https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epstein-files-redaction-over-500-pages-entirely-blacked-out/The Justice Department released thousands of new records on Jeffrey Epstein on Friday, but at least 550 pages in the documents are fully redacted, CBS News has found.The newly released files included photos of several prominent people in Epstein's orbit, images from his homes and investigative records that detail disturbing allegations against the late sex offender. But the heavy redactions in many of the records have drawn criticism from Democrats and some Republicans, as the department defends its handling of the files.One series of three consecutive documents — totaling 255 pages — is entirely redacted, with each page covered by a black box. A fourth 119-page document labeled "Grand Jury-NY" is also entirely redacted. It's unclear what proceedings it stemmed from, but the document listed immediately before it is a transcript in which a prosecutor asks a grand jury in 2020 to consider evidence for a superseding indictment of Epstein's convicted co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell.At least 180 blacked-out pages appear in files that are mostly but not entirely redacted. In some cases, a cover page, a photo of a folder or something else that isn't fully redacted precedes several pages that are entirely obscured by a black box.In other cases, the redactions were more sparing. For example, a 96-page police report on a Florida investigation into Epstein in the mid-2000s redacts the names of victims and other details, but leaves many other details in.And some of the thousands of photos included in Friday's release are partially redacted, with some people's faces obscured by boxes. Photos that include former President Bill Clinton, pop star Michael Jackson and other notable people have partial redactions (though Clinton and Jackson themselves are fully visible).
Why was the DOJ allowed to redact Epstein files?The Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed by Congress last month, requires the Justice Department to release the files in its possession related to Epstein and Maxwell. Redactions are allowed for a handful of reasons, including to protect survivors' personal information and to leave out violent photos and child sexual abuse material. Documents can also be withheld in a "tailored and temporary manner" if their release would "jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution."Some of Friday's redactions appear to black out the names of survivors, but it's not clear in every case why information was blacked out. The government is required to give Congress a list of redactions within 15 days.The law explicitly forbids the government from withholding records due to the risk of "embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity." The Justice Department said on X that no politicians' names were redacted from the files.Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a letter to Congress earlier Friday that a team of more than 200 Justice Department lawyers scoured the documents in search of survivors'' names and other things that needed to be redacted. He said the department is still going through the files and will release more of them on a "rolling basis," though the law required them to be released by Friday.Blanche's letter also said "additional lawyers of review" were necessary when reviewing grand jury transcripts. Judges in New York and Florida have given the government permission to release grand jury transcripts from Epstein and Maxwell's cases, but the judge overseeing the Maxwell case required the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan to "personally certify" that none of the documents contain victims' personal information.
Democrats criticize the redactions in Epstein filesSome lawmakers have blasted the Justice Department for the redactions and for acknowledging that some documents will be released later.Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who helped lead the effort to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act, argued that Friday's document release wasn't in compliance with their law.Khanna called it an "incomplete release with too many redactions" in a video posted to X. He said he's "exploring all options," including impeachment or referrals for prosecution. Massie said the release "grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law."Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said: "Simply releasing a mountain of blacked out pages violates the spirit of transparency and the letter of the law. For example, all 119 pages of one document were completely blacked out. We need answers as to why." CBS News has reached out to the Justice Department for comment on the criticism.The Justice Department has defended its handling of the files. Blanche told Fox News Digital: "The only redactions being applied to the documents are those required by law — full stop.""Democrat administrations in the past have refused to provide full details of the Jeffrey Epstein saga," Blanche said in his letter to lawmakers. "But President Trump, Attorney General Bondi, and FBI Director Patel are committed to providing full transparency consistent with the law."
>>1467677>The Justice Department said on X that no politicians' names were redacted from the files.See >>1467654
>>1467678These fucking jackasses release over 500 completely blacked-out pages and still have the nerve to go "we're committed to full transparency, unlike the dems!"Stop lying. Just stop fucking lying. You're not even lying effectively anymore, you're lying straight to the nation's face while handing them proof that you're lying. Just fucking stop it.
>>1467680Going to have to pass another bill requiring no redactions
>>1467681The original bill said no redactions other than victims names and pictures. They violated it and the DOJ is now in contempt of congress.
>>1467682Nothing is going to happen until Trump is out of office.
>>1467682>the DOJ is now in contempt of congressJust as transcripts of tapes over half a century ago were given the 'REDACTED' treatment.Nixon had a bigger majority than Trump has, and look what happened to him.Just one name that has a blacked out space that just happens to be the size of five letters is in itself a smoking gun. If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear, Desperate Don.You're just delaying the inevitable. Just as Nixon did.
