. . . "Sure it would be embarrassing to have one’s name attached to these emails, but the law says redactions are permitted only for “clearly unwarranted invasion[s] of personal privacy.”
"Perhaps if these emails were being produced in response to a scandal involving, say, the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, then revealing the senders’ names would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy. But this is a case expressly about an international sex ring, the collection of kompromat, and the entire absence of law enforcement.
"The names of men joking about their carnal knowledge of Epstein’s girls is precisely why Congress ordered the files released. (Well, that and the possibility of impeaching Trump.)
"Not only names, but way too many faces are blacked out. (And I’m ordinarily a big fan of people working in blackface.
"The files include a boatload of photos from Epstein’s private collection, showing men having every kind of sex with young girls. The girls’ faces are blacked out, obviously — but so are the men’s. Ordinarily, showing their faces would be a wild violation of their privacy, but the law clearly states that redactions are not allowed for “embarrassment” or “reputational harm.”
"These guys were either Epstein’s co-conspirators or his marks. Even if the girls were of age and the sex was consensual, those photos could still be used for blackmail (and the occasional Christmas card photo).
"If we saw their faces, it could explain why it took so long to bring Epstein to justice. It might help answer the peculiarly unresolved mystery of who told Alex Acosta, the U.S. attorney who struck the second plea deal with Epstein, that he “belonged to intelligence”? (Why do we still not know that?)
"Shockingly, The New York Times, remembering that it’s a newspaper, has done fantastic work on the files. Only because the paper pursued the matter, did the government un-redact a face in one photo. It showed a Mount Sinai doctor performing surgery on a girl laid out on Epstein’s dining room table — an unheard-of ethical breach. Based on other files, the Times figured out it was Dr. Jess Ting. But, when contacted by the paper, he denied it. After the DOJ unredacted the photo, showing Ting’s bright, smiling face, he stopped returning the paper’s calls.
"Only 2.9 million pages to go."
No comments:
Post a Comment