Those emails are indeed a treasure trove

[nadinbrzezinski]

if you want to understand better what happened in Benghazi. I do not mean this as a witch hunt. If you are looking for the kind of smokey gun... I am afraid you are going to be sorely disappointed. But if you are looking for some really behind the scenes interesting stuff, that usually takes more than a few years to declass... dive right in.

http://foia.state.gov/Search/results.aspx?searchText=

[NYC_SKP]

1. Email deletions by personal staff, followed by a document dump.

Not expecting to find anything in there.

People worth hundreds of millions just hire people to sort through and delete, no oversight, there's probably nothing there.

It's all gone, deleted, discs wiped and then crushed or melted.

All gone.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I actually think I have

And regardless the back info into the games ongoing are incredible.

[NYC_SKP]

9. Ha! Well, I guess it's hard to find good help!

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Well here is this jewel from Keystone

The Honorable
Doug Lamborn,
House of Representatives.
REVIEW AUTHORITY: Charles Lahiguera, Senior Reviewer
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-03930 Doc No. C05576827 Date: 06/19/2014
Ot3
United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
JAN 20 2011
Dear Mr. Lamborn:
Thank you for your letter of December 22, 2010 requesting that the
State Department expedite the Presidential Permit application for the
Keystone XL project. Currently, we are reviewing public comments on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. Once that
process is completed, we will determine how to proceed with the EIS,
consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
We appreciate the economic benefits that the project would bring to
our country and its potential role in our nation's energy security. In order for
the Department to make a sound decision, it is important that we conduct our
review in a thorough and transparent manner, taking into consideration all
relevant factors, including environmental and economic impacts. Under
Executive Order 13337, the Department will consider all these factors in
determining whether granting the Presidential Permit is the national interest.
To ensure proper consideration of your concerns, the Department has
included your letter in the administrative record for the TransCanada
application.
We appreciate the time you have taken to express your views and, as
we continue our review of the Keystone XL pipeline, please do not hesitate
to contact us regarding this or any other issue of importance to you.
Sincerely,
Richard R. Verma
Assistant Secretary
Legislative Affairs
1.1-7(.2) 1n /
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-03930 Doc No. C05576827 Date: 06/19/2014
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-03930 Doc No. C05576827 Date: 06/19/2014
January 12, 2010
Approved:
Drafted:
Cleared:
OES:
OES/ENV:
OES/PDAS:
OES/E Acting:
OES/FO:
OES/ENV:
EEB/ESC:
L/EB:
L/OES:
E:
S/P:
H:
Dr. Kerri-Ann Jones _vrqi
Seth Pfeifer X7-4909
Daniel Clune —;#1/44--
Christine Dawson - OK
Teresa Hobgood — OK
Willem Brakel — OK
Michael Stewart - OK
John Schnitker — OK
Keith Benes — OK
Vishal Patel — OK
Ray Arnaudo — OK
Betsy Fitzgerald - OK
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-03930 Doc No. C05576827 Date: 06/19/2014
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-03930 Doc No. C05576827 Date: 06/19/2014
CONGRESSIONAL CORRE.
UNCLASSIFIED
Subject: RequestingDOS expedite the Presidential Permit application for the Keystone
XL project. 1/19/11 H20101228=001 Lamborn (+38)
.! a C•
Please do not mail, the remaining 38 letters will be autopenned
1/13/2011 4:40 Task Task assigned to FI_SpecialAssistants was approved by Braxton, Approved by Braxton,
PM Completed Connie X. Comments: Connie X
1/13/2011 4:40 Task Created Task created for Fitzgerald, Betsy A. Due by: 1/14/2011 4:40:44
PM PM
1/14/2011 8:48 Task Task assigned to Fitzgerald, Betsy A was approved by Fitzgerald, Approved by Fitzgerald,
AM Completed Betsy A. Comments: Betsy A
1/14/2011 8:48 Task Created Task created for Lang, Alan. Due by: 1/15/2011 8:48:53 AM I
AM
1/18/2011 10:15 Task Task assigned to Lang, Alan was approved by Lang, Alan. Approved by Lang, Alan
AM Completed Comments:
1/18/2011 10:15 Task Created Task created =for Adams, David S. Due by: 1/19/2011 10:15:01 AM
AM
1/18/2011 2:34 Task Task assigned to Adams, David S was approved by Adams, David Approved by Adams,
PM Completed S. Comments: OK. DSA David S
1/18/2011 2:34 Task Created Task'created for Alwine, Patrick. Due by: 1/19/2011 2:34:49 PM
PM
JAN 1 9 2011
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-03930 Doc No. C05576827 Date: 06/19/2014
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-03930 Doc No. C05576827 Date: 06/19/2014
DEPARTMENT OF STATE CONGRESSIONAL
CORRESPONDENCE TASKER
IPS CONTROL#H201 0/9(949±00/ ACTION BUREAU.
DATE:
JEC 2 8 201
IPS:
X SUBSTANTIVE CONSTITUENT
X IMAGE ENTIRE DOCUMENT IMAGE ONLY FIRST PAGES
BUREAU:
JEC 2 8 201(
BUREAU ACTION REQUESTED: RESPOND TO CCU 2 DAYS FROM:
REPLY FOR SIGNATURE BY Richard R. Verma, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, --,E LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
ADDRESS ENVELOPE TO DISTRICT OFFICE
DIRECT REPLY TO CONSTITUENT BY OFFICE DIRECTOR WITH COPY TO
CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE. PHONE 7-1608 WHEN COMPLETED
FYI ONLY/NO RESPONSE NECESSARY
REPLY FOR SIGNATURE DIRECTLY BY BUREAU
OTHER ACTION:
FOR GUIDANACE/INFORMATION ON FORMATTING CONGRESSIONALS SEE:
http://diplopedia.state.qov/index.php?title=Bureauof Legisl tive Affairs Reference Documents#Yellow Border
Due Date
****BUREAUS MUST MAKE TRANSFERS OF ACTION DIRECTLY WITH RECEIVING BUREAU'S FRONT
OFFICE. The CCU has a listing of contacts. PLEASE NOTIFY CCU 7-1608 OF ALL TRANSFERS OF
ACTION****
