>>23497225 pb
>>23496988 pb
I just listen to the first few moment but she was given immunity.
If she confessed anything, she couldn't be charged for it.
One more thing: The tapes are not redacted?
Why did they redact transcripts if tapes are available?
a concise explanation based on standard practices in legal document releases:Legal and Privacy Protections:Redaction in Transcripts: The PDFs (e.g., Maxwell Interview Transcript Day 1 (Redacted).pdf) are redacted to comply with legal requirements, such as protecting sensitive information (e.g., personal data, classified details, or information under court orders). Redactions might cover names, dates, or specifics deemed confidential under laws like the Privacy Act or FOIA exemptions.
Audio Availability: The audio files (e.g., 7 parts + 2 test recordings for Day 1) may be unredacted or less redacted because audio is harder to edit precisely without distorting content. Releasing raw audio ensures transparency while redactions in transcripts allow targeted removal of sensitive text.
Practical Reasons:Different Formats, Different Handling: Transcripts are easier to redact (e.g., blacking out text) than audio, where editing might require cutting segments, potentially altering context. The Justice Department likely prioritizes redacting text for clarity while releasing audio to preserve the full interview context.
Public Access Balance: Releasing both formats balances transparency (full audio) with legal compliance (redacted text). Listeners can hear the full context, but written records omit protected details.
I just spot checked it, but get the feeling she is lying.
Too many um-s , er-s … ah… …. spinning,
Or did they redact the audio with blips? Haven't checked that yet.
Grok could be wrong.
>>23497675 lb
It's a seckret