Unlikely. Remember that the House Intelligence Committee has a full set of Top-Secret clearances, as well as the Senate Intelligence Committee.
They're not allowed to tell us any top-secret information, but you can usually tell if something is getting hidden from the public based on their reactions. If something is getting hidden, expect Ron Wyden (or other Democrats on those Committees) to make a big, vague, stink about the matter.
In effect, the existence of those top-secret committees ensures that the redactions are fair. Unlike most committees, the law states that Democrats AND Republicans must be as close to 50/50 split on those committees as possible, due to their great importance in matters such as these.
Security clearance has no impact on most of the reasons things are redacted in this, which are not classification. There will be apparently a version with fewer (but not no) redactions shared with a limited number of members of Congress, but there's been no indication that it would be members of the intelligence committees. (I'd expected members—or maybe just leadership from both parties—of the Judiciary Committee.)
> In effect, the existence of those top-secret committees ensures that the redactions are fair.
No, it doesn't in general, and it most obviously doesn't on matters like the Mueller Report where redactions aren't even notionally due to classification and where those conmittees don't get the unredacted versions.
Hmmm... you bring up some strong points. I'll have to do research later and confirm / reconfirm my armchair lawyer powers.
But for now, I should note that Volume II of the report has very, very few redactions.
This is important because Volume I seems to implicitly exonerate Trump (at least, Muller doesn't seem to think there's anything here).
Volume II however, Obstruction of Justice, seems to be the issue that Congress should look into. Since Volume II (Obstruction of Justice) is mostly available to the public / non-secret, I'm feeling pretty confident that Congress has what it needs to act (or decide to not act). There are a few "HOM" (harm to ongoing matter) redactions, but the evidence is laid out pretty cleanly.
I guess we'll worry about that when we get there. There are plenty of real problems in the US system of law that we really shouldn't be trying to fix hypothetical problems that don't exist yet.
