A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
I don't think we should release ANY emails unless we absolutely have to. The problem is that if an email is releasedto one organisation then that acts as a precedent for others to ask. So, I'm strongly against.
-
This is what my lawyers told me.
-
I have no individual problem with my email going in there - it is exactly what I still believe. But I agree with Eddie. However - one request/suggestion. If you do send emails it is better not to have them as a nested thread so you can see who responded to who. Just have them as individual emails with their own headers. Also remove my signaturefrom the bottom.
-
I agree with Eddie's concern and I flagged this exact issue with the lawyers. The difference here being that we're dealing with a confidential response to congress and not entities like US RTK.That said, I'm in agreement with Eddie's concern, so let me relay that to our lawyers - I think they'll chose to _not_ include based on that feedback. (Emails 1 and 3 will be included, but they're already public unredacted).
-
2021-08-16 17:51
Edward C. Holmes
I just don't believe these emails will stay confidential
-
That's my concern too. To be clear though - they might well already have them.
-
(because, presumably, the intelligence community already have them - which is fine, I still find it annoying these were so heavily redacted)
-
Scripps letter is all fine with me. Yes, you can be sure that Tony gave the Intelligence Community the unredactedemails from February 1, 2. Based on a conversation that I had with the FBI and CIA I'm sure they have had everything (excepting this Slack channel) for some time, including the Bloom emails.