Without a doubt, this material has been scrubbed and censored and altered. There are no lengths to which this administration (or any other) would go to, to safeguard publishing material that might be used against them or their associates.

There is no reason that anyone should consider these briefs credible (I'm sure some details are truthy). At best, it's performative theater.

> Why redacted still

Because a number of the people associated with this are still alive on all sides.

1998-2001 was only 25-28 years ago, so a lot of sources are still alive or active sources as we speak, and in a number of cases now decisionmakers in theirs early-mid 60s.

It's the same way how a KGB liaison officer in 1989 Dresden ended up invading Ukraine 25 years later.

> Interesting to read but … why bother?

It still has academic value, and plenty of information to be garnered.

Distraction from Epstein?