for the Epstein files’ release predate the Trump administration. But they are now online and searchable because too many Americans didn’t trust the Justice Department’s leadership with control of them. In the past, departmental leaders could limit suspicions about their motives by conspicuously leaving a matter such as this to career subordinates, rather than political appointees. Seen by so many as having fired or driven outprosecutors and agents who refused to become tools of President Trump’s will, Attorney General Pam Bondi lacked credibility. She couldn’t get away with asking the public to rely on the apolitical and independent judgment of those who remained. The eventual result was the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

The release of the files is also cause for concern because so much of the raw investigative material in them — untold layers of hearsay, unverified accusations and vague circumstantial connections — ought not be released for the public to pick over.

We don’t know the degree to which the Justice Department has appropriately or inappropriately withheld or redacted documents. We do know that any effort to protect victims was woefully inadequate, as explicit photos and identifying information of many women, and possibly girls, have been found in the files. The government’s obligation not to revictimize people ought to be one of its highest priorities. Here, it failed.

It’s worth pointing that we’re now under the third administration where the Epstein documents were available to the Department of Justice to release — Trump 45, Biden, andTrump 47— but it’s a few paragraphs later that we (ever so briefly) touch upon the reason that Richman is so concerned about the Epstein document dumps.

You see, it seems Richman is concerned when it comes to “coercive investigative tools” that “can and have been misused, as when prosecutors and FBI agents illegally rummaged through my emails and computer files in an effort to come up with a case against James Comey, the former FBI director.”

Source: VidNews » Feed