- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
“I went over there, and I was able to determine, at least I believe, that there were tons of completely unnecessary redactions, in addition to the failure to redact the names of victims, and so that was troubling to us,” Raskin told reporters.
He accused the justice department of being “in a cover-up mode” and breaking the law.
“They violated that precept by releasing the names of a lot of victims, which is either spectacular incompetence and sloppiness on their part, or, as a lot of the survivors believe, a deliberate threat to other survivors who are thinking about coming forward, that they need to be careful because they can be exposed and have their personal information dragged through the mud as well,” Raskin said.
The justice department has released a total of about 3.5m files related to Epstein, and Raskin said there were around 3m more awaiting release.
…
[Emphasis mine]
Another redacted document Raskin said he saw in full was an email Epstein had sent to his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, which contained an account from his lawyers of a conversation with attorneys representing Trump that occurred around 2009.
Trump was quoted in it as saying that while Epstein was never a member of his Mar-a-Lago club, he had been a guest and was never asked to leave, which would contradict statements from the president that he had at one point barred him from his Florida property.
You must log in or register to comment.
I think bondi’s arrogance exceeds even that of trump. Get her the heck outta there a.s.a.p.! I think we need justice right now more than we need law.
I don’t want garnish.
If you get a chance to see the files. Tell me what the hell happened.
Not these meta narratives.
They had to go in person, and as a single person looking through 6 million + files, I don’t think they’re going to be able to paint the full portrait you’re asking for. Hopefully they can use the little they were able to view to force a more complete release
I thought they were only allowed the 3.5mil files that have been released, they got to see those unredacted.
As I understand it, yes it is only what was released. Just them, no aides or staff, handwritten notes only, no electronics of any kind brought in, and by appointment only meaning their time with the files was also likely incredibly limited.
That’s what I thought so they didn’t even get to see all 6+ million files. Just the ones that the DOJ has cherry picked to release.
That’s my understanding at least, yeah. That they’re only able to see the non-redacted versions of what has been cherry picked by DOJ for release and that 3m or whatever that hasn’t been released is still off limits to this.
He could only view 30 - 40 files, and did tell us at least one of the redacted names (Les Wexner)
Not at all surprising, hopefully Columbus Ohio will start removing his name from buildings over it (they won’t)
Is that 30-40 files imposed by time or they were restricted to that many per visit?
The justice department has released a total of about 3.5m files related to Epstein, and Raskin said there were around 3m more awaiting release. The Maryland congressman said he was only able to review about 30 to 40 of the unredacted files that had been released at one of four computers set up at the justice department facility, which lawmakers must enter without bringing any electronic devices, or staff members who have been researching the issue alongside them.
What exactly is the point of this exercise from the DOJ? Is it to appear transparent about what they have on file, with no real consequences to them? You can only go alone, and you can’t make a physical copies or even write down any details of what you have read in those unredacted files. So you come out of there, by yourself, with just what you have retained in memory, of what you’ve read, some 10 days after the files have been released, and just a few needles have been established to exist in that massive haystack.
Say you go there, you find documents where the name of a high ranking government official has not been redacted, and the context this official appears in, is highly suspicious, and contradicts what has been publicly shared by the government until now.
What can you do about it then? What are your options, if any? Would you then tell a fellow government official to go and verify it, by finding the same file? And then what happens? Anything?
I don’t get it.
Oh no you’re exactly right. Best I can tell it’s straight up “We’ll give you transparency,” but in a way that’s basically entirely unactionable by the members of Congress. Even if a dozen members go in and say they saw something in the files that contradicts the narrative, the regime will just say they’re lying and fight any subpoena for the files.
Until Congress starts actually impeaching and removing people for this, it’s basically nothing as far as I can tell. Unless I’m missing something huge here.
or even write down any details of what you have read
They’re allowed to take notes. I don’t know what they can do with them. They can theoretically write down the doc # with evidence and bring it to a judge for release and to be used in court, but the courts have already decided they ALL have to be released and the DOJ is just refusing to comply.
And anyone who doesn’t believe them just calls them a liar, and they have no way to prove it. So yeah, basically nothing.
My only theory is that maybe the DOJ legitimately foolishly thought that reviewing these documents would maybe convince them they needed to be redacted or something.
I wonder if a part of it is just to create more confusion. The more they can confuse people, the more likely they’ll just ignore it.
Or, just, total and utter incompetence.
I believe they are able to bring a notebook and take notes, but no pictures.
Ok, so they can take notes. But they can’t be used as evidence for anything I assume? DOJ can just say, “well you must’ve written the wrong document ID in your notes, because that document doesn’t say what your notes says it does.”
That they can’t bring staff members who have been researching the issue is also an odd restriction. As a member of congress, you can go there and look at a tiny sample of 3+ million files, potentially make some handwritten notes. I doubt many members of congress have spent the majority of their last 10 days digging into the files to find lines of investigation into specific files, They do have other things to do, so the restriction for them to not bring anyone who are more familiar with the files simply seems like another roadblock for this exercise to be useful to anybody.Yeah. They’ve built a rat maze around the cheese, but, if someone was determined and went in with a plan, they might be able to find it.
Whether or not that happens is out of my hands.
I’m just afraid that the general coarsening and degradation of American life has somehow conditioned people not to take this as seriously as we should be taking it
Poor UK folks just aren’t even able to comprehend that Americans already knew he was a sex offender (along with a 34x convicted felon) and still voted for him. His supporters don’t care, and some of them voted for him because of it.
