Obviously, if the rest of the section only contained more of Page’s public denials, there would be no basis for redacting it. So it must contain other substantial non-public information related to thise denials.
-
-
I get that you have it in your head that they must have included a separate exonerating section, but your argument here doesn't make any sense, bc that section doesn't do that, even if they would have one in an affy, which I've never ever seen.
-
Well, split the difference: I would expect them to bring to the court’s attention the fact that Page had disputed the claims. But the section is titled “Page’s public denials,” and the redacted half page at the end of it has to be something other than a further public denial.
-
I can’t think of what non-public information would fit into the end of that section other than: intel suggesting some portion of the preceding information was false.
-
I've done 10 page analysis to explain it that I will, once finalized, make available to the non-adversarial powers who will actually use it. NGOs and journalists, however, should start paying for the work they're not doing themselves.
-
I’m a little confused, I thought our analysis of that section was more or less in agreement—that it’s about showing Page’s effort to conceal conduct.
-
Yes. I'm a bit stronger than you. That section might be a "we take from this it's evidence of denial and deception and therefore clandestine" explaining the (7E). Prolly not specific intel given ONLY 7 exemptions.
-
Only B7? I’m looking at the end of the “Denials” section and it’s got B(1) and B(3) exceptions also.
-
What would not be surprising is if they had independent corroboration that Page *met* with one or both Russian officials, but only Steele as the basis for what was said in the meetings (“kompromat” etc.).
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.