livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
in a text message produced to the Committee, the price of Andrew McCabe’s $70,000 conference table was redacted versions of the Strzok and Page text message productions provided to the Committee. On several occasions, my staff have requested that the Department of Justice provide the Committee with a redaction key, to no avail. Thus, the Committee is still in the dark about the justification the Department is relying upon to withhold that information from Congress. As one example of redacted material, in a text message produced to the Committee, the price of Andrew McCabe’s $70,000 conference table was redacted.1 In another, an official’s name was redacted in reference to a text about the Obama White House "running" an investigation, although it is unclear to which investigation they were referring.2
1 Page: No way to change the room. The table alone was [70k]. (You can’t repeat that!) No, instead it just means we now have to get a small conference table for his actual office, so that he can actually have a meeting that is intimate. DOJ-PROD-0000118. On April 3, 2015, as a result of my inquiring into the spending practices of the United States Marshals Service, the agency responded in an unredacted letter that a conference table cost $22,000. Thus, there is no reasonable justification for redacting the cost of a conference table. Letter from William Delaney, Chief of Congressional and Public Affairs, USMS, to Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman. Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary (April 3, 2015).
2 Strzok: And hi. Went well, best we could have expected. Other than [Liz’s] quote, "the White House is running this." DOJ-PROD-0000212.
In order to see under the redactions, Committee staff had to travel to main Justice to review a lesser redacted version. When viewing the still redacted portions in context with the unredacted material, it appeared that the redacted portions may contain relevant information relating to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the manner in which the Department of Justice and FBI handled the Clinton and Russia investigations.3
Congress, and the public, have a right to know how the Department spends taxpayer money. I am unaware of any legitimate basis on which the cost of a conference table should be redacted. Embarrassment is not a good enough reason. The manner in which some redactions have been used casts doubt on whether the remaining redactions are necessary and defensible.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-05-23 CEG to DOJ (Redacted Texts).pdf
1 Page: No way to change the room. The table alone was [70k]. (You can’t repeat that!) No, instead it just means we now have to get a small conference table for his actual office, so that he can actually have a meeting that is intimate. DOJ-PROD-0000118. On April 3, 2015, as a result of my inquiring into the spending practices of the United States Marshals Service, the agency responded in an unredacted letter that a conference table cost $22,000. Thus, there is no reasonable justification for redacting the cost of a conference table. Letter from William Delaney, Chief of Congressional and Public Affairs, USMS, to Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman. Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary (April 3, 2015).
2 Strzok: And hi. Went well, best we could have expected. Other than [Liz’s] quote, "the White House is running this." DOJ-PROD-0000212.
In order to see under the redactions, Committee staff had to travel to main Justice to review a lesser redacted version. When viewing the still redacted portions in context with the unredacted material, it appeared that the redacted portions may contain relevant information relating to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the manner in which the Department of Justice and FBI handled the Clinton and Russia investigations.3
Congress, and the public, have a right to know how the Department spends taxpayer money. I am unaware of any legitimate basis on which the cost of a conference table should be redacted. Embarrassment is not a good enough reason. The manner in which some redactions have been used casts doubt on whether the remaining redactions are necessary and defensible.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-05-23 CEG to DOJ (Redacted Texts).pdf
