The administration’s efforts to hide the Ukraine pressure campaign from the public are well-known. We know of the secret backchannels, the shadow foreign policy, the obstruction of congressional investigations. There was also the misuse of FOIA redactions. americanoversight.org/when-the-gover…
Ukraine-related documents released to @publicintegrity in December contained heavy redactions — redactions later revealed to be discussions about the withholding of aid to Ukraine. publicintegrity.org/national-secur…
@publicintegrity The government says the obscured information is protected under the “presidential communications” and the “deliberative process” privileges. Here’s why many of those privilege claims are just plain wrong:
@publicintegrity 1. The presidential communications privilege can only be applied to non-White House communications in limited circumstances. This doesn’t pass the test. 
@publicintegrity 2. Agency actions and decisions, and the reasons for them, don’t fall under the deliberative process privilege. These emails were about decisions that had already been made.
@publicintegrity 3. Yes, the deliberative process privilege is intended to ensure candor when officials are giving advice — but not when their deliberation is over how to break the law.
@publicintegrity Which leads us to…
4. Communications about misconduct are not protected — especially when the president is personally involved.
4. Communications about misconduct are not protected — especially when the president is personally involved.
@publicintegrity Improperly applied exemptions don’t just help agencies evade accountability — they undermine the intent of the Freedom of Information Act. Read our amicus brief, filed along with @DemocracyFwd, here: americanoversight.org/document/amicu…