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-03930 Doc No. C05576827 Date: 06/19/2014
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-03930 Doc No. C05576827 Date: 06/19/2014
From: 12/22/2010 17:59 #293 P.002/005
•
Congress of #IMP United 2tates
asifingtan, BC 213515
December 22, 2010
tD)
The Honorable Hilary Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20520
Dear Secretary Clinton:
We write to ask for an expeditious approval of the cross border permit for the Keystone
XL pipeline. We understand that the Department of State has completed its due diligence in
undertaking the required multi-agency environmental review and the Department has sufficie
information to move forward with an affirmative permit decision.
The importance of the Keystone XL pipeline for American energy security and the
economy are undeniable. It is noteworthy that opposition to the pipeline focuses on questionable
environmental concerns while failing to recognize the significant overall benefit to Americans.
As we work to develop our domestic energy resources with an "all of the above" approach, it
makes sense to import from our energy-rich northern neighbor and reduce our reliance on
overseas nations that are politically volatile and frequently fund terrorism against the United
States.
Some opponents of the pipeline argue that Canada's oil sands should not serve as an
energy source on the basis of dramatically higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In fact, as
several recent third-party studies have made clear, these emissions have been on a downward
trajectory on a per-barrel basis with the advent of new extraction technologies. Importantly, the
Canadians are mindful of their own GHG emissions and have committed, through robust
regulation and further technological innovation, to develop this vast resource in the most
environmentally responsible manner possible. Moreover, the fact remains that Canadian oil, from
oil sands or otherwise, will be developed regardless of our decision. The choice is, will we
approve the pipeline and provide American energy security or will we see that same oil shipped
to markets in Asia, increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, policy arguments against
the pipeline that seem preoccupied with net GHG emission increases fall by the wayside.
As with any large-scale energy project, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) lists ways of mitigating the project's impacts. It is in the interest of all stakeholders to
ensure safe transportation and access to the oil while limiting adverse environmental impacts.
Interstate pipelines carrying crude oil and products across state borders are regulated by the U.S.
Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA). PHMSA's regulations include standards for the safe construction and operation of
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-03930 Doc No. C05576827 Date: 06/19/2014
A7tall 94,110-
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-03930 Doc No. C05576827 Date: 06/19/2014
From: 12/22/2010 17:59 #293 P.003/005
pipelines, pipe specifications, and welding standards, which are reviewed by industry to ensure
the latest technologies and practices are being employed for new pipeline construction.
Furthermore, pipelines are the safest, most efficient and economical way to transport these
energy products as they experience the lowest frequency of accidental releases when compared
to other transportation modes.
In a time when we need them most, the Keystone XL pipeline is expected to create
13,000 high-wage American construction jobs and generate millions of dollars in tax revenues
for state and local governments. In addition, this pipeline will create thousands of auxiliary jobs
by providing American energy security and reducing our dependence on other less stable regions
of the world. It is also important to remember that the Keystone project will be completely
financed by the private sector and will result in an expeditious influx of jobs, which will
significantly impact the surrounding communities by generating billions of dollars in economic
stimulus.
It would be a mistake for the United States to abandon an important source of energy
from a major trading partner and friendly neighbor. We respectfully urge you to approve the
cross border permit for the Keystone XL pipeline and move forward with the project in a timely
manner. It should be the policy of this Administration to help America create jobs, spur
investment, and secure our nation. All of these goals are achieved by approval of the Keystone
project.
Sincerely,
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-03930 Doc No. C05576827 Date: 06/19/2014
•
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-03930 Doc No. C05576827 Date: 06/19/2014
From: 12/22/2010 18:00 #293 P.004/005
Page 2
. 4.c•Arst,
J;14,4
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-03930 Doc No. C05576827 Date: 06/19/2014
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-03930 Doc No. C05576827 Date: 06/19/2014
From: 12/22/2010 18:00 #293 P.005/005
Member Signatures
Page 1:
Hon. Doug Lamborn
Hon. Jerry Moran
Hon. John Shadegg
Hon. Tom Cole
Hon. John Shimkus
Hon. Dan Boren
Hon. Michael Conaway
Hon. Rob Bishop.
Hon. Randy Neugebauer
Hon. Dan Burton
Hon. John Dundan
Hon. Pete Sessions
Hon. Donald Manzullo
Hon. John Sullivan
Page 2:
Hon. Bill Cassidy
Hon. Mike Coffman
Hon. Kenny Marchant
Hon. Ted Poe
Hon. Frank Lucas
Hon. Tom McClintock
Hon. Kevin Brady
Hon. Paul Broun
Hon. Wally Herger
Hon. Bill Posey
Hon. Cynthia Lummis
Hon. Don Young
Hon. Jeb Hensarling
Hon. Charles Boustany
Hon. Lynn Jenkins
Hon. John Fleming
Hon. Jason Chaffetz
Hon. Robert Aderholt
Hon. Joe Wilson
Hon. Pete Olson
Hon. Sue Myrick
Hon. Marsha Blackburn
Hon. Connie Mack
Hon. Michele Bachmann
Hon. Michael McCaul
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-03930 Doc No. C05576827 Date: 06/19/2014

