Once again, you've lost all train of thought and the point of the debate after two posts. Let's go back just a few posts when you questioned that it was "both sides?" inferring it was not both sides that established the rules. You took your asskicking and morphed to Thomas Massie. Indeed, WTF.
So now you're on to the following (so as to move off of the topic you've been humiliated on:
So now it's not Thomas Massie, it's not saying only one side made the rules, now you're hyper-focusing on the word "erroneous".
You've made up your mind that the redactions were all wrong so you can try to point your finger at the DOJ. But see, a quick search of the interwebs (research, you should try it sometime) say your conclusion is false. It's your opinion, not fact.
Summary:
- Many feel rules in the Epstein Files Transparency Act were not consistently followed—but it’s disputed
- Legally: The DOJ claims it generally complied with the Act.
- Practically / politically: There is substantial bipartisan criticism and evidence that: Some redactions violated the law’s limits; Others were poorly executed or inconsistent; Victim protections were unevenly applied
- Status: Still under investigation and dispute—no definitive ruling yet.
- There’s credible evidence of both over-redaction (possibly illegal) and under-redaction (privacy failures)
But yep, sure, betcha...your religious leaders have told you the release was just full of errors and like a good cult member, you've drunk the Kool-aid.
Now...back to the shooting at the White House, shall we?
