not wish to make sure victims were not revictimized yet again...

Obviously all that overtime money, the *rump administration spent on 1000 FBI agents going through the emails to flag his name has been the DOJ's primary focus of concern, not the victims.

of all the elites that *rump was protecting along with himself.

The Khanna/Massie bill, unanimously approved by the Senate and signed by the President within the past week or so specifically includes provisions to protect the victims identities.

The last paragraph of the OP lays out clearly who the victims blame for this along with the non-responsiveness of the DOJ, but you would rather blame a Democrat than *rump's DOJ which has been stonewalling this issue since May?

Good for him. Not blaming anyone other than those demanding full release with no redactions. I have seen other posts calling for no redactions, but since I can't find them now, I guess I was just making it up.

I thought it was the House Oversight Committee that released the Epstein estate emails anyway

Good for all of us.

As for blame how about listening to the victims and their attorneys as to who is to blame.

Of course, gross incompetence runs neck to neck with the explanations, but...

Public disclosure of private facts is the publication of the private affairs of another person when the disclosures would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.[11] For example, a creditor puts a notice in a store owner’s window saying the owner owes money and hasn’t paid.

This is different from defamation in that the published material in question may be true, but is especially private. The publication requirement is far greater than it is for defamation. Merely telling a third party is not enough. The private facts must be broadcast to a broad audience.[12]

If the matter is the subject of legitimate public concern, then the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of the press guarantees protect the publication from lawsuits. Because of the complexity of determining what is a public concern, some jurisdictions don’t recognize this type of invasion of privacy, though excessive disclosure of facts that are truly private can be actionable under the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.[13]

The question of whether a story about a public figure is newsworthy is complex and fact-specific. For example, reporting on a secret medical condition of an actor may not be protected because the actor’s health may not be of public concern beyond mere curiosity, while the secret medical condition of a high-ranking elected official might be of legitimate public concern.

In one case, a woman won a suit against a movie studio for the publicity of facts regarding her private life, when the studio made a movie about her past as a prostitute.[14] However, in another case though, a magazine published a ‘Where Are They Now?’ article about a formerly well-known child prodigy. Although the man had withdrawn completely from public life and sought privacy, the court determined that his life story was still a legitimate public interest.[15] Seemingly inconsistent results from different jurisdictions underscore the complexity of this issue.

https://www.lawshelf.com/shortvideoscontentview/the-torts-of-invasion-of-privacy