Don't ask for the direct link since it does not take you there directly.

You want visas. plenty of those too.

Most media is just looking at the Benghazi area of the emails, and there is plenty there as well that is interesting. I guess my training in history is making me salivate over this treasure trove of primary documents. Or is that the investigative journalist? This is not unlike the yearly book State puts out of declassed documents. I use the word book in the broad sense of the word. It is a multi volume document.

Just now downloading the crap. Then I will go though them, with care.

[Sancho]

7. Just an outright lie and you know it, but it helps Hillary look persecuted over nothing!!

Email has a sender and a receiver. We already know that the vast majority of emails were captured by .gov servers regardless of the Clinton server side - and if you count forwards, replies, etc. - there's very little out there that was government business that was not captured regardless of her server. Hillary's staff could not look though or delete ANY of those if they wanted to, and so they aren't gone and never were gone. You know it and so does everyone else.

The staff looked through the PERSONAL email and sent to the State anything they thought might be government. It is true they would not provide embarrassing emails to the State, but those would have to be email that NEVER went to or from a server Hillary controlled on BOTH sides. Name the second target! Find an example! Show us the examples from the other server that is not in the 55,000 provided! Are there a few that went from Hillary to [e-mail]??? Maybe, but none have surfaced, so there can't be many.

The only thing that is not public are her personal communications.

Has ONE SINGLE email from some secret source of secret deal or staff whistle-blower showed up???

We are all sure that the GOP will take every word, make a conspiracy out of it, and cast aspersions. Chances are that Hillary made a mistake or did something that someone didn't like. So what?

Compared to the real proof that Bush and others committed crimes in office, this is simply a RW bash attack. When there is something substantive, then we'll see. Meanwhile, I really hope the email scandal consumes everyone's time and energy...it wastes Hillary haters time and $'s.

[Ms. Toad]

18. Cut the crap. You know if it was Bush that had pulled this stunt,

You would be calling for his head.

The focal point of the emails is Clinton, not the 10s, 100s, or 1000s of people she communicated with. The place to collect correspondence is from the person of interest (in this case Clinton) not the exponentially higher number of recipients or senders to that person. The fact that the correspondence may, for the most part, exist is completely irrelevant. The task of gathering the e-mails from all of the unknown recipients or senders is (1) monumentally more time consuming because you have to gather it from 100s of sources and (2) impossible to complete because without complete information about who the emails came from or went to there is no way to recover them all.

[Sancho]

25. Both Bushes did have servers!

Chaney and friends had a complete system they used. Deleted everything when Obama took over.

Jeb also in Florida. A few complaints. That's it. No investigations. This is RW Hilliary bashing.

[sabrina 1]

27. And they should have been prosecuted, investigated and jailed for all the crimes they

committed, including the deletion of emails, including Cheney's conflict of interest re the Iraq War and Halliburton, including the secret WH meetings they still refuse to release before the Iraq War and much much more.

Instead we were told to look forward and they continue to slam Democrats.

Our entire system is broken. Karl Rove also had an email problem.

Maybe if Dems would show some spine and start raising these issues again, subpoena Rove again, who fled to Sweden airc, saying he didn't have to answer a Congressional subpoena.

