Daniel Richman wrote an opinion column for the New York Times (firewalled) that drips with elite arrogance.

The Columbia Law School professor and former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York claims the massive Epstein files dump counts as a failure of the justice system, saying the public never should have seen those millions of pages. Richman wants everybody to trust the insiders again and keep the secrets safely locked away.

Richman argues that if the system worked properly, prosecutors would quietly sort everything and release only what they decide matters, calling the full release a sign that Americans no longer trust the Justice Department.

Now, why would he think that? Do any recent presidential administrations use the DOJ as an attack dog?

And, as if the clock struck noon, he blames the Trump administration for pushing out or firing prosecutors who wouldn't follow orders, saying Attorney General Pam Bondi lacked credibility, so Congress needed to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act to force everything out.

More than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images are included in today’s additional publication. Combined with prior releases, this makes the total production nearly 3.5 million pages released in compliance with the Act.

These files were collected from five primary sources, including the Florida and New York cases against Epstein, the New York case against Maxwell, the New York cases investigating Epstein’s death, the Florida case investigating a former butler of Epstein, Multiple FBI investigations, and the Office of Inspector General investigation into Epstein’s death.

Acting shocked that regular Americans demanded sunlight after decades of darkness, Richman forgets the system failed victims for years while Jeffrey Epstein worked with help from powerful friends.

The real failure, the one Richman skips, was when federal prosecutors gave Epstein that 2008 sweetheart plea deal under U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. Epstein kept his freedom and kept his private jet for years, while bankers, academics, politicians, and royalty stayed cozy with him long after his crimes became public.

Secrecy didn't protect his victims.

Survivors like Virginia Giuffre fought in court for years to unseal documents because hiding names let the operation continue.

Daniel Richman complains about raw investigative material full of hearsay and unverified claims, saying the public shouldn't pick through it. Those same files include flight logs, payments, and the names prosecutors repeatedly used to pressure witnesses for years. Americans read the patterns and decide for themselves; we handled the JFK and Twitter files, and most of us are mature adults—we can handle the Epstein files.

The professor says the release failed victims because some explicit photos and names slipped through redactions.

Outside the "bimbo eruptions" that exploded during the Clinton administration, when women came forward accusing the president of unwelcome advances and one legitimate allegation of rape, or the bravery of modern women defending hard-earned rights for those struggling against the trans movement—where figures like JK Rowling have been vilified for standing up for women's rights—the left has heroically positioned itself as a defender of victims.

Okay, outside of that, nobody wants victims hurt, especially victims from the most vile bastards to walk the earth, but decades of secrecy let those predators operate without fear. Many survivors pushed for full disclosure precisely because the old closed system shielded the powerful. Larry Nassar, anybody?

Better, and far more accurate, redactions come later; the solution now isn't to go back to insiders making decisions on their own.

Writing from a high perch in an ivory tower, Daniel Richman warns that bulk release weakens the tools federal agents use, including warrants, wiretaps, grand jury subpoenas, and the power to threaten prosecution. He wrote that witnesses and companies might refuse to cooperate if everything ends up online.

Richman conveniently averts his eyes when looking east to Britain, where royalty and high-ranking officials have felt Eptstein's skunk spray covering them with a rank stench that no amount of Mr. Clean could wipe off.

Related: British Police Take Former Ambassador Mandelson into Custody

The tools Richman describes have already been misused; Mar-a-Lago, for example. When public scrutiny breaks the system, the system needs fixing, not more secrecy. 

Epstein's elite partying class now lectures us about norms and professional judgment. Daniel Richman wants the public to regret the files even as they read them, calling the dump a spectacle that highlights the Justice Department's lack of confidence.

I hate to tell him, but confidence died because the department slow-walked leads and cut sweetheart deals for decades. Americans didn't ruin the system by demanding the truth. The people who protected Epstein and his ilk ruined it.

Pam Bondi and the DOJ did their job under the new law, releasing every responsive page. Richman and his fellow insiders hate the result because bright sunlight shows how deep the network ran. Most importantly, they want their cozy club back, where only they decide what the rest of us know.

Sorry, professors and former prosecutors: those days are over; the files stay where they are and names remain public, because the patterns are impossible to ignore. Americans see the flights, favors, and failures, transparency that doesn't weaken the rule of law. It reminds everybody that the rule of law reaches the powerful, too.

If Daniel Richman feels uncomfortable, great! Discomfort means accountability is so very close.

The rest of us, unwashed, however, call it long-overdue justice.

Editor’s Note: With President Trump back in the White House, the state of our Union is strong once again.

Support PJ Media’s coverage of the president’s State of the Union Address and help us report the truth the radical left doesn’t want you to hear. Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.