All those concerned in the testimony/evidence about Earhart's disappearance are dead. Pretty hard to hurt them.
But if you're not into sex with minors and you are listed as an Epstein associate but of the wrong political or economic or class "stripe" you very likely would be vilified and libeled, with accusations that need no proof and that admit of no refutation. Because with heavily polarized issues, it's the self-righteous smearing that matters not the actual factuality of the claims or insinuations. Which is why such documents should be redacted--public trials and character executions are nice populist tools but have little to do with a well-functioning reasonable society.
I have to assume that if Biden's DOJ had the files for 4 years and didn't prosecute men for statutory rape, adult rape, or sex trafficking of minors that there was a reason for it instead of just 'incompetence' or 'we need to protect our own allies'. I mean, James went after a penny ante kind of fraud conviction with no visible victims, Bragg won over a distinction between paying a lawyer 'legal fees' versus knowing that they were payoffs under a legal NDA, why wouldn't they try to nail Trump and his "pervy" friends for something much, much bigger in order to "protect democracy" and prevent authoritarianism if not totalitarianism?
And if DOJers knew that their lifespan in the dept. was limited because the big bad wolf had a key to the front door and freshly sharpened claws, why not just grab some copies of the files (or quickly scan documents or take pix of any document not amenable to scanning) as a kind of protection--if you can't actually protect yourself, at least bring down the big bad wolf with a political car bomb delivered via a substack or Axios? Or maybe do that, say, as an October surprise or drop them on inauguration day?
It's an argument from silence, but I'm not sure given the shear motivation for non-silence in this case doesn't give it some weight.
= new reply since forum marked as read