Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.992 [SLACK_001206] · slack_pm:msg:10342

Date: 2021-08-16 17:53
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen
Topics: Intelligence community assessments

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

(because, presumably, the intelligence community already have them - which is fine, I still find it annoying these were so heavily redacted)

Extracted statements

Rule-extracted, not adjudicated. The grade says what may be done with each one; read the document above before relying on any of them.

Statement	Grade	Attribution	Stance
(because, presumably, the intelligence community already have them - which is fine, I still find it annoying these were so heavily redacted)	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

(because, presumably, the intelligence community already have them - which is fine, I still find it annoying these were so heavily redacted)

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2021-08-16 17:37 Andrew Rambaut open

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.
2021-08-16 17:42 Kristian G. Andersen open

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 open

I just don't believe these emails will stay confidential
2021-08-16 17:52 Kristian G. Andersen open

That's my concern too. To be clear though - they might well already have them.
2021-08-16 17:53 Kristian G. Andersen

(because, presumably, the intelligence community already have them - which is fine, I still find it annoying these were so heavily redacted)
2021-08-16 18:14 Robert F. Garry open

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.

Full conversation →