Daniel Richman, a former federal prosecutor and current Columbia University law professor, recently penned an opinion piece asserting that the release of the Epstein files was ill-advised. His article in The New York Times, while notable due to his background, notably omits essential context about his history as a leaker for James Comey. This omission raises eyebrows, especially given that his leaks in 2017 played a pivotal role in initiating the special counsel investigation into alleged collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, an inquiry that ultimately yielded no substantial findings.
Richman’s argument can be distilled from his title alone: “The Epstein Files Should Never Have Been Released.” He claims that while there may be a superficial appeal to transparency and “accountability for people in power,” the reality is much more complex and concerning. Richman suggests that the release of these documents represents both institutional failure and an ethical dilemma. He cites that the call for transparency surrounding these files predates the Trump administration, indicating a long-standing distrust in the Justice Department’s leadership.
One significant criticism he levies is against Attorney General Pam Bondi, whom he suggests has lost credibility due to perceptions that she, like others in the administration, may have used her position for political gain. This distrust, according to Richman, invalidates any attempts to rely on the judgment of current Justice Department officials. The resulting pressure led to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which he indicates has resulted in millions of pages of raw investigative material being made public. He emphasizes that much of this information consists of unverified accusations and vague circumstantial evidence that should not be scrutinized by the general public.
Richman expresses grave concern that the documents also contain explicit photographs and identifying information of victims, effectively revictimizing them. He points out that the government failed in its obligation to protect individuals who were harmed. He rightly notes that, at the present moment, three different administrations have had access to these documents since Epstein’s death, yet significant delays in releasing them have persisted.
However, a curious thread runs through Richman’s argument. His alarm over the misuse of investigatory tools is striking, especially when viewed against the backdrop of his own involvement in leaking information to shape public perception and drive political action when he was affiliated with Comey. Richman describes how he became a conduit for the former FBI director’s memos and facilitated the call for a special counsel, actions justified at the time as necessary to combat presidential overreach.
In a conversation with Comey, he reflects on how his leaks accelerated the appointment of the special counsel investigation. This self-awareness raises questions about where the ethical boundaries lie. When accountability aligns with his interests, Richman finds it essential. When it shifts toward transparency that may have broader implications, particularly those unfavorable to the political left, he raises red flags.
Richman’s stance seems to lack consistency, especially considering Democrats initially championed the release of the Epstein documents as a necessary step forward. The impulse for transparency is commendable but carries a weighty responsibility; as Richman argues, the documents could have been released responsibly after careful redaction. Instead, he contends that the rush to disclose them has resulted in undue harm and could jeopardize innocent individuals.
This situation also highlights a pertinent irony: the desire for accountability often seems to depend on who stands to gain from the information. Richman’s position reinforces that notion; the public’s right to know is only valuable when it serves his preferred narrative. The implication here is evident: knowledge that serves one side is beneficial, while knowledge that could hurt it is treated with disdain.
The debate over the release of the Epstein documents is fraught with implications for trust in government institutions and principles of accountability. However, as Richman navigates this complex landscape, he reveals his own biases, exposing the frailty of arguments rooted in selective transparency. The conversation around the Epstein files should encompass a broader discussion about how transparency intersects with the potential for harm, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to sensitive information that respects the rights of all individuals involved.
"*" indicates required fields
