To the Editor:
Re “The Epstein Files Should Never Have Been Released,” by Daniel Richman (Opinion guest essay, Feb. 24):
I spent years as a county prosecutor. I am also a victim of childhood sexual abuse, rape and sex trafficking by my father and the men he sold me to. I am now a criminal law professor at Tulane Law School.
Professor Richman’s argument appears to be that if the criminal legal system worked, prosecutors could be trusted and we would not need to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. That argument is a fantasy, and victims have paid for it with their bodies.
Professor Richman frames the release of the files as a threat to prosecutors and the efficacy of their tools, but spends no time focusing on the children whom Mr. Epstein trafficked for decades while the powerful looked away.
Alex Acosta, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, gave Mr. Epstein the kind of plea deal that an indigent defendant could never dream of. Professor Richman calls this something “we have yet to understand.” But I think we all understand it well: Wealth and power purchased impunity. The system did not fail by accident.
According to the rules of the American Bar Association, “a prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate.” That obligation to justice does not evaporate when the powerful are the ones who need to be held accountable.
Here is what I know from prosecuting cases and living through abuse: Secrecy is the predator’s best friend. It is not a neutral tool of professional discretion. Every time we treat transparency as the problem, we are choosing institutions over victims.
I refuse to make that choice.
Maybell Romero New Orleans
To the Editor:
Daniel Richman’s critique of the mass release of the Jeffrey Epstein files as a “sign of institutional failure” is technically correct, but profoundly misses the mark on which institution has failed. Mr. Richman argues from a theoretical ivory tower in which the justice system functions with integrity.
In reality, the supposedly proper channels he defends are the very mechanisms that produced the 2008 nonprosecution agreement for Mr. Epstein — a secret deal that bypassed victims and allowed a predator to continue his crimes for a decade. To suggest that we should return to a closed-door process is to ignore 20 years of evidence that those doors were used to hide corruption, not protect justice.
This perspective reveals how deeply elite institutions have lost touch with the commons. Mr. Richman’s concern that the release might harm victims is a cynical reversal of the truth: It was the systemic failure of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that harmed these individuals, not the eventual transparency regarding that failure.
Ultimately, Mr. Richman describes a fantasy land of judicial purity that does not exist in the Epstein case. The Epstein Files Transparency Act is not an attack on the legal system; it is a desperate, last-resort remedy for a public that has been systematically lied to.
The public’s trust must be earned through accountability, not by demanding a return to the shadows. Sunlight is not the cause of this institutional collapse; it is merely revealing the wreckage.
Angela Rhoten Chewey, Okla.
To the Editor:
Under normal circumstances, the complaint by Daniel Richman over the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files would be justified. But these are not normal circumstances.
The Trump-compromised Department of Justice can no longer be accorded the benefit of the doubt. Federal judges are abandoning the historic deference given to prosecutors. The weaponization of the department against President Trump’s enemies and the obvious conflict of interest by a president deeply enmeshed in the Epstein affair demand that the full transparency and the public’s right to know take precedence over normal procedures.
Simply put, this Department of Justice cannot be trusted to conduct its affairs out of sight of the American people.
Orin Hollander Jamison, Pa.
To the Editor:
Daniel Richman writes, “The power of shame can be a good thing, and some reputations deserve to be tarnished.” I am a clerical abuse survivor; allow me to offer a victim’s experience of shame: There is no greater pain.
I am, like this former prosecutor, thinking about a future in which real crimes fill the docket. But at this Trumpian hour, despite much hearsay and many redactions, the facts are surfacing and speak for themselves.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act needed to be enacted. Now our neighbors across the pond are acting, too. So far, a former prince and a former ambassador to the United States have been arrested. The docket includes allegations of real crimes. I suspect there will be more to come, both near and far.
Mark Joseph Williams Basking Ridge, N.J.
The Power to Remove a U.S. Attorney
To the Editor:
Re “Blanche Abruptly Fires U.S. Attorney in Virginia” (news article, Feb. 22):
As the deputy attorney general who recently announced President Trump’s firing of James W. Hundley after his appointment as interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, I must make the core matter discussed in this article clear.
Our Constitution leaves no ambiguity: Executive power belongs to the president of the United States. U.S. attorneys wield that power when they prosecute crimes and represent the United States in federal court. They are therefore accountable to the president, not to the judiciary.
Since our founding, Congress has periodically legislated processes to address vacancies. Specifically, whenever there is not a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney in place, district court judges are authorized to appoint a temporary U.S. attorney.
The president retains, as he should and must, the power to remove any U.S. attorney, even one appointed by the judges. This process has been seamlessly and repeatedly used for decades, including since Jan. 20, 2025, when President Trump began his second term.
The Department of Justice and federal courts routinely handle interim appointments through consultation that respects the separation of powers. Now, in a few rogue districts, judges have abandoned this time-honored process and unilaterally decided to appoint a temporary U.S. attorney of their choice.
It should come as no surprise that when judges inappropriately act unilaterally, the outcome is simple: A prosecutor selected solely by the judiciary will not remain in office.
Todd Blanche Washington
Trump and Seniors’ Health
To the Editor:
How deleterious an effect is President Trump having on his fellow senior citizens? I, for one, have always been a cheerful person, hopeful for the future. Since Mr. Trump’s return to the presidency, however, I’ve been continually and utterly depressed.
Considering the man’s racism and misogyny, I fear for the future of my young granddaughters. This administration’s blustering xenophobia and denial of science cause me frequent insomnia and unremitting stress. For the first time in my life I am embarrassed to be an American.
Fellow seniors have told me how they’re suffering from stress, higher blood pressure, insomnia and depression because of the president’s outrageous misbehavior.
I call for all reasonable lawmakers to do their jobs and put a stop to the unprecedented and misused power wielded by Donald Trump.
Carol Benson Knutson Portland, Ore.
The post The Epstein Files and Our Broken Public Trust appeared first on New York Times.
