Judge seeks to shield Epstein victims after dozens of names exposed in documents release

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

“Transparency CANNOT come at the expense of the privacy, safety, and protection of sexual abuse and sex trafficking victims, especially these survivors who have already suffered repeatedly,” the lawyers wrote.

According to the letter, some victims warned that releasing their names would put them in physical danger. Several told their lawyers that they had been approached on the street by reporters, including one who said she was confronted while standing with her 9-year-old son, according to the letter.

(snip)

In their letter, Edwards and Henderson said some survivors fear the Justice Department “intentionally exposed their names” when it released thousands of unredacted files tied to Epstein’s case to Congress this year.

(snip)

The lawyers also accused the DOJ of creating a “perpetual distraction” through the release of grand jury materials tied to Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, arguing that the documents provide little meaningful information and are being used as a diversion.

(snip)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/judge-epstein-victims-names-exposed-doj-estate-files-congress-rcna246210

[MichMan]

1. I believe it was congress that made them public

[Igel]

3. Yes.

Then there's the question as to whether the level of redaction for materials shipped to the House is or should be the same as the redaction for the general public.

And there's also the minor grumble I viewed around these parts a few days ago about the money spent by the FBI on overtime to redact all the files last spring ... Then more and mildly contradictory reporting about how the DOJ is having to redact files based on the recent legislation and a judge's order requiring expedited release of the (still unreleased) documents.

[underpants]

2. Was that the whole House Oversight Committee or the Dems?

Either way it was a huge screwup.