I can understand blocking out such things like a social security number or things like that ... because that would fall under the category of private
But to block out a name of who conducted the audits ... is not private
And looks like a cover up by the courts to reshape an outcome of an election
Do you remember during the Democrat primaries before the last election, when there were questions regarding papers that Howard Dean had "locked away" from when he was Governor of Vermont...and he kept refusing, because of possible patient/doctor disclosure...or some such???
I heard the other day...that he has succeeded in getting a court to let his papers stay "hidden"...which makes me very suspicious...
He was told that any names would be deleted..and any personal or medical information deleted...but he still wouldn't release them...
The same goes here....like you said---just so long as no "unsuspecting" citizen's personal information gets out...we should know if there was any "broken rules" by the Clinton Administration..