“The Trump Administration was hit with sharp criticism over the amount of redacted information in the newly released files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein on Friday.
The Department of Justice posted documents under the Epstein Files Transparency Act on its website Friday afternoon in accordance with the midnight deadline set by the statute signed into law by President Donald Trump last month.”
The Trump Administration was hit with sharp criticism over the amount of redacted information in the newly released files related to convicted sex offender Jeffery Epstein on Friday.
www.mediaite.com
This comes as no surprise, of course.
The Trump regime is incapable of complying with even the most straightforward of laws.
The Framers failed to envision a criminal Trump regime in control of the executive branch of government.
The American experiment has failed.
I am guessing that
you cannot tell what material was “redacted” prior to the public disclosure.
But redactions were actually authorized or required by the very law you mentioned, itself.
Public Law: Epstein Files Transparency Act
Public Law 119-38
139 Stat. 656
Those redactions specifically mentioned by Congress in that law include:
Let’s discuss, first, the very broad scope of that law:
“Section 2 of the Act directs the Attorney General to make publicly available all unclassified DOJ records, documents, communications, and investigative materials relating to Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, flight logs and travel records, referenced individuals (including government officials and others), immunity deals, plea agreements, internal DOJ communications, destruction or alteration of records, and documentation about Epstein’s detention and death.” (Snipped from ChatGPT)
That’s an awful LOT of disclosure.
But Congress also permitted withholdings / redactions (DOJ May Redact Only If Material…)
- Contains personally identifiable information of victims, victim personal or medical files, or similar information where disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
- Depicts or contains child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) as defined under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2256 and related CSAM prohibitions).
- Would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that any such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary.
- Depicts or contains images of death, physical abuse, or injury of any person.
- Contains information authorized under an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and is properly classified under that order.
So, again, since WE don’t know what was redacted, it may very well be it needed to be redacted (because such redactions were permitted — or even required — by law or laws).
I wonder if there ARE some future prosecutions being considered?