Are Dems afraid of Repubs or what? I don't care about these emails, but if we are going to defend them, then let's do it right!

Let's tell Republicans this: 'Yes speaking of emails, we want to bring Cheney, Bush, Rove et al before Congress to question them about a few matters you must also be interested in'. But we are told 'we don't want to look like we're biased'. Well, that didn't work for anyone. Now we see how little THEY care about how they look.

So this is a result of the lack of spine when it was needed so I can't be as sympathetic as I used to be when Repubs act as they do. Because Dems let them get away with crimes no elected officials should ever get away with.

[Sancho]

28. Are all texts, videos, audios, emails, letters, and notes public?

What's the difference? Travel logs, voice mail, tweets, pictures of the kids? For a long time, email has been a drop in the bucket. We also know the Clintons and State had access to encrypted email. We know that Google and McAfee backed up the Clinton server. Staff reported it a long time ago.

It's silly to read the daily non secret stuff, but it's out there if anyone wants it. No gov official after Nixon and Whitewater has NOT kept some type of private system. When the SC ruled the WH tapes were to be handed over, it changed the game. Gov employees will always have available routine stuff unless it's classified. If they are smart, they will keep personal stuff out of sight, or delete it to keep it from the press. SOP.

Chasing Clinton emails is a waste of time and a conspiracy theory with no point. The GOP watched her every second for 20 years. There are no scandals other than what we already know, unless you want Chelsey's wedding cake recipe! Shredding my junk mail doesn't mean I have something to hide! Deleting my crazy Aunt's email on the price of eggs in Russia doesn't make me a spy.

[Ms. Toad]

31. And so you think it is just hunky dory to emulate bad behavior?

Unless you're telling me that you think what they did is just fine. And if you do, I have 18 minutes of missing tape from the Nixon era to sell you . . .

I don't have double standards. If I disapprove of it when the right wing does it, I also disapprove of it when Democrats do to - and it is a load of crap to say it is RW Hillary bashing merely because I didn't change my standards when viewing Democratic politicians. It is also a load of crap to say it is just fine because all of the e-mails exist on the non-Clinton sender/recipient end . . . assuming there was not a similar deletion . . . assuming we can identify all the senders and recipients of mail we don't know exists.

[Sancho]

34. Yes..it's reasonable...not different for GWB, Jeb, Hillary or Bernie.

It's impossible to keep every second of every communication of government employees as public record. If you don't trust employees to do their job, then elect someone else or prove they committed a crime. Has anyone asked to see all of Bernie's emails from private accounts 5 or 10 years ago??? Who knows what he may have been doing? It's silly. Just like the imaginary Benghazi scandal that has been investigated for years now - we have LOTS more information and communications and details that ever existed in previous decades. We don't have communications nearly as detailed on Pearl Harbor or the Paris Peace talks or Iran-contra. We have pretty much put the picture together, but in todays fishbowl world it's getting harder and harder for anyone to get away with something overt by simply deleting a few non-classified emails! Heck, all the secret stuff was not sent on email so the real "scandal" if there is one.

If you want to have "sunshine" laws that insist that certain activities (like legislative meetings and non-secret documents) are public, then pass statues to say so. That is reasonable and Congress can do that if they want...many states have those laws already.

If you insist on requiring collection of every email and voice mail and recording and text and document; then you could also make them public after 50 years or something for historical purposes. It would take a lot of personnel and money to collect all that stuff (as evidenced by the small number of Hillary's email now).

There is no double standard. If Bush, Cheney, or Hillary are shown to commit a crime (like Nixon), then you can get a warrant and collect what you need to prosecute, impeach, or whatever. Otherwise their government business is generally available as an archive only if it's not sensitive - which is exactly the law that Hillary and most government official adhere to now.

It was NOT a "load of crap". Hillary, and several other Secretary's of State (like Powell, and Rice) had private email accounts that they used for business. In fact, as email became available to phones (like Blackberrys), virtually the only good systems were private accounts until the software caught up with the devices.

BTW, Nixon resigned! The missing 18 minutes didn't help him!

[Ms. Toad]

36. My point is that it is a load of crap for people to defend and excuse

behavior by Clinton that everyone on DU would condemn if/when it is engaged in by Republicans.

It is a double standard to condemn Republicans, but excuse Clinton - which is what is going on here.

And you are being extremely disingenuous to suggest the concern is about "every second of every communication." It is the bulk of her correspondence as Secretary of State. Laws are in place to preserve those communications when they are made using the tools she was intended to use. She circumvented those rules, albeit initially more for the purpose of convenience than circumventing the rules. But once the unintended consequence was clear, she should have voluntarily permitted an independent forensic team to sort the personal from the public. At an absolute minimum, she should have preserved the server so that it was possible to do so in the future.

As to your final comment - that pretty much supports my point. None of us were saying "it wasn't technically illegal." Ultimately, the 18 minutes was part of what forced him to resign. Bad behavior is bad behavior - even when engaged in by Democrats.

