5 ms·

What is the point of getting a redacted report? Why is it redacted?

by xutopia 8y ago

KevanM 8y ago
To protect whistle-blowers, or other assets that require anonymity.
- simlevesque 8y ago
  and the president's childrens...
  - bacondude3 8y ago
    Why not wait for evidence of unjust redactions before making a claim like that?
    - simlevesque 8y ago
      We might never know. Do you think we should never think about what was redacted ?
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    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.
    - threatofrain 8y ago
      What if there are 3+ major parties?
      - dragontamer 8y ago
        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.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      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.
      - dragontamer 8y ago
        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.
mandeepj 8y ago
To protect national security
cimmanom 8y ago
It looks like they're concerned that releasing some of the details would compromise other investigations that haven't yet concluded.
penagwin 8y ago
Literally most of the redactions say "Harm on Ongoing Matter", so my best guess is that releasing them would hurt currently running investigations?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 8y ago
The two cited reasons I've noted in the ToC (there may be others in the body) are “personal privacy” and “harm to ongoing matter”; from the structure of the document, it's apparent that a number though possibly not all of the latter concern Wikileaks and/or Roger Stone.
jkoudys 8y ago
Many of us have been deliberately mislead into thinking that because the Special Counsel's office issued a report, that means it's the end. There are still numerous pending trials and pre-arrest indictments. Especially for the pre-arrested, they can't release every detail on what they know about those people. For the pre-trial, they don't want there to be any confusion between wording in the report and what's officially submitted as evidence on discovery.
dragontamer 8y ago
There are 4 categories of redactions in this report. 1. Grand Jury -- Everyone's 5th Amendment Right states that you CANNOT be accused of a crime without a Grand Jury okaying the indictment. Ex: Muller suspected "John Doe" was involved. They looked into the matter, and then "John Doe" wasn't involved. Although a bunch of information on "John Doe" was collected, they need to be kept secret because he's innocent (as per 5th Amendment Rights). Otherwise, the internet hate-machine will hound an innocent man just for being named in the report. 2. Personal Privacy -- 4th Amendment Rights to all citizens. More or less an extension of the concept from #1. 3. Sources and Methods -- Basically, some information could have gotten only through top-secret methodologies. By revealing the information, the opponent (ie: Russia) would learn how we spied on them. So the information would have to be kept secret if we wanna keep our spy-game vs Russia up. 4. Ongoing investigations -- There are cases that have spawned from this report. Those cases are still ongoing, so releasing any information early would harm those cases. This is likely Wikileaks / Julian Assange issues, maybe Roger Stone. We'll get that information later for sure, but releasing it now would be harmful.

What is the point of getting a redacted report? Why is it redacted?

KevanM 8y ago

To protect whistle-blowers, or other assets that require anonymity.

simlevesque 8y ago
and the president's childrens...
- bacondude3 8y ago
  Why not wait for evidence of unjust redactions before making a claim like that?
  - simlevesque 8y ago
    We might never know. Do you think we should never think about what was redacted ?
- dragontamer 8y ago
  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.
  - threatofrain 8y ago
    What if there are 3+ major parties?
    - dragontamer 8y ago
      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.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    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.
    - dragontamer 8y ago
      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.

mandeepj 8y ago

To protect national security

cimmanom 8y ago

It looks like they're concerned that releasing some of the details would compromise other investigations that haven't yet concluded.

penagwin 8y ago

Literally most of the redactions say "Harm on Ongoing Matter", so my best guess is that releasing them would hurt currently running investigations?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 8y ago

The two cited reasons I've noted in the ToC (there may be others in the body) are “personal privacy” and “harm to ongoing matter”; from the structure of the document, it's apparent that a number though possibly not all of the latter concern Wikileaks and/or Roger Stone.

jkoudys 8y ago

Many of us have been deliberately mislead into thinking that because the Special Counsel's office issued a report, that means it's the end. There are still numerous pending trials and pre-arrest indictments. Especially for the pre-arrested, they can't release every detail on what they know about those people. For the pre-trial, they don't want there to be any confusion between wording in the report and what's officially submitted as evidence on discovery.

dragontamer 8y ago

There are 4 categories of redactions in this report. 1. Grand Jury -- Everyone's 5th Amendment Right states that you CANNOT be accused of a crime without a Grand Jury okaying the indictment. Ex: Muller suspected "John Doe" was involved. They looked into the matter, and then "John Doe" wasn't involved. Although a bunch of information on "John Doe" was collected, they need to be kept secret because he's innocent (as per 5th Amendment Rights). Otherwise, the internet hate-machine will hound an innocent man just for being named in the report. 2. Personal Privacy -- 4th Amendment Rights to all citizens. More or less an extension of the concept from #1. 3. Sources and Methods -- Basically, some information could have gotten only through top-secret methodologies. By revealing the information, the opponent (ie: Russia) would learn how we spied on them. So the information would have to be kept secret if we wanna keep our spy-game vs Russia up. 4. Ongoing investigations -- There are cases that have spawned from this report. Those cases are still ongoing, so releasing any information early would harm those cases. This is likely Wikileaks / Julian Assange issues, maybe Roger Stone. We'll get that information later for sure, but releasing it now would be harmful.