People have wild theory as to why DOJ messed up redacting some Epstein files

Social media sleuths are alleging that this bizarre theory might be the actual reason the DOJ failed at satisfactorily redacting details in the Epstein files.

Last week (December 19) the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a whole trove of files related to the late billionaire and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

This move came just ahead of the federal law demanding they be made public as per the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Many of the documents went viral on social media, as they included a number of rich and famous individuals.

However, the DOJ was also criticized considerably on social media for so much of the information released being redacted.

As more sleuths analyzed the files released, some individuals realized it was possible to see through the redactions.

Videos on how to do this also quickly spread online, with many surprised at the DOJ’s blunder. This was particularly concerning since the department had said many of the ‘redactions’ were made to protect victims.

One of the survivors of Epstein has spoken out about this failure by the department to redact her name.

Beyond this, there is a theory that is picking up on social media that some people believe is the reason for the redaction blunder.

One X user shared a June 25 Red Line News post that read: “DOGE canceled: “$4,192,431 GSA contract (General Services Administration Contract) for ‘Adobe Acrobat’”

Other users commented on the post about an alleged conversation online with someone who used to work with the DOJ. They argued that the DOJ is very reluctant to give out Adobe Pro subscriptions.

The individual went on to argue that the premium version of Adobe Acrobat is what is needed to correctly make redactions.

If this theory is to be believed, due to cuts made earlier in the year, those who were in charge of releasing the redacted folders were not able to use the program, hence creating a way for internet sleuths to unredact, or read ‘redacted’ material in the files.

Other social media users remarked that working in their own industries and for other companies, they have had to fight to get Adobe in order to be able to make redactions.

One user wrote: “This was my first thought when this story broke. When I first went in-house from a law firm, I had to mount a holy war to get the company to give us all licenses for acrobat DC w/ real redacting tools. Before that, folks were just black highlighting & lettin it rip.”

Another added: “I’ve worked in state and local government for a long time and I absolutely believe this.”

A third wrote: “It’s quite possible. They got rid of anything that they deemed “extra” just because.”

UNILAD has approached the Department of Justice for comment.