> 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 t

> 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...