Ok, so they can take notes. But they can't be used as evidence for anything I assume? DOJ can just say, "well you must've written the wrong document ID in your notes, because that document doesn't say what your notes says it does."

That they can't bring staff members who have been researching the issue is also an odd restriction. As a member of congress, you can go there and look at a tiny sample of 3+ million files, potentially make some handwritten notes. I doubt many members of congress have spent the majority of their last 10 days digging into the files to find lines of investigation into specific files, They do have other things to do, so the restriction for them to not bring anyone who are more familiar with the files simply seems like another roadblock for this exercise to be useful to anybody.

I guess it needs a bit more work then. Looks promising otherwise.

He seems to have done this a number of times. There's also one for Bannon, from June 30th, 2019, a week before he was arrested:

https://jmail.world/thread/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029622?view=sent

The justice department has released a total of about 3.5m files related to Epstein, and Raskin said there were around 3m more awaiting release. The Maryland congressman said he was only able to review about 30 to 40 of the unredacted files that had been released at one of four computers set up at the justice department facility, which lawmakers must enter without bringing any electronic devices, or staff members who have been researching the issue alongside them.

What exactly is the point of this exercise from the DOJ? Is it to appear transparent about what they have on file, with no real consequences to them? You can only go alone, and you can't make a physical copies or even write down any details of what you have read in those unredacted files. So you come out of there, by yourself, with just what you have retained in memory, of what you've read, some 10 days after the files have been released, and just a few needles have been established to exist in that massive haystack.

Say you go there, you find documents where the name of a high ranking government official has not been redacted, and the context this official appears in, is highly suspicious, and contradicts what has been publicly shared by the government until now.

What can you do about it then? What are your options, if any? Would you then tell a fellow government official to go and verify it, by finding the same file? And then what happens? Anything?

I don't get it.

Whenever I start typing anything in the search field on the page, the entire content disappears.

Anyone else experiencing that?

"bradk" could be Bard Karp, a lawyer. He resigned because of his exposure in the files:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/04/business/brad-karp-paul-weiss-resigns-epstein.html

Related reporting:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/former-florida-gov-charlie-crist-denies-speaking-to-jeffrey-epstein-about-a-pardon/ar-AA1VLSwD