[Sancho]

40. You are simply wrong...

the Clinton server (actually Bill Clinton's server) was completely secure and well-known to everyone in the State Department.

It's not inappropriate behavior at all to provide all business (non secret) emails to the State (who were collecting them anyway on the .gov side) while using a government system that was NOT a private server for all secret communications (which we will not ever see.)

There was no law at the time covering those emails, which is why GWB used Yahoo and deleted them all when they left office. He didn't even give out a copy to be public like Hillary has with 55,000 emails to read!!

I don't condemn the Bush/Cheney behavior, except that they never provided ANY of their emails. Hillary provided hers.

[Ms. Toad]

44. Did I question the security of the server?

No.

I questioned the co-mingling of personal and private correspondence, the failure to make real-time copies of the correspondence on the server they were intended to be stored on (trivially easy by merely adding an automated CC to her official address on her business correspondence), followed by "just trust me," then destroying the means by which an independent third party could reliably be unmingle the correspondence. Another trivial means of avoiding creating this problem would have been to reserve a separate private e-mail address for her state department work, and to provide all correspondence to and from that address to the state department for preservation.

As to your self-serving assessment of how you feel about Bush's behavior - I simply don't believe it, because if you admit it now you have to condemn Clinton or be revealed as a hypocrite. There were zero comments on DU of the nature currently being used to rationalize/justify Clinton's behavior when Republicans have engaged in similar behavior.

There is nothing that justifies this behavior - regardless of the party membership of the person engaging in it, and I am tired of seeing rationalizations trotted out on DU that don't even pass the DU laugh test when they are asserted by Republicans.

[Sancho]

47. Hillary's "behavior" was typical, common, and logical. There was nothing wrong ethically or legally

I'm a state employ subject to disclosure laws. I also had a Blackberry about the same time as Hillary when email started moving to phones. Even though not nearly as important as an SS, I also had to juggle (and still do) disclosure rules, employer accounts, private accounts, and campaigning rules. The Feds have rules that changes all the time, and so do most states.

First, you usually can't use your public email for campaigning, so you almost have to keep a private email. People will look you up and send email to you spontaneously that involves politics, campaigns, donations, etc. on your government email!! You can't reply or anything unless you do so from a private computer and email address. One way to deal with it is to forward all public messages to a private account, but for someone like Hillary simply using Bill Clinton's secure, private server would be convenient.

Just about everyone keeps a computer at home. With Blackberrys and things, almost all politicians quickly determined they could use private services or buy their own servers to avoid discloser as long as they met any archival law they were subject to...and that makes it easy to send political messages from a private address (not a conflict) and still retain required messages (usually by copy or in a dump like Hillary did) to meet the rules. As reported, her server was backed up by Google and McAffee (likely to meet the State Dept. requirements for proof of archiving). Once her employer agreed her employment was over and the records were received, she was completely free to delete anything she wanted.

I've been subject to requests, encrypted data, and presented email at depositions. I've been advised by lawyers when to delete information, and I did as they advised. I've never had a problem.

This whole issue is as crazy as Obama's birth certificate. If you get 55,000 emails to look at, what do you think is possibly missing unless you are a conspiracy theory, Hillary-basher who has bought into the right wing BS. The State Department is happy, the GOP has been making a case for years and can't find anything, and investigators with legal power haven't found anything. You don't have a right to Hillary's personal life or even her campaign communications in most cases.

We all KNOW what GWB (and Jeb) did that should be criminal, but deleting emails is NOT on my list compared to Iraq, 911, and many other "behaviors". The Bush's, Scott Walker, Hillary, and probably a 1000 other politicians over the last decade or so have created private communication systems to deal with disclosure laws - more so they can campaign than than anything else. Just because some people here did not know that it was common, legal, and logical is not Hillary's problem.

Also, if you have nothing to do for a year, read all 55,000 emails (including who was the sender and receiver) you'll see a typical office exchange. No one saying, "Wait, where is that email I sent about Benghazi?" Why, because nothing outside of government business is missing!

[calimary]

125. Good rant!

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. I condemn both

Not partisan on this and you are correct.

The question will remain If all these emails are all there is. Historians will ask that question and so should reporters.

[liberal_at_heart]

87. This is exactly why so many Americans dislike both parties and don't bother to vote.

Both parties are corrupt and when they are caught doing something wrong, they simply say but everybody does it and the behavior is excused.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. Or go about how all this

a release of public records, which belong to we the people is an attempt to smear

[okaawhatever]

99. Don't forget Chris Christie and the second server he set up. nt

[Sancho]

100. I suspect every politician has a server or private service of some kind now.

It's even getting more complicated with PACs and citizens United. Most of the time, you cannot use government computers and accounts for fund raising and campaigning. You aren't supposed to coordinate with your PACs (haha). If all you have is your government email, phone, and computer...how do you sort out business from "personal" from campaign stuff? If you have your own server or account, you can control everything AS LONG AS YOU COMPLY WIYH ANY REQUIREMENTS.

