On the disclosure of Mandelson's emails

How to think about disclosed documentary evidence

You probably have seen the disclosures of the emails purportedly from Lord Mandelson from when he was business secretary.

On the face of it, these emails raise serious questions which warrant further enquiry and investigation.

(And if you want speculation about legal liability this really is not the blog for you.)

There are also questions we can ask of this documentary evidence, and observations that we can perhaps make.

*
First of all: no documentary evidence exists in a vacuum.

Every text has, well, a context.

(Think about the words text and context.)

The Epstein files are not a disinterested archive.

The documents were collected for a purpose and were stored for a purpose.

According to the relevant legislation, the disclosed documents comprise “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in DOJ's possession that relate to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein”.

So one question that can be asked of the documents disclosed so far is: do they explain the prosecutorial decisions (and also the defense and any judicial decisions) in respect of the “the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein”?

If there is a gap between what has been disclosed and what these documents need to explain, then one can get a sense of what documents have not (yet) been disclosed (whether for good reasons or bad).

Of each document one should ask: how does this document relate to “the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein”?

For if the document does not relate to the that investigation and prosecution, then it should not have been collected, and it would not have been disclosed.

*

From a cynical perspective, there is always corruption in and around government.

What seems to have been revealed with these United Kingdom disclosures emails is clumsiness and arrogance.

A less clumsy and less arrogant approach would have meant such emails never existing.

Westminster and Whitehall is full of leaks: off the record briefings and so on.

There is complex and thriving entire unofficial information economy in SW1.

The sort of state information seemingly forwarded by Mandelson to Epstein is similar to documents which are routinely forwarded or briefed to journalists and advisers and lobbyists and researchers and think tanks.

“Sources close to….”

“Friends of…”

“Whitehall insiders say…”

Such unauthorised communications and disclosure are rife in Westminster and Whitehall.

What Lord Mandelson appears to have done is an especially significant breach involving highly market sensitive information.

But if so, its significance is really of scale, and not of type.

*
There appears to be many documents covered by the Epstein files disclosure legislation that, contrary to the terms of the statute, have not been disclosed.

No government discloses adverse information easily or voluntarily, or indeed often at all.

Especially if, as with the Trump administration, there is a generally casual and indeed defiant attitude towards mandatory legislation and court orders.

Maybe there will inadvertent disclosure of documents that will seriously damage the Trump presidency, if such documents actually exist.

But it is difficult to believe that the (current) federal government would knowingly disclose such documents, regardless of what the courts and Congress say.

Little or nothing, however, can stop a government disclosing documents that adversely affect others.

*
Every document has a context, and every disclosure also has a context.

And so the questions to always ask are:

- what does the document relate to, and what does it not relate to?

and

- why was this document disclosed - now and by whom and for what purpose?