**** NEARLY 1/3rd OF MUELLER REPORT IS REDACTED! *****

[uponit7771]

We were warned yesterday.

This is not the Mueller Report, this is a heavily redacted report that means very little now.

The report is non searchable which is not just being behind the times, this is on purpose.




Now it looks like Barr lied about collusion

Corrected redactions to 1/3 which still = horrible

[Bettie]

1. Of course he lied

he lied about the whole thing. Was there ever any doubt?

[uponit7771]

3. Nah, just didn't think Barr would want to be brought up on OoJ charges

[Bettie]

6. He probably won't be

it seems that they are all going to get away with it all.

I need 24 hours to readjust....but right now, I feel hopeless.

No impeachment, because it is still not bipartisan (which it never will be, ever). Committee chairs can subpoena until they are blue in the face and there is no compulsion for anyone to fucking appear, no teeth in anything.

Feels like we're about half a step from "dear leader".

[uponit7771]

9. Looks fucked up but I still think the people can bring up the matter with pressure. I don't see ...

... a dem campaiging for president saying they want to "move on".

That persons campaign will be in the dumps before the end of the day

[Bettie]

20. Yeah...I just need

a minute to regroup and accept that our government is fatally flawed. All of it was based on the assumption that there would not be an entire party of people willing to sacrifice everything on the altar of an evil idiot.

[uponit7771]

22. I know man, I feel the same damn way ... on the real

[gratuitous]

2. As I said yesterday, "light redaction" means . . .

"Light redaction" means "whatever we don't want to expose to the light of day will be redacted."

[durablend]

4. Has anyone seen

If any mention of "HER EMAILS" or "OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE" in there? Surely since those *wouldn't* be redacted...

[uponit7771]

5. +1

[demmiblue]

7. That's not true. n/t

[uponit7771]

23. This is false

[demmiblue]

25. You're right, the OP is false. n/t

[uponit7771]

26. I used the world "nearly" and space isn't words or characters or contexts, you should know what

... you're talking about before wading in.

[demmiblue]

29. Go scan through the document; it is not even close to what you claim.

[uponit7771]

30. I did and you're still wrong, take out a word or two or a paragraph and the context is m

... missing.

That's not even counting ... CHARACTERS ... and space !!!

You're wrong on this, give this one up.

[demmiblue]

31. Lol... my goodness. n/t

[uponit7771]

34. Yeah, that's factually convincing :rolleyes:

[Maven]

8. You should be able to OCR it and make it searchable, no?

Might take forever on that many pages but it should work.

[spooky3]

10. Exactly. I don't know why this is an issue. Nt

[uponit7771]

11. Yes, OCR would work but half of it being redacted isn't going to help in full context.

[pangaia]

32. What is OCR ?

[Lochloosa]

36. Optical character recognition

Optical character recognition or optical character reader, often abbreviated as OCR, is the mechanical or electronic conversion of images of typed, handwritten or printed text into machine-encoded text, whether from a scanned document, a photo of a document, a scene-photo (for example the text on signs and billboards in a landscape photo) or from subtitle text superimposed on an image (for example from a television broadcast).[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_character_recognition



https://www.onlineocr.net/

[LanternWaste]

37. Optical Character Recognition

It's a technology to recognize text inside images, such as scanned documents and photos. OCR is used to convert virtually any kind of images containing written text (typed, handwritten or printed) into machine-readable text data.

In other words, I can take a photograph of a page of text, upload the photo into an OCR program, and then get the text as a word file.

[pangaia]

38. Does that mean it can read the words that are redacted in black?

[LanternWaste]

44. It depends on the data input

If the original file I OCR'd from was a photograph, no.

If the file was a pdf or a word document though, it depends on the security options I choose when I create the file.

I could write a page in Office or Illustrator or Quark or any of a hundred different writing programs and when I save it, I can enable or disable the option to allow lines of text I highlight in black (redact) to be readable or not readable by an OCR application.

Most of the time, since I don't deal w/ secure files, it's not an issue. For the most part, securing a redacting portion of a file isn't something most people worry about. Also, a lot of people aren't aware of OCR programs and don't give consideration to ensuring a document's security options.

I think a few leaks have happened because the end user never chose (or considered) the security options and thought their redacted file was safe when it wasn't.

[uponit7771]

45. No, OCR in this case won't read those words if they're missing

[better]

40. Optical Character Recognition

Basically, it converts bitmap (photo) text to digital, searchable text.

[SergeStorms]

12. You didn't honestly believe a republican, did you?

Of course it was always going to be heavily redacted. They lie as easily as they breathe.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

13. Redacted to protect "Ongoing Matters"

There must be a lot of ongoing matters still percolating out there. It also doesn't make Trump or Trump Jr. look very good. It was clear that Trump was trying to encourage Manafort "not to cooperate". That sounds awful obstructiony to me.

[Amishman]

14. Half is redacted or half has redactions?

Huge difference between them and I'm hearing it phrased both ways.

Anyone know which it is?

[uponit7771]

17. True, but either is still not the Mueller report

[Amishman]

33. A completely unredacted copy is not reasonable

It would compromise intelligence sources and other investigations. I downloaded the public copy and the redactions don't appear unreasonable at first glance.

[uponit7771]

35. To congress it is ...

[lagomorph777]

41. Visually way less than 50% is blacked out.

Lots of the (very suspicious) green "Personal Privacy" or "PP" redactions are pretty easy to guess - they appear to be protecting Kushner, Erik Prince, and Roger Stone.

[obamanut2012]

15. OCR it

[SWBTATTReg]

16. So ask Barr if rump and cronies didn't do anything wrong, why is this report redacted so much? nt

[asiliveandbreathe]

18. All the sad redacted - all the tissue boxes used - nothing to see here - just don't want the pos

to be seen as weak...sad - baby filled tantrums - don'tchaknow… - this admin is a disgrace - are there any good patriots among them? - NO....

This whole episode is a disgrace...if there is no there, there - then why redact...

[Hassler]

19. Never thought anything could make AG John Mitchell look ethical, but then came Barr

[uponit7771]

21. +1, didn't Mitchell have his wife locked up ?!!?

[gldstwmn]

24. And yet it still reveals 10 instances

of potential obstruction of justice. The full report will come out.

[uponit7771]

28. +1, so true

[C_U_L8R]

27. Do your job Congress

Subpoena the full report and all witnesses.

[lagomorph777]

39. Visually, that doesn't appear to be the case, and I am seeing plenty of damaging material in there.

Trump's ass is cooked.

[uponit7771]

43. By character and context not just by space ...

[Takket]

42. Barr obstructed justice and should be impeached right alongside his master