Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, pp.1046-1047 [SLACK_001260] · slack_pm:msg:10953

Page text: p.1046, p.1047 · original PDF

Date: 2022-01-11 14:17
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen
Topics: FOIA, records and transparency

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

Yeah, I think this is coming from Jeremy - this is what they say in the document: "These emails were originally produced redacted via the Freedom of Information Act and subsequently to Committee Republicans. At the request of Committee Republicans and pursuant to the Seven Member Rule, _*the Department of Health and Human Services made unredacted versions available for an in camera review but not available to the public. Committee staff, to the best of their ability, hand transcribed the contents of the emails*_ andexcerpts of those transcriptions are reproduced below. Unless otherwise noted, emphasis is added. "So Bob's quotes and Farzan's quotes are very likely from Jeremy's 2/2 email - which means that Jeremy either had access to our emails (- Bob) on 2/2 or he was forwarded some of the content from our threads on 2/1. I'm pretty sure it's gotta be the latter.

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
Yeah, I think this is coming from Jeremy - this is what they say in the document: "These emails were originally produced redacted via the Freedom of Information Act and subsequently to Committee Republicans.	needs context	uncertain explicit hedge	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

needs context

uncertain explicit hedge

asserts

In context

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

2022-01-11 14:02 Edward C. Holmes open

I'll ask Jeremy
2022-01-11 14:03 Edward C. Holmes open

But if Tony etc had them why were they not released before
2022-01-11 14:05 Kristian G. Andersen open

No, not released before - transcribed as per the Comer/Jordan document.
2022-01-11 14:14 Andrew Rambaut open

Nothing was released from Edinburgh - lawyers rejected requests and as far as I know it was upheld (or not appealed to) the registrar. I hadn't even handed over my emails to our own lawyers.
2022-01-11 14:17 Kristian G. Andersen

Yeah, I think this is coming from Jeremy - this is what they say in the document: "These emails were originally produced redacted via the Freedom of Information Act and subsequently to Committee Republicans. At the request of Committee Republicans and pursuant to the Seven Member Rule, _*the Department of Health and Human Services made unredacted versions available for an in camera review but not available to the public. Committee staff, to the best of their ability, hand transcribed the contents of the emails*_ andexcerpts of those transcriptions are reproduced below. Unless otherwise noted, emphasis is added. "So Bob's quotes and Farzan's quotes are very likely from Jeremy's 2/2 email - which means that Jeremy either had access to our emails (- Bob) on 2/2 or he was forwarded some of the content from our threads on 2/1. I'm pretty sure it's gotta be the latter.
2022-01-11 14:28 Robert F. Garry open

Have to say it's weird. I'm gonna get several Dr. Garry didn't return out call mentions...
2022-01-11 14:44 Edward C. Holmes open

Here's our chat after the Farzan email. I say I'll pass the info to Jeremy. But I just can't see the email where I've done that. [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2022-01-12 at 9.42.09 am.png]
2022-01-11 14:49 Kristian G. Andersen open

Ah, yes - so probably there was a separate email to Jeremy where you summarized all of this.
2022-01-11 14:50 Edward C. Holmes open

Ok, I've found a Word docx with those emails which I assume I sent to Jeremy as an attachment although I can't find the email. It

Full conversation →