Alan Dershowitz channels one of my favorite poems, and one of the most insightful. Alexander Pope included it in his "An Essay on Criticism," which also gave us the sayings To err is human; to forgive divine and For fools rush in where angels fear to tread. The poem warns the reader about the danger of proceeding on limited knowledge:

A little learning is a dang'rous thing
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring
There, shallow draughts intoxicate the brain
And drinking largely sobers us again.

Dersh has a particular practical application of this wisdom in mind. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced late yesterday that she plans to release the Jeffrey Epstein files at some point today. However, the release may only be partial, and that's the problem:

BREAKING 🚨BONDI — EPSTEIN INFORMATION RELEASE TOMORROW

“Tomorrow, Jesse — breaking news, right now — you're going to see some Epstein information being released by my office."

"What you're going to see, hopefully tomorrow is, a lot of flight logs, a lot of names, a lot a lot… pic.twitter.com/3wKA123XA5

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) February 27, 2025

“Tomorrow, Jesse — breaking news, right now — you're going to see some Epstein information being released by my office."

"What you're going to see, hopefully tomorrow is, a lot of flight logs, a lot of names, a lot a lot of information. It's pretty sick, what that man did."

Bondi seems to suggest that the redactions will only apply to the names of the victims of sex trafficking in the Epstein-Ghislaine Maxwell conspiracy. The victims would likely have been minors at the time, but some of them went on to cooperate with Epstein and Maxwell in recruiting and grooming efforts, too. They obviously have a lower level of culpability and arguably operated under psychological and financial duress. That makes for a good case to argue mitigating circumstances, but the divisions here are not necessarily binary and the boundaries may not be easy to draw. 

Another question will be exactly what does and doesn't get released. Bondi seems to shy away from the idea of releasing non-explicit video from Pedo Island and Epstein's other properties, where he had extensive surveillance systems installed. The speculation surrounding the case includes Epstein's potential use of those videos for extortion, which might explain the still somewhat mysterious manner in which Epstein amassed his wealth. Will the people in those video clips get named too, or is Bondi only going to release the documentary evidence that was seized?

Dersh, whose own reputation got stained by speculation about his status in the Epstein files, argued last night that partial releases are worse than none at all:

I continue to demand that every bit of evidence be disclosed, because I know with 100 percent certainty that the evidence, if completely produced without exceptions, exculpates me, for the simple reason that I did nothing wrong. But much of the evidence has been withheld — and for no good reason. Only the guilty are protected by the withholding of evidence. The guilty include those who may have been sexually involved in the Epstein case, but the guilty also include anyone who deliberately made false allegations against innocent people.

We know there were some videotapes made by Epstein — and I suspect there is other evidence as well of who did and did not engage in improper conduct. The public interest would be served by producing the entirety of the evidence.

Those who have been accused — whether falsely or truthfully — include some of the most prominent people in the world: politicians, princes, celebrities, businessmen and others. Those who are totally innocent, like me, have the right to public disclosure of the evidence of innocence. Those who are guilty of serious crimes have no right off [sic] privacy.

Dersh wants all of the evidence -- videos, depositions, phone records, whatever -- publicly released with "no exceptions." That way, there is no more room for dangerous speculation based on only "a little knowledge," as Pope put it. Call it full transparency in a case that has been long over and one that entangled some of the world's more powerful figures, including a former President. Donald Trump basically made that choice by ordering the review and release of the Epstein files, because of the popular speculation that he was one of the figures in them. No one who was innocent of the Epstein-Maxwell sex-trafficking ring should have to endure that kind of public dragging, and no one involved in it should escape public scrutiny.

That is, if we're releasing the material at all. Bondi and Dersh both agree that the people within the evidence have no right to privacy from public scrutiny, but it's still a little odd to unveil evidence against people who won't be charged with crimes. At the very least, it cuts against the usual practice, although FOIA demands sometimes force such releases for more well-known cases. 

However, if Bondi and Trump want to release any of it, they should release all of it. This is clearly a case where shallow draughts have intoxicated many brains, and drinking will largely sober most of them again.