Disclosure laws and regulations are likely to include keeping copies and security. Even if you have a phone and computer provided by the government, people keep their own system and forward government emails and texts to a personal account so they can filter what is personal and what is business and what is campaigning. Just like Hillary, they send messages from a personal account to a government receiver to ensure everything is captured in order to meet the rules.

Also, in government you can still have enemies, like someone from the other party who is reporting dirt. You may want your own encryption for campaigning or personal use. If you can't always trust people you work with or the government system that's provided, having your own system makes sense.

Just because it's not public knowledge that politicians do this doesn't mean it's not happening. As new ways to collect information appear (like gps tracking our phones), there's a question exactly how much needs to be saved and reported to the public! It's an interesting question.

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. So we should not complain

when one breaks the law because all do. That standard really is insufficient. But if you are happy with it, who am I to say?

Yup, confirming once again that hyper partisans (on both sides mind you) are enemies of sunshine laws...as long as it helps my team, it's fine.

[Sancho]

105. No one broke the law...at least Hillary didn't...nor the other SoS's.

The laws haven't caught up with technology, and likely won't anytime soon. If you complain, you have to suggest what you want other than to see some emails!!!

You tell me. Does the public have a right to everything a politician does as part of their job? What disclosure do you need?

Email, text messages, search history on their computer, phone records, voice mail, videos, audio, GPS pings on their phone, documents of all kinds (paper, electronic), Skype records, conference call records, visitor logs, travel logs, photos on government phones, tablet recordings, contact lists, cloud documents, etc, etc. ....what exactly would you put in the law was "public" and what would you consider off-limits? Email is almost nothing compared to the technology today. Some politicians don't even use ANY email and they communicate completely without disclosing anything to because of laws that specify "email". Christy apparently used text messages almost exclusively for bridge-gate!

Should the public see security camera footage outside the Clinton home just in case someone stopped by to talk about Benghazi? Should ALL meetings with everyone be recorded - and either released or available unless they are declared secret? Remember that those disclosure laws would apply to both parties. Do politicians have a right to privacy (yoga schedule, doctor visits, and wedding plans)? How many people will it take to edit what is "secret"? Who would ever have a conversation with someone if you knew it was going on Youtube tomorrow?

If you are banned from using government computers and phones for campaigning, and someone sends YOU a list of 100 donors ON YOUR GOVERNMENT EMAIL. That email has now also gone to 100 people who can all hit "reply" and you'll get all their responses. You can easily be accused of using a government account to campaign and you've "broken" the law. That's exactly why politicians maintain their own servers or personnel systems. As Hillary said...she received spontaneous emails from people, and to make sure she was in compliance with the law she forwarded them to .gov accounts and captured them just in case they were interpreted as "government business". It's a lot of hassle. We have LOTS more from Hillary than we ever got or ever will get from Bush/Cheney, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Christy, or many others. Name another national level officer in the last few years who turned over 55,000 emails. Most did not, and most were repubs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. Partisans will bend all to their advantage.

Reality check. Historians will forever wonder if we have the full record. You twist as you must.

And yes, partisans hate sunshine laws.

[Sancho]

109. I don't have any problem with sunshine laws...you're putting words in my mouth.

I live with extensive sunshine laws in Florida (literally). I've had the experience of a right wing group making public record demands of everyday materials simply to dig up dirt - and they do too - because they take items out of context, make ads out of them, and exaggerate minor issues. There is no morality; only an attempt to tear someone down and win the election. These are not historians, but unethical agents of power and greed. They will take any innocent phrase or comment and turn it into an investigation or attack. When I see that in local, inconsequential elections I'm sympathetic to national candidates. If something is part of an important record it should be public. There probably needs to be a limit to "everything" being released.

What I contend is simple. Politicians have always tried to keep secrets (especially when they know they are up to no good). In the US, that surely dates back to every President. What laws can be proposed that would work with our world of second by second tracking and recording? In my view, if there's cause to think a politician really committed a crime, then a warrant should be used to search any and all records. Otherwise, detailed public records should be archived and released with care. Private stuff should not be available to the world or random witch hunts. Maybe some neutral process can determine what is "private", but I don't know who would be the judge.

With newer recording devices, we could have pretty close to a "full record", but how do you balance that with practical privacy? Would you accept a full record of every second of every day recorded...but not released for 50 years or something like that? Who will decide what is in the interest of the public, what is secret, and what is too private to reveal?

I don't think that's "partisan" - simply realistic regardless of which candidate you support. This OP focused on Hillary. Why is there no call for "any and all emails" from Bernie Sanders over the last 10 years regarding Israel? That would include all phone calls and meetings; maybe conversations with Bernie's Rabbi!

