3/2/2023 0 Comments Gowdy redacted email cia![]() Gowdy included a reason for the redaction in his reference, but the redacted portion is identical. Getting a similar redaction when standard procedure is to redact names isn't hard to guess on either.In this case, I think we could agree on a working definition for "redaction" as a "the censoring or obscuring of part of a text for legal or security purposes." In that definition they are identical. If it was identical they would mirror eachother, not one say remove for sources and methods. It's semantics, but sometimes thats important. Now, I just want to be clear here you're asking me to believe that Trey Gowdy redacted a name, without approval of the State Department, in a letter to Cummings, while putting in a citation to that email that Cummings would be able to reference and see that it wasn't redacted, and then later released a copy of the email, given to him by the State Department, that just so happened to have the exact same redactions? And no one at the State Department is mentioning it? That can't be what you're saying, can it?Īdditionally, Gowdy stated in his letter to Cummings on the 18th that he didn't redact the name. So we know that the committee had access to the email from the State Department on that day. Show it happened prior to the 7th.Gowdy's letter to Cummings references the email. It doesn't matter that State Department acknowledges and admits to redactions that happened after Oct 7th. ![]() The issue is that Gowdy's predates and differs from the State Departments. No one is refuting that both the State Department and Gowdy made statements including redactions. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |