A statement released on Monday to the home affairs select committee (HASC) appeared to contradict some of those claims, leaving unanswered questions that could still be relevant to her political survival.
Did she mislead the public by claiming she reported her mistake “quickly”?
Last week, Braverman said that once she realized the mistake she had made in sending a government document to a colleague, she reported it. “As soon as I realized my mistake, I quickly reported it to official channels and informed the Cabinet Secretary,” he wrote. Her new account casts doubt on the claim that she reported the mistake “quickly.” Braverman said she sent the email at 7.25am. and realized at 10 a.m. that he had gone to the wrong person by mistake after reading their reply. She says her first response was to reply to this person at 10.02am. asking him to ignore the message and delete it – he didn’t inform anyone about the leak at the time. He says he then attended a Home Office meeting for about an hour and then went to the Commons to meet two constituents. At 11.50 am in the Commons he met then-chief whip Wendy Morton, who already knew about the mistake, and Tory MP Andrew Percy, who said a member of his staff had received the email by mistake. Percy told Morton about Braverman’s email because he thought it was probably a serious security breach. Braverman says it was at this point that she decided not to attend PMQs as planned and return to her office to report the error.
Did he mislead the public by claiming he resigned because he had sent the leaked document to an MP?
The original letter suggested he resigned because he handed over a draft text of a written ministerial statement to Sir John Hayes, a Tory MP who is a close political ally of Braverman. “Earlier today, I sent an official document from my personal email to a trusted parliamentary colleague as part of political engagement and aimed at rallying support for the Government’s immigration policy.” As Braverman admitted Monday, it was only discovered because of a second mistake. copied to the wrong person, resulting in the email going to another MP, not Hayes’ secretary.
Was the information within the information about the purchase?
Braverman says in her letter that the document she handed over to Hayes “did not contain market-sensitive data, as all data contained in the document was already in the public domain.” At a lobby briefing on Monday, the prime minister’s spokesman supported the Braverman version. He said he understood the document was “in no way market sensitive”. But on the day he was sacked as home secretary, lobby reporters were told by No 10 that sensitive market information had been leaked. Sources who have seen the document insist it contained market-sensitive information because it related to visa quotas in specific industries that could affect the share prices of specific companies in specific markets.
Has she discussed with Rishi Sunak all six instances where he forwarded information from her official email address to her personal email address?
Monday’s letter says that on six occasions between September 15 and October 16 she sent documents from her government email account to her personal email account, each of which allegedly violated ministerial code. The seventh occasion, on October 19, was the incident that led to her resignation. An appendix to HASC’s letter states when it broke the rules on those six occasions, but provides different details about the actual material in the emails. One was an update on “recent protest activity and public unrest.” Another says it was for a “virtual meeting that was subsequently cancelled.” Labor said it remains unclear whether it discussed any or all six breaches with Sunak, and if not, why not?
title: “Suella Braverman Email Four Questions Left Unanswered Suella Braverman " ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-23” author: “In Barbosa”
A statement released on Monday to the home affairs select committee (HASC) appeared to contradict some of those claims, leaving unanswered questions that could still be relevant to her political survival.
Did she mislead the public by claiming she reported her mistake “quickly”?
Last week, Braverman said that once she realized the mistake she had made in sending a government document to a colleague, she reported it. “As soon as I realized my mistake, I quickly reported it to official channels and informed the Cabinet Secretary,” he wrote. Her new account casts doubt on the claim that she reported the mistake “quickly.” Braverman said she sent the email at 7.25am. and realized at 10 a.m. that he had gone to the wrong person by mistake after reading their reply. She says her first response was to reply to this person at 10.02am. asking him to ignore the message and delete it – he didn’t inform anyone about the leak at the time. He says he then attended a Home Office meeting for about an hour and then went to the Commons to meet two constituents. At 11.50 am in the Commons he met then-chief whip Wendy Morton, who already knew about the mistake, and Tory MP Andrew Percy, who said a member of his staff had received the email by mistake. Percy told Morton about Braverman’s email because he thought it was probably a serious security breach. Braverman says it was at this point that she decided not to attend PMQs as planned and return to her office to report the error.
Did he mislead the public by claiming he resigned because he had sent the leaked document to an MP?
The original letter suggested he resigned because he handed over a draft text of a written ministerial statement to Sir John Hayes, a Tory MP who is a close political ally of Braverman. “Earlier today, I sent an official document from my personal email to a trusted parliamentary colleague as part of political engagement and aimed at rallying support for the Government’s immigration policy.” As Braverman admitted Monday, it was only discovered because of a second mistake. copied to the wrong person, resulting in the email going to another MP, not Hayes’ secretary.
Was the information within the information about the purchase?
Braverman says in her letter that the document she handed over to Hayes “did not contain market-sensitive data, as all data contained in the document was already in the public domain.” At a lobby briefing on Monday, the prime minister’s spokesman supported the Braverman version. He said he understood the document was “in no way market sensitive”. But on the day he was sacked as home secretary, lobby reporters were told by No 10 that sensitive market information had been leaked. Sources who have seen the document insist it contained market-sensitive information because it related to visa quotas in specific industries that could affect the share prices of specific companies in specific markets.
Has she discussed with Rishi Sunak all six instances where he forwarded information from her official email address to her personal email address?
Monday’s letter says that on six occasions between September 15 and October 16 she sent documents from her government email account to her personal email account, each of which allegedly violated ministerial code. The seventh occasion, on October 19, was the incident that led to her resignation. An appendix to HASC’s letter states when it broke the rules on those six occasions, but provides different details about the actual material in the emails. One was an update on “recent protest activity and public unrest.” Another says it was for a “virtual meeting that was subsequently cancelled.” Labor said it remains unclear whether it discussed any or all six breaches with Sunak, and if not, why not?
