3 ms·

The emails are actually unredacted [1], and the fact that they are released by the opposition party shouldn't be surprising. I'm not sure they tell us anything

The emails are actually unredacted [1], and the fact that they are released by the opposition party shouldn't be surprising. I'm not sure they tell us anything new though. We already knew that they were scientists who had this suspicion in the early days of the pandemic (some publicly stated that, e.g. David Baltimore [2]). [1]: See the note in the beginning of Appendix I: https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Letter-Re.-Feb-1-Emails-011122.pdf https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2... [2]: LA Times: A Nobel laureate backs off from claiming a ‘smoking gun’ for the COVID-19 lab-leak theory https://archive.fo/F440c https://archive.fo/F440c

dillondoyle 5y ago
It seems like the transcriptions in that R press release don't include everything? It seems like some of the text might be missing. For instance on page 14 the greyed out FOIA is pretty long but they only write "…[Eddie Holmes] arguing against engineering but repeated passage is still an option…" Is that the actual word for word text of the redacted email or is that just the congressional staffer's summary of a longer paragraph that refutes the point they are trying to make? Also kind of odd that some LA was allowed to not only bring paper to transcribe but also they release it. I guess it probably isn't classified in that case, but then begs the question why it didn't pass FOIA
- finite_jest 5y ago
  > Is that the actual word for word text of the redacted email or is that just the congressional staffer's summary of a longer paragraph that refutes the point they are trying to make? I think your suspicion is correct, there are omissions in the "unredacted" version too. They kinda do allude to this by saying "excerpts of those transcriptions are reproduced below", which I had not noticed. Probably all the dot dot dots denote omission. The omissions might be malicious, or merely because of privacy reasons. But either way, I think there isn't much new substantive content in what they have released. > I guess it probably isn't classified in that case, but then begs the question why it didn't pass FOIA The exemptions to FOIA are a bit broader than that, and the exemptions are often abused. The redacted version has a "code" after each redaction which is supposedly the reason for it. You can find the meaning of the codes here [1]. I think the all the ones in the released PDF have one of these two codes: (b)(5) Inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. (b)(6) Personnel and medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. [1]: https://www.fbi.gov/services/information-management/foipa/foia-pa-overviews-exemptions-and-terms https://www.fbi.gov/services/information-management/foipa/fo...
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    Intersting. Yeah from reading the emails and what transcriptions are there I didn't see any 'smoking guns' either. I guess it is interesting to know more context that some of the smartest decision makers didn't initially think it was some crackpot idea to suggest a possible, but unknown, lab leak. I think they did express valid concerns about focusing on that, when as they say there were way bigger things to tackle which might explain a little bit of the messaging in the first year.

dillondoyle 5y ago

It seems like the transcriptions in that R press release don't include everything? It seems like some of the text might be missing. For instance on page 14 the greyed out FOIA is pretty long but they only write "…[Eddie Holmes] arguing against engineering but repeated passage is still an option…" Is that the actual word for word text of the redacted email or is that just the congressional staffer's summary of a longer paragraph that refutes the point they are trying to make? Also kind of odd that some LA was allowed to not only bring paper to transcribe but also they release it. I guess it probably isn't classified in that case, but then begs the question why it didn't pass FOIA

finite_jest 5y ago
> Is that the actual word for word text of the redacted email or is that just the congressional staffer's summary of a longer paragraph that refutes the point they are trying to make? I think your suspicion is correct, there are omissions in the "unredacted" version too. They kinda do allude to this by saying "excerpts of those transcriptions are reproduced below", which I had not noticed. Probably all the dot dot dots denote omission. The omissions might be malicious, or merely because of privacy reasons. But either way, I think there isn't much new substantive content in what they have released. > I guess it probably isn't classified in that case, but then begs the question why it didn't pass FOIA The exemptions to FOIA are a bit broader than that, and the exemptions are often abused. The redacted version has a "code" after each redaction which is supposedly the reason for it. You can find the meaning of the codes here [1]. I think the all the ones in the released PDF have one of these two codes: (b)(5) Inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. (b)(6) Personnel and medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. [1]: https://www.fbi.gov/services/information-management/foipa/foia-pa-overviews-exemptions-and-terms https://www.fbi.gov/services/information-management/foipa/fo...
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  Intersting. Yeah from reading the emails and what transcriptions are there I didn't see any 'smoking guns' either. I guess it is interesting to know more context that some of the smartest decision makers didn't initially think it was some crackpot idea to suggest a possible, but unknown, lab leak. I think they did express valid concerns about focusing on that, when as they say there were way bigger things to tackle which might explain a little bit of the messaging in the first year.