How about any and all messages, meetings, emails, texts, and letters regarding gun liability protections with Bernie Sanders, any of his staff, or any of Bernie's relatives? Would a sunshine law force Bernie to produce those records?

In other words, it's a slippery slope to imagine a full record on all topics for all politicians if you are truly not a partisan.

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. And I am critical of politicians

Who do that regardless of letter behind their name. I am rather consistent. I do not care if this is Jeb Bush, bad bad Jeb for not scrubbing names and social security numbers from the 10 percent he did release, and hiding the 90 percent.

Bad bad Christie for doing that as well, trying to hide crap. Bad, bad Clinton. Hey, bad bad local planning board for using GMail, though in their case they had as a good an excuse as I have heard. The county did not issue those emails they should have.

While we are at it, bad, bad Powell for doing the same as she did.

And complying was as easy as a simple cc to her government account by the way.

I am consistent. You are not.

Thanks for playing

[Sancho]

112. I'm entirely consistent...the same rules for everyone.

Jeb had another server that he never released any email from...his 10% release was only the public server, but I'm applying the same rules to all. Hillary did not hide anything that was business. She did hide campaign strategy, family messages, and personal emails. In fact, we've known for some time that everything on the server was captured and backed up a couple times. Most email was also captured real time by the .gov side of the server. It was lawful and much more revealing than most other public servants. When she scrubbed her server, she never revealed what happened to the backups. Likely it still exists in an encrypted form, but that's just speculation. Honestly, do you think an ex-President and SoS would take the chance that a lighting bolt would destroy all their records! Of course they had backups! If those backups are not in their possession, then either they are also deleted or else "owned" by someone where a FOIA request could only get to them if they knew who to ask, and they were in the possession of a pubic agency. Therefore, without a warrant, they are not available to the public. Chances are the GOP knows this if it's true.

If you think that everyone should reveal all, then why would Bernie's conversations and messages to and from his Rabbi be private. Bernie needs to PROVE that he was not lobbied about Israel by a tax-free, non-policial influence. We need to see if Bernie had email to and from his Synagog within a week or so of any votes giving aid to Israel. You see how silly it gets!!! Has Bernie provided all his office emails for the last 5-10 years? Why not? Where are they? Does Bernie have a cell phone? Where are his text messages? Who knows what he's been up to?

In other words, Bernie's email may reveal some scandal or undue influence, but there's no one calling for a witch hunt with Bernie. Anyone who ONLY demands ALL of Hillary's emails from years ago is the real "partisan". I'm being completely consistent. You can't focus on Hillary without demanding the same from Bernie and every other government servant.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. Now the bernie talking point

Though I expect him to reveal all that is NOT classified. Just like this release is NOT, contrary to your views, since you have not looked at the documents, all of it. It is far from all... due to State Department internal classification.

There are pages and pages of still banked (we have a name for that) in the release.

But I do not expect you to know that.

And yes I am consistent. I do not care what letter they have behind their name. You go on and continue to write these very long excuses. I am done reading your excuses. There is a navy saying that goes here... to be precise.

I am more and more convinced that partisans on both sides are allergic to sunshine laws, and would prefer these documents, ALL OF THEM should be destroyed.

[Sancho]

114. What excuse? If you want sunshine of everything (except classified) then fine.

You should lobby and vote for stronger sunshine laws. Right now, we depend on whistle blowers like Snowden and organizations like Wikileaks. Current laws are ineffective. New sunshine laws would also likely not work, and I've pointed out they would be difficult to craft and enforce. ,

I firmly believe that if anyone is guilty of something, the most likely way it will be revealed is a whistle blower. No one will voluntarily implicate themselves. Also, very few governments with the power to make things "classified" will purposefully embarrass themselves.

What did you expect the State Department to do with those emails other than to redact almost anything of interest? Really.

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. More stupid talking points

feel free to have the last word.

[MADem]

29. Bush's crew DID delete over five MILLION White House emails. They used YAHOO for official email.

Now, what were you saying about Bush, again...? Hmmmm?


FWIW, Clinton isn't required to hand over shit. The laws governing that were changed after she left.

But hey, keep flinging it. Keep inventing crimes that aren't there. It makes it all the more clear what regard you have for facts.


Here's some light reading for you:

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2007/04/re-those-missing-white-house-emails

[Ms. Toad]

33. And DU cheered Bush's actions, right?

And justified it because, after all, e-mail exists in 2 places - the sender and the recipient, so we could recover all those Bush e-mails from either the sender or the recipient. So he didn't do anything wrong, right? Crickets?

I don't have double standards. Please point to any of my posts where I even hinted that I thought she broke the law. (You won't find any, because that has never been my concern.)

Her behavior was not acceptable - and being technically legal should not be enough for anyone on DU to cheer her behavior.

