But, that still is an idiotic strategy. Let's start with the obvious. Once you deliver the records to independent 3rd parties you know longer have ability to use the "threat" of disclosure as leverage. The 3rd parties are no more or less likely to disclose and embaraass anyone dependent on the actions of the prosecution.  if the "powerful peole" are going to get revealed anyway then the government has no reason not to prosecute even if we assume it has any interest in protecting these people.

  Secondly, the prosecution CHOSE to seek an indictment. That is an assertion that it believes it has a meritorious case or otherwise a serious ethical violation. Dropping charges after a PUBLIC threat to expose powerful people would reek of wrongdoing. It would be more likely that such tactics would make the government MORE adamant about seeking a bad outcome for her than less.

THEORETICALLY, she might be able to subpoena some guys to testify:
a: there was no sex at all;

b: there was sex but it was, in the view of the witness,  not a quid pro quo for the escort fee; (Perhaps some of thse guys just believe they are so good lookng and charming the escorts just couldn't resist a little gratis nookie. That does make one wonder then why the guys needed escorts in the first place. If they can charm women into bed so easily why couldn't they get someone simply to be with them socially without paying?)

c: That there was sex for money  but as they understood it they paid the agency for the social engagement and then the escort mader her own private deal for sex.

  The risk of that is multiple. That whole perjury deal might make some guys nervous about being too cute in their testimony. On cross-examination, if any of the witnesses had multiple engagements with the agency provided escorts and they routinely involved sex some suspisious minds might consider that probative in an inculpatory sense.

  Beyond the embarassment, there is likely a local ordinance or state statute against solicitng prosecutes everywhere these encounters took place. That's not a huge deal in legal terms but many people might decide the 5th Amendment should be used. that's only applicable if the witness believes in good faith that his testimony would tend to incriminate him. That necessarily requires the existence of something the witness believes might be illegal.

  The johns are not subject to federal prosecution because there is no federal soliciting statute but the District and Virginia and Maryland all have them. As a practical matter since federal courts can't grant immunity from state charges any immunity would have to be voluntarily assented to by the locals. It's not hard to think the locals might be more willing to agree to forego the guys who are agin her and not gor her.

  Finally, while the reasonable surmises  of the johns based on what they observed first hand might be admitted over a "specuulation" objection, even if a john testified HE thought his sex for cash deal was exclusively between the him and hooker, we know the prosecution has hookers ready to testify otherwise.

 And. to the surprise of many of you, jurors aren't generally so stupid and naive as toi believe things that are ontrary to all they knew about the world before they walked into the courtroom and sound like total BS. Men paying women to visit them in hotel rooms is going to be tough to sell as merely $300 worth of pleasant conversation.

Saying "The only question is what services were provided by the business." was the point of my post, which you apparently missed.  If the "madam" was not selling sex, there's no crime, no matter what the escort did on their own. As an example, I used secretaries who hook on the side.  

I referenced the Innocence Project because it provides examples of what happens when "everyone knows", but the plain truth is that we don't know a crime has been committed.  What we know is that there is an allegation of crime.  

If you have legal knowledge to share, please do so instead of telling me I don't have any common sense.  

There are issues of fact to take before a judge and maybe a jury. Just because the prosecutor says a crime has taken place does not make it true. We have trials for a reason, and you seem perfectly willing to ignore that reason.  I'm surprised you want to bother with trials at all; it seems that you would be satisfied to simply take the prosecutors word for it that someone is guilty.  

I asked a direct question that you don't seem to have any answer to beyond telling me how good the prosecution case is and telling me I don't have any common sense.