> I assume they have records who redacted which documents

(1) Considering it was a rush job (2) general ineptness of this administration and (3) the management wouldn't have defined the explicit job description ("completely black out, not use black highlighter"), the likeliness that there is any evidence that this was intentionally malicious is pretty low.

This happens too regularly across both minor and major issues for me to think this is entirely redactors intentionally messing up. It's just a lot of people being pulled on to the job and not all of them are competent. Maybe some of it is intentional but not all of it I'm certain.

Some peopledo things acknowledging that there may be backlash for an action when they feel it's the right thing to do.

Snowden being an extreme example, I feel really sorry for what happened to him but he really did the right thing.

Yes they may get fired, but it will be difficult to prove intent and very easy to claim incompetence.

So I don’t think there will be jail time if that’s what you’re referring to.

The mal-redacted file actually points to a crime itself of redacting things it shouldn't have.

Or, if there is indeed an ongoing investigation on those two, it could be leaking that fact, right?

Not in this case, this is just a cover for the guilty because this shows that Epsteins Estate also works for Trump. The rot runs deep. There is no investigation, that is the point.

Out of a thousand people? Where they probably have an email from a PHB that says something like "put a black box over all references to <this list of things?"?