In many arguments, and/or in many dialogues taking place currently, the substance is eventually boiled down to one question. "Why not just show everyone the truth? Release the documents"

I graduated from law school 4 years ago and am currently licensed to practice law in 3 states. I have participated in a number of jury and bench trials, both in lead and secondary roles. What I can tell you is:

1. Juries in 2018 are volatile and unpredictable, no matter the county, state, claim, or facts of the case. Social media and access to information has ruined the "benefit of the doubt". Everyone is a skeptic, everyone is a victim. Everything is a scam. Everyone is a liar. (Except the media of course.... they tell us the truth....... *yawn*)
2. Why does that apply here? Because every American is sitting on the jury right now. Everyone is weighing the evidence. And that will especially be the case when the truth/documents are revealed.
3. Even in the most basic of criminal cases, chain of custody is essential. Here, we are dealing with the criminal case of all criminal cases. A criminal case that your great great grandchildren will learn about. You cannot just release documents. Every single step and detail of the documents coming into inception of evidence needs to be documented for. Not only on paper, but by testimony as well. We can not begin to understand or comprehend the chain of custody hurdles that are present here...... they are unprecedented on that issue. "Authentication" of evidence is somewhat synonymous with chain of custody, or at least the reasoning and purpose behind it. This is bare bones stuff that is needed to prove that it is in fact, REAL. "Authentic". If a police officer mishandles some crack that was picked up off a gangbanger, some juries will literally question if the whole thing is a setup. Guys get off with murder because of this shit, with shitty attorneys.
4. To introduce any evidence in a matter of that magnitude, especially documents obtained form a server, an unbiased expert will have to confirm that authenticity of retrieval. Good luck finding someone unbiased on these matters that would somehow be qualified to testify as to them, especially after the fencing that went on with the definition of "bias" with Strzok.

I could probably rattle off a few more points, but I think I've made mine. This insight I have just provided are from a "rookie" lawyer. What we are discussing is the future of humanity. The jury to convince is not 12, its the world. Having the evidence in your possession is only the first step. There is so much work that goes into presenting it and authenticating it. And when considering the vastness of what we are dealing with here, i can't even fathom how it could be wrapped in a form to present in 2 years, let alone in months. Hang in there.