Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Wiz Imp

(9,117 posts)
6. It's explicitly stated in the law what can and can't be redacted.
Fri Dec 19, 2025, 09:36 PM
Dec 19

What can be redacted:

(1) The Attorney general may withhold or redact the segregable portions of records that—
(A) contain personally identifiable information of victims or victims’ personal and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(B) depict or contain child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) as defined under 18 U.S.C. 2256 and prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 2252–2252A;
(C) would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary;
(D) depict or contain images of death, physical abuse, or injury of any person;
(E) contain information specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.

You'll notice there is nothing in there to justify redacting names of people who had interaction with Epstein just because naming them would cause them embarrassment. In fact, the law explicitly stated the opposite.
(1) No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.

Too bad if you're embarassed by being connected to Epstein. Even if you're innocent, the law explicitly bars the DOJ from redacting your name.

Recommendations

10 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The coverup continues Blues Heron Dec 19 #1
Well. If this is a transcript of a videotaped deposition, Volaris Dec 19 #2
Good point. Wiz Imp Dec 19 #7
Let the motions and lawsuits to compel compliance begin pat_k Dec 19 #3
It's explicitly stated in the law what can and can't be redacted. Wiz Imp Dec 19 #6
Protecting the criminals. Color me surprised! NOT! BComplex Dec 19 #13
Huh? These restrictions in the law are expicitly to NOT protect the criminals. Wiz Imp Dec 19 #16
Got it! BComplex Dec 20 #23
I understand they have to list legal reasons why each and every redaction was made. halobeam Dec 19 #20
Yep. I believe everything you said is correct. Wiz Imp Dec 20 #22
They probably will claim that [redacted] os an ongoing investigation Bluetus Dec 20 #30
Besides the general hideousness of this (and all the girls, young women violated)... electric_blue68 Dec 19 #4
All redactions by law, were supposed to come with Emile Dec 19 #5
I think that is what is due 15 days from today? halobeam Dec 20 #21
And the Trump Administration moved Maxwell to a much cushier prison too. Botany Dec 19 #8
Agreed. And given the specific question about Victoria's Secret lingerie Wiz Imp Dec 19 #9
Les Wexner is the person behind Victoria's Secrets and the brand but he would have no interest in a woman Botany Dec 19 #12
Sorry, but info released in January 2024 confirms it WAS Wexner she was talking about. Wiz Imp Dec 19 #15
That is surprising Botany Dec 19 #18
Wow. Who is questioning her? Demanding, borderline mean. Horrible. Joinfortmill Dec 19 #10
This was in relation to lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz brought by Giuffre's lawyer. Wiz Imp Dec 19 #11
Ah, that explains it. Joinfortmill Dec 19 #14
Working link: Celerity Dec 19 #17
The only way Bondi will release this is when she sees the handcuffs coming for her. mn9driver Dec 19 #19
Guiffre's 2015 testimony against Maxwell in her civil case mentioned in the OP has long been publicly available AZJonnie Dec 20 #24
I won't dispute any of the points you make, however you are wrong about one thing. Wiz Imp Dec 20 #25
Okay, my bad. I thought your post was in two parts, top and bottom (2015 and 2016 testimonies) AZJonnie Dec 20 #26
Like I said. I agree. Especially about Bondi. Wiz Imp Dec 20 #28
I don't think she understood that president and prime minister are essentially the same thing. everyonematters Dec 20 #27
I think the questioner was trying to trip her up. Wiz Imp Dec 20 #29
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»*****Updated***** I pulle...»Reply #6