I realized this has been discussed somewhat here but the "redacted" question has not really been

[Lint Head]

asked by a single reporter. At least I haven't heard it. It has only been mentioned. It should be a major point and hammered as to what was "redacted" and who did the "redaction" and why.

Who are what is being protected. How can this be flaunted in the face of people from N.J. and nothing really asked? There are no secret security issues with it. They are not protecting NSA, CIA or FBI secrets. It's a frigging bridge. If it was done by a lawyer I don't think it is even legal because it is evidence, not testimony. It is evidence that is being covered up. A newspaper or two may have "hinted" at what the magic marker is covering but hints tell you nothing.

[stevenleser]

1. It's a good point. The good news is, there is an FBI investigation underway. They will see the whole

thing. If there is anything nefarious in the redacted portion, it will be discovered in the FBI investigation.

[Nictuku]

2. Another Question I had

... mind you, I have not been watching much TV these days, and maybe I just missed it, but does anyone know the source of these emails? I see yahoo and gmail addresses, so they are not a government source. Who got copies of them? Were they leaked to the media? Why are government officials using private email companies?

[riverwalker]

3. wonder why they didn't redact

"Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee"
and
"Got it"

If they felt that damning exchange was harmless, I can't wait to see what they redacted. I read somewhere that the redactions were done by Wildstein and his lawyer Alan Zegas .

[treestar]

4. Maybe NJ law

Protecting government worker identities - there could be something reasonable.

[finecraft]

5. I seem to have heard that the redactions were done by David Wildstein's attorney

before he handed over the documents to the legislative committee. He told them that the redactions were done because the information was not relevant to the scope of the committee request for documents.

Private email accounts are used by elected officials and public employees so their personal emails are separated from their work emails.
Many mistakenly believe that they are not subject to public record requests. But they are, if work matters or matters of public interest are discussed or deliberated. Public record requests cover all documents relative to the subject of the request, regardless if they are via a private email or text, or a work email address. At least here in Louisiana that is the law.

I would be very surprised if all the private account emails were not supplied to the committee by Wildstein's attorney. He wants an immunity deal for his client, so it is probably the best bargaining chip they had. He pretty much said give Wildstein immunity, and we'll give you what we have.

[jsr]

7. That is the law in many states

[2naSalit]

8. You're correct.

On several evenings of Chris Hayes' and Rachel Maddows's show they asked the commissioner who is heading the investigation and he confirmed that the redaction was done by the Wildstein attorney. The feds will have access to unredacted stuff. Just enough was revealed to be a tease, I think, since this isn't going away as soon as they would like.

And you are also correct that producing redacted docs is about the only chance Wildstein has for immunity plea. He's already been deemed in contempt.

[sunnystarr]

6. The subpoena covered only what was

relevant to the lane closings on the GWB. The redactions were the things not relevant. Which is telling since the fact that CC's meeting with someone from the PA wasn't redacted and speaks to his credibility when he denied having any knowledge.