>>1467682The politicians were victims of Epstein. He tricked them into sex with underaged girls
>>1467684lel co-ping is hard work.>Nothing happened before Trump was in office>Something will happen once he's out!!!
>>1467687What?
>>1467690What?
>>1467682>>1467686You know, blackmail is a crime. That bill neglected to specify victims of what.
If he had any evidence to prove he was innocent, we’d have seen it immediately after the allegations were made. He looks guilty as sin because he is. Nobody goes out of their way to obfuscate things to this degree unless they were involved somehow. The guy who was on the record on shows like Howard Stern bragging about watching teenage girls dress up in the changing room, who married a woman associated with Epstein, who “jokingly” competed with Epstein on who gets what girls, is as pure as the driven snow? Get the fuck out of here. You can tell the MAGAts who told those Trump voters who demanded the files be released to 'Cut the shit' are nervous because we keep seeing increasingly retarded conspiracy theories about it, or saying 'It's a nothingburger'.Trump's response, if he was innocent, would have been to release all the files right after Elon accused him of being in them. He didn't. He pretended they didn't exist, then he said that the Democrats tampered with them, then Mike Johnson said that Trump was an undercover agent, which he later retracted. You only do something like that if you are truly guilty. It's basically a "tell" that shows Trump is in the files and that he was guilty.
>>1467690>What?Jeffrey Epstein's legal issues began in 2005 when Maria Farmer filed rape allegations for an incident in 1996.In October 2007, transgender model Ava Cordero alleged that Epstein had abused her and filed suit accordingly.Virginia Giuffre was among the first of Epstein's accusers to reveal her identity to the public, in 2011.On July 27, 2006, Epstein was arrested by the Palm Beach Police Department on state felony charges.Acosta (R) agreed to a plea deal, which Alan Dershowitz (D) helped to negotiate.Acosta later said he offered a lenient plea deal because he was told that Epstein "belonged to intelligence", was "above his pay grade" and to "leave it alone".In 2019, Judge Kenneth Marra (R) for the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida adjudicated that the Acosta NPA document had violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act.On June 30, 2008 (Blue FL days) Epstein's cell door was left unlocked, and he had access to the attorney room where a television was installed for him, before he was moved to the Stockade's previously unstaffed infirmary.After a contested hearing in January 2011, and an appeal, he stayed registered in New York State as a "level three" (high risk of repeat offense) sex offender, a lifelong designation.[176] At that hearing, the Manhattan assistant district attorney, Jennifer Gaffney (D), argued unsuccessfully that the level should be reduced to a low-risk "level one" after the request from the office of then AG Cyrus Vance Jr. (D),His career spanned several known decades from Clinton through Bush, and Obama.He wasn't arrested or sentenced to anything worthwhile until dRumpf was elected. Then he 'killed himself' in solitary confinement.One of the bigger proponents of releasing the Epstein files was Democrat Chuck Schumer, who Epstein donated to frequently.So, what makes you think that anything will happen once Trump leaves office? Are you like a fucking retard absolutely ignorant of reality?
>>1467690Not even this can be 'What?'-ed awayhttps://i.postimg.cc/tJZdjwJv/trump-epstein-court-document.jpgAs that taped conversation with Nixon & Haldeman was, this is a smoking gun.Trump could have simply had nothing to do with Epstein in the first place>14 years oldKnow your place, cultists: you're pedo enablers with every post you make in this & other related threads which say anything other than 'Trump must be politically destroyed''.Remember the movie Sound of Freedom, and how that was lauded by those who lorded themselves over those not exactly like them they accused of being pedo-enablers? 'Save the children!' and all that jazz? That aged well.Accusations are Admissions indeed.
>>1467700>Not even this can be 'What?'-ed awayWhy not? Where's the wrong doing on gRumpf's part here? And keep in mind, dRumpf did ban Epstein from Mar-A-Lago and have him arrested and prosecuted.So, while you say it can't be "What-ed?" away, can you explain in detail why you believe your image shows anything worthwhile?
>>1467701What?
https://epsteinsblackbook.com/all-nameshttps://epsteinsblackbook.com/black-book-images/80.jpg
>dRumpf did ban Epstein from Mar-A-Lago and have him arrested and prosecutedThere's nothing to lose for Trump by releasing the files completely unredacted then.
>>1467710Probably not see >>1467698
