Sounds to me like some people wanted to "sit" on those documents

[moniss]

in SDNY and some other people weren't having it. Also how can the FBI develop nearly 2 million documents, that we know of so far, and yet supposedly there is "nothing there" beyond Maxwell? Nobody should buy that line of BS.

I would also note for what it's worth that the story being pedaled about how "the Dems had 4 years and could have released the files" is BS also and none of the media weasels are pushing back on it. Maxwell went to trial in 2021 after having been a fugitive. She was sentenced in the middle of 2022. There were post-trial moves by her lawyers also. Her appeal of her conviction was not decided until September of 2024. Releasing the files during all of this would have been fodder for a claim of prejudicial/vindictive disclosure and grounds to throw the case out.

Also any additional work that Wray and the FBI were doing would have been compromised.

Amazing how the man who lies about everything is now supposed to be believed on this issue of sexual crimes. We are asked to believe this despite his confessions of a sexual crime to a reporter and to a radio host about two separate types of sexual crimes. The first was the uninvited grabbing of the private parts of women which is a crime and depending on the state and their definitions it gets charged accordingly. The second was the open admission on the Howard Stern Show about his pageants:

" Well, I'll tell you the funniest is that before a show, I'll go backstage and everyone's getting dressed, and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere, and I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I'm inspecting it. You know, I'm inspecting because I want to make sure that everything is good. [...] You know, the dresses. 'Is everyone okay?' You know, they're standing there with no clothes. 'Is everybody okay?' And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that. But no, I've been very good."

What he considers being "very good" or "inspecting" is a crime. States vary but for example here is the California code:

"Peeking into Bathroom, Bedroom,
or Dressing Room (Invasion of Privacy)
Penal Code 647(j)(1)
Law, Punishment, & Defense

Information on the crime of peeking into a bathroom, bedroom, changing room, or changing room is found at California penal code 647(j)(1).

​

PC 647(J)(1) Law: A person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, including, but not limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camera, motion picture camera, camcorder, mobile phone, electronic device, or unmanned aircraft system, the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside, is guilty or peeking into a bathroom, bedroom, or changing room."

Whether you peek or barge in you are still invading the privacy and committing the act. There can be jail time in states and a requirement to register as a sex offender.

Other countries as well have cases of men thinking it's OK to try and ogle women in dressing rooms. I've included a link to a case in the UK where a man was convicted for pulling back a curtain and he was convicted even though the woman was mostly clothed.

The bottom line is that for years men have gotten away with "goosing a waitress" as she walks by, "copping a feel" of a breast, uninvited kissing and all manner of touching and groping for far too long as women were told to "get over it" or "it was just horseplay" etc.

Normalizing this behavior when combined with money, success in business/sports etc. leads to the "entitled" attitude towards women and girls displayed by the scum like Crumb The 1st and other men. It doesn't matter whether men think it's "no big deal" or women and girls should "take it" as they go through their day in employment, pursuit of career in entertainment, on the street, in a dressing room or anywhere else on the planet. It's wrong and it is a crime and someone who brags about multiple instances in various settings is not a "bawdy" "locker room talking" man. He is a sexual predator with multiple self confessed occurrences.

https://www.sexcrimesdefenselawyer.com/pc647j1-peeking-into-bathroom-or-dressing-room-penal-code-647-j-1

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/selfridges-womens-changing-room-sexual-harassment-b2663967.html

https://lipinskilaw.com/blog/is-unwanted-sexual-contact-considered-sexual-assault/

https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/lewd-lascivious-behavior/#what_are_the_criminal_penalties_for_lewd_or_lascivious_acts

[Bev54]

1. There has been several stories about how copying the redacted documents into a word document

would result in the full text being shown. Why have those unredacted document not been put out in public, if that is the case? We all want to read the materials and I would like to read the grand jury transcripts in particular. Many people have read full documents but nobody is making it public for everyone else. What the hell.

[Igel]

2. Because the counter claim was all restrictive.

That only a small set of them could be viewed that way, all originating in one office in a US territory, documents redacted by the territorial government and which displayed on screen and printed properly but which didn't have the PDF layers merged, so that they were still separable.

Now, the general reaction to that was this was an obvious lie--but for all the wanting to see under the black boxes of redactorial death, you know, it's only that small set of documents that's made the rounds in unredacted form.

Given the jonesing to see them and the simple fact that others haven't escaped into the wild, I'm willing to grant that the counter claim might, just might, not be wrong. Lack of evidence can, in rare occasions, be evidence. (Just like you can't logically prove a negative, but there are circumstances where lack of evidence when there's overwhelming pressure and opportunity to locate evidence doesn't leave much other choice.)

I also have no problem with the claim that of the many 10s of thousands of document already released more than that small number might be crappily edited, but evidence would be nice (because claims just aren't evidence in the real world). I figure somebody somewhere has the programming chops to scrape a document archive and batch process them to check if this is the case. That would be a good thing (for the 'right to know') but a horrible thing (for the 'right to privacy' and even 'due process'), but I haven't heard that this has been done. I also haven't been obsessing over it, so if it were done and not tossed into the public consciousness I probably wouldn't have noticed.