ges,

I watched Massie assert his position on "This Week" with Jonathan Karl this morning. Massie's position doesn't really make sense.

Here's why: On the one hand, he advocates investigating and prosecuting powerful people in the Epstein files. O.K. fair enough (although he specified he has a direct personal political interest in doing this).

However, it's really very unwise to just do a "file dump" to the public if the intention is to also seek prosecution of people named in those files.

In fact, no law enforcement agency would consider that a wise strategy. Most law enforcement agencies would consider investigatory files which may be active or may be re-opened as "confidential" and/or "privileged."

There are numerous reasons for NOT disclosing raw investigatory material to the general public, but especially if there is a possibility of trying to prosecute people named in those files.

Just one of many reasons is you automatically by doing so give the defendants a plausible argument that such nationwide or perhaps worldwide publication of raw investigatory material can deny them the fundamental right to a fair trial and is unfairly prejudicial as it would possibly bias the potential jury pool. There is no change of venue possible in such a case, the material will be plastered in every media outlet everywhere.

Ironically, Massie insisting on this kind of a public file dump seems almost designed to insulate people named from effectively being prosecuted. Of course they may be heavily embarrassed by the contents and Massie may work that to his own political advantage, but what else is new?