Why Gov. Greg Abbott Won’t Release His Emails With Elon Musk | The governor’s office won’t turn them over, saying some contain “intimate and embarrassing” information that is “not of legitimate concern to the public.”
https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-governor-greg-abbott-elon-musk-emails-foia
27 comments
Abbot: Oh my Elon, your body is like so hot. I’m totally burning up over here.
Elon: Yeah, I work out
Abbot: *giggle*
Hi r/politics,
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott doesn’t want to reveal months of communications between his office and Elon Musk or representatives from Musk’s companies. His office charged The Texas Newsroom — which partnered with ProPublica and The Texas Tribune for this story — $244.64 up front for a public records request. But after cashing the check, the office said it believed all the records were confidential.
The records request was made in April as part of an effort to track Musk’s influence on the state legislature. The billionaire’s lobbyists have successfully advocated for several new laws during this year’s legislative session.
Matthew Taylor, Abbott’s public information coordinator, argued that the request was denied in part due to an exception to public records laws known as “common-law privacy,” because the emails consist of “**information that is intimate and embarrassing and not of legitimate concern to the public,** including financial decisions that do not relate to transactions between an individual and a governmental body.”
When reporter Lauren McGaughy spoke to Bill Aleshire, a legal expert on public records law, he said it’s not unusual for government agencies to tap the common-law privacy exception. But he’s used to it being cited in cases that involve children, medical data or other highly personal information — not for emails between an elected official and a businessman.
“Right now, it appears they’ve charged you $244 for records they have no intention of giving you,” he told her.
**Here’s the full story**: [https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-governor-greg-abbott-elon-musk-emails-foia](https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-governor-greg-abbott-elon-musk-emails-foia)
—
*Musk and representatives for his companies did not respond to requests for comment for this story.*
*Abbott’s spokesperson did not respond to specific questions about the records, including whether The Texas Newsroom would be refunded if Paxton withholds them. In a statement, he said, “The Office of the Governor rigorously complies with the Texas Public Information Act and will release any responsive information that is determined to not be confidential or excepted from disclosure.”*
Oh my, that doesn’t sound very “Christian” of Abbott at all!
I think Jesus would want us to see the emails to give Abbott an opportunity to publicly repent for his sins!!!
Call me crazy, but MAYBE a government official shouldn’t be doing anything intimate or embarrassing in their official emails.
How about the public decides what is the concern of the public?
Is Abbott mentioned in the Epstein files? No.
But here they are:
https://joshwho.net/EpsteinList/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.0-combined.pdf (verified court documents)
https://joshwho.net/EpsteinList/black-book-unredacted.pdf (verified pre-Bondi) Trump is on page 85, or pdf pg. 80 of 95.
Trump’s name is circled. The circled individuals are the ones involved in the trafficking ring according to the person who originally released the book. These people would be “The List “ Here is the story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsiKUXrlcac
—————————other Epstein Information
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:62042519-130b-499a-ba5b-2451e75122b5?comment_id=63d49ce0-5177-452d-834a-e1b57d5e923f here’s a court doc of Epstein and Trump raping a 13 yr old together.
Some people think this case was a hoax here is a video of her testimony. https://youtu.be/gnib-OORRRo
> information that is intimate and embarrassing and not of legitimate concern to the public
Why don’t you let the public decide that, follow the law, and hand it over?
Everything through that email address is of interest of the public. Intimate and embarrassing details are expected to go through private email accounts.
Well then you should of had those emails on a personal account… if it is a personal account, then you should of had work emails on a work account and shouldn’t have mixed em. Remember the Hillary email scandal, this sounds exactly the same.
Too many cover ups
Follow-up: why were you sharing intimate and embarrassing info with a political funder?
Greg Abbott: “Elon, can Neuralink help me make my dick work again?”
strange, every job i’ve ever had, including 19 years in defense, very clearly and in no uncertain terms explained that on our IT systems there was “no expectation of privacy”
Seems like that means that they should absolutely be released
Did someone not explain to him the “don’t put anything in an e-mail that you don’t want your mom to see” internet rule?
So, another pedophile or supporter of pedophiles.
It is that simple.
Public servants shouldn’t get to decide what materials created as part of their public service are viewable by the public. They serve at the pleasure of the people.
I can’t wait for the day this man collapses under the weight of his own treachery. Man’s been unfit for office the moment he embraced any ideal other than serving the public honestly and fairly.
Where are the hackers? I mean in 2016 everyone’s emails on the Dem side were being stolen and leaked to the public so why aren’t people doing the same for shit like this?
Hutz: I object!
Judge: On what grounds?
Hutz: Because it’s devastating to my case!
So much for the land of the free…
Here’s my experience in France: I make a request for documents to be sent to me by email. If they do there is no charge. If they have to send paper copies they can charge up to 25 Eurocents per copy. They cannot charge an administration fee. They can redact people’s names if it concerns personal information and things that are sensitive for national security
If they refuse or don’t reply then after one month I complain to the commission for access to administrative documents. They have always given a decision in my favour, because I only request documents that are obviously transmittable. I inform the administration concerned and ask for the documents again. If they don’t send them, I make an appeal at the administrative tribunal. No lawyer required. If I win the appeal then I get the documents. So far I haven’t lost.
However on one occasion the loser refused to send me the documents after a judgement in my favour. The next step under French law is the Supreme Court (Consil d’Etat) for which a lawyer is obligatory. Guess how much the lawyer cost… under €4,000. And, of course we won.
Amusingly the lower court had imposed a fine for each day’s delay in providing the documents. The defendants’ lawyer for some peculiar reason waited to practically the last minute before filing their responses to our responses to their submissions. They managed to drag out the process for 797 days. The Supreme Court upheld the fine and the defendant was obliged to pay it to us.
I wonder how much a similar procedure would cost in the USA.
TLDR. In France receiving administrative documents by email is free. If the administration refuses then you can make a complaint to the commission for access to administrative documents for free. If you get a positive opinion but the administration doesn’t comply, you can go to the administrative tribunal: there is no fee and you don’t need a lawyer.
The next step after the administrative tribunal is the Supreme Court: a lawyer will cost less than €4,000 for a straight forward case.
By ‘intimate’ he means ‘shady’.
Anything generated by a public official is of legitimate concern to the public.
You’re a public servant. FOIA. FU Abbott. You and the rest of the GOP continue to abuse power and pick and chose what laws to follow and what not to follow. You all need to be voted out and arressted.
Remember when a guy screamed to loud and that ended his political career. Can we go back to that?
Official communications should be public unless there is a *legitimate* reason to withhold the information “Embarrassing” isn’t a legitimate reason to withhold information.
Interesting how my emails at work are the property of the company and they can access them whenever they wanted, yet these elected officials can keep it all private? 🤔
Wait… how is that legal?
The government can really just not give up emails because they are embarrassing? Seriously?
“We’re filling a freedom of information request.”
“Sure thing! We’ll give you little of that, but… nothing we don’t want to, only the stuff we want you to see. Anything we don’t want you to see, you can’t have.”
How is that legal? That ‘common-law privacy’ exemption is WILD. It really just says “any information they don’t want to give out, they don’t have to, as long as they say that they don’t want to.”
Feels like there should be a court case on this one, but… I don’t really have faith in any courts in Texas, and then certainly not anywhere that would get appealed to.
Comments are closed.