Here's an attorney friend of mine's take on the "scrubbing" of the Epstein files

[CC27]

Sogo (6,841 posts)

Here's an attorney friend of mine's take on the "scrubbing" of the Epstein files:

"But something else occurred to me which may cut against the notion of scrubbing the files.
All the Epstein files in the possession of the DOJ were presumably obtained over the the course of multiple investigations and interviews, including discovery in legal proceedings, including the criminal cases against Maxwell and Epstein.
In the ordinary course of document discovery, the documents obtained are numbered - lawyers call it Bates numbering after the old Bates automatic numbering “machines” (heavy stamping devices that rotated an inked number wheel to sequentially hand-number documents.)
The way it works is that all documents are scanned into a computer, usually converted to pdf if they already exist in an electronic file format, and then a computer program like Acrobat Pro, automatically, sequentially numbers them (it could be hundreds of thousands of documents) very quickly.
The numbering app within the program also allows for other alphanumeric characters to be added as either headers or footers, to function, for example as source identifier.
So a Bates number might be GM-0000001 (first document from Ghislaine Maxwell) or JE-0000001 (from Jeffrey Epstein).
Most commonly the Bates number is placed in the lower right hand corner of every page.
It is nearly impossible to unnumber the pages. So, if there is a mass document dump, all the pages should be, at least theoretically, sequentially numbered.
If pages are pulled, there will be gaps in the sequence of numbers..
Now, the program that does the Bates numbering also allows for redactions of words or word sequences (names are words) and it is certainly possible to conceal information via redactions and claim “victim privacy protection,” as if these corrupt grifters cared about that at all. They can redact whole pages, preserving the numerical page sequence while functionally not producing any information.
We will all have a better sense of the particular subterfuge being employed later in the week."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220811780

Is he a ninja lawyer?

[FlippyDoo]

It stills down to...if there are incriminating stuff against Trump in the files why did the administration who went as far as to create BS trying to incriminate Trump not release the info?

I know that for years we've laughed at how stupid DUers are, but I'm beginning to think that their level of intelligence may actually be somewhere below stupid. They may actually have a lower level intelligence than a cadaver that has had it's brain completely removed.

[SVPete]

DUpipo actually believe there are not several back-up copies under Dems' custody/control?

It does not take even slight genius to see that Dems know the files do not show Trump did anything illegal or shady, and they preemptively answering, falsely, the "Why?!" question.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Yes, Bates is a thing, but not every document acquired during the course of an investigation is responsive in discovery because it may not be relevant, not to be used in trial because it's factually deficient, privileged, someone struck a deal, it's just some poor innocent schmuck caught up by happenstance, etc etc etc. Government is only obligated to produce materials that will be used at trial, establishes provenance for those trial materials, or that may be exculpatory.

[DUmpDiver]

The House HR 4405 bill does not require DOJ to release any classified documents and allows for redaction for several reasons (like victim names.)

Also in the bill:

Additionally, not later than 15 days after the required publication, DOJ must report to Congress
(1) all categories of information released and withheld,
(2) a summary of any redactions made, and
(3) a list of all government officials and politically exposed individuals named or referenced in the published materials.

I predict that (3) will get selectively leaked by both sides.