[DiogenesKynikos]

> You're lying that the government truncated was dishonest as the response to motion makes clear

The government's response to the motion does not dispute that the words are a paraphrase of someone else. The government tries to rationalize its original decision to leave that information out.

[defaultprimate]

"The government argues in opposition that this argument fails because it never claimed that the excerpted portion of the email reflected the defendant’s personal thoughts. Rather, regardless of whether the email reflected the defendant’s own thoughts or were notes from a lecture, it intended to demonstrate that the defendant had an interest in promoting China’s scientific and economic development, which went to his motive for committing the charged offenses. As between the two, the government has the better argument here. Even assuming the excerpted portion of the email reflected nothing more than notes from a lecture the defendant attended, it was included in the publicly filed complaint and thus could be disclosed, the government noted for what it was worth that the defendant wrote and sent the notes to himself, and the email did at some level reflect the defendant’s interest in Chinese scientific and economic development."