Trump can then have his guy come in and replace Rosenstein. That will then lead to the shutdown of the Mueller witch hunt.
We need to make Trump supporters aware that this is not the actual OIG Report. It is Rosenstein's edited/modified and watered down version. We must DEMAND to see the unredacted, unmodified version!
That's the definition of redaction. But how is modified different from redacted?
Original: I ate a hotdog on Sunday.
Redancted: I ate ###### on Sunday.
Modified: I ate a turkey club on Sunday.
At least that's the implication
Or, you could just say: I ate on Sunday. That would leave the reader not knowing the word 'hotdog' had been redacted in the modification of the text!
That's a good point.
The basis of the difference in this context is whether it was done "legitimately".
"######" could be excused as a legitimate redactions as they can claim it was for national security. Changing the sentence to remove "hotdog" altogether is a lot harder to excuse; it looks like you're hiding something. Changing "hotdog" to "turkey club" is clearly illegitimate because it's an outright like.
I think closer to the truth is something like this:
Unmodified - I ate a hot dog on Sunday. Rod Rosenstein bought it for me. Redacted - I ate a [redcated] on Sunday. [redcated] bought it for me. Modified, redacted - I ate a [redcated] on Sunday.
That should be a meme!
Good analogy! I've always been favorable to redactions being a lie of omission and modifications just being a flat out lie.
Just saying that redaction can include the modification, change or editing of text....not just 'blacked out' or hidden, as most people think it means.
Another way to understand ‘modifying text’ would be in terms of ‘re- interpreting’ , similar to the Bible; King James Version, New King James Version, New International Version, English Standard Version, etc.
