I have another good follow up question to the Heath memo podcast discussion. I’m not sure when the redacted version of this document was originally released or if that matters. The law is clear. Anything withheld after the 2017 deadline for full release requires an explanation. This begs the question- why did the CIA withhold Heath’s name? I can’t think of any reason that would meet the criteria mandated by the law. This is a clear example for why any further redactions need to obey the law and provide for a legitimate reason for continuing to do so. This memo can now be used as a good talking point and a perfect example for why any future redactions must obey the law and provide legitimate reasons for any subsequent redactions
I have another good follow up question to the Heath memo podcast discussion. I’m not sure when the redacted version of this document was originally released or if that matters. The law is clear. Anything withheld after the 2017 deadline for full release requires an explanation. This begs the question- why did the CIA withhold Heath’s name? I can’t think of any reason that would meet the criteria mandated by the law. This is a clear example for why any further redactions need to obey the law and provide for a legitimate reason for continuing to do so. This memo can now be used as a good talking point and a perfect example for why any future redactions must obey the law and provide legitimate reasons for any subsequent redactions
I would suggest they were searching for more information regarding who Rene Dussaq was working with.