The point of the public records laws is the principle of transparency that communications made in the line of public service should be preserved for the public. Clinton chose to use a private server and private email address to carry out a large portion of her work on our behalf. Anyone with integrity, who believes in the principle of transparent government would have, in close to real time, ensured that copies of any correspondence made via a private e-mail address were copied to the government server. On the rare occasion I have needed to use a private e-mail for my legal work because the work server was inaccessible, I copy my work address on the e-mail. Any responses that were not sent via "reply all" are immediately forwarded from my personal e-mail account to my work account. She could even have set it up so it happened automatically in real time.

I've also done electronic document discovery. What has been described as the process used to retroactively recover this particular body of work is woefully insufficient.

It's not a difficult concept. You don't circumvent a principle because the drafters of the governing laws, regulations, and rules weren't clever enough to anticipate a way you could get around them. (I don't think that was her intent when she began using a private e-mail, but she is relying on a technicality in the law to circumvent permitting an independent party from forensically recovering what should have been preserved in real time.)

[Sancho]

38. So you advocate collecting all transparent data?

Please check off which would not be collectable:

Hillary's internet search history
Hilary's security video's in case she had a visitor doing business
All texts from her phone, iPad, etc.
GPS pings from her phone that show location so we can see where she was during Bengazi
etc,
etc.
You make the list!!! Where's the limit?

You get the idea. Non-secret emails are just a drop in the bucket, and have nothing to do with transparency - not when she turned over 55,000 emails already - and it's easy to see the other recipient or sender! The vast majority were .gov anyway, so it's easy to check any given account or archive to see if anything is "missing". The secrets were encrypted and sent on a different system according to State Dept. staff, so they are ALL captured. One reason for "gaps" is that Hillary used the secret system when it was appropriate - and there was no email record at that time. This has all be explained over and over. The government has not revealed any details of that system, when it was used, or how it works. The acknowledged it exists.

Does government transparency include a Star Trek computer: "Computer, play back the recording of Hillary in the shower on Jan. 19, 2008."

You can't possibly think it's ok require everything to be public. If so, virtually no one would ever run for election.

[Ms. Toad]

43. The list is simple.

The intent of the law was to preserve all official correspondence. She used personal tools for official correspondence, circumventing the law (although that was not her primary intent). I have little respect for anyone who is made aware that an action they took to facilitate their job, which had the unintended consequence of circumventing a law with clear purpose, to comply with the spirit of the law.

You are inventing rabbit holes to divert attention from the straightforward and reasonable expectations of progressives that officials courting their votes will behave better than Republicans.

[MADem]

46. DU pretty much shrugged. They didn't give him half--no, one one-hundredth--of the shit they are

giving Clinton for emails that are DUPLICATED AT HER WORKPLACE. Unlike Bush's, which went, well...POOOOOF.

And ya know what? I NOTICED.

Never mind that Clinton broke NO laws, while Bush did.

I noticed that, too.

You'd think people getting so huffy and puffy would actually look at the rules Clinton was working under before they invented "wrongs" she didn't commit.

It's Derangement Syndrome, I tell ya. Poutrage, false anger, stuff and nonsense.

When people have nothing good that they can say to excite the base about their own favorite candidate, they run around trashing other candidates. Or trying. And failing.

Say, ya know what? I noticed THAT, too!!!!

You'd think DU would be better than that--but then, you'd be wrong, wouldn't you?

Here--have a cute animal:

[Sancho]

35. Yes, the Bush WH and Jeb both used commercial accounts and ALSO had private servers!

It was not illegal. I have no problem with the Bush's or Hillary having a server.

If public documents are gathered on .gov servers or whatever - it's easy enough to pass laws to make certain documents public.

I only have a problem if government officials commit crimes (Iran-contra, Watergate). Then they should be impeached, prosecuted, or whatever.

I think it's crazy for many DUers and RWers to think we are going to collect every email, voicemail, text, tweet, phone photo, document, GPS ping, visitor log, meeting minute, recording, and wedding cake recipe from every politician. The next thing you know people will demand the TV programs Hillary watched (recorded by her cable company), her search history on the internet, the security video from her home (in case she had an international visitor dropping off bags of money), etc. etc...

There's no end to demands for dirt from those who are unreasonable. If there was evidence that she did something wrong, then an investigation can ask for evidence only on that topic. Anything else is a wild goose chase.

[pnwmom]

124. But what is the essential difference between pre-sorting of email,

deciding to write an email and either putting it in a personal account or a public .gov account;

and post-sorting email -- going through email after the fact and designating it as work or business?

Why would we trust a government official to make the proper decision for pre-sorting but not post-sorting?

And it seems to be clear that she didn't break any law that was in effect at the time.

[geek tragedy]

8. Okay Congressman Gowdy. nt

[NYC_SKP]

11. ---"expedite the Presidential Permit application for the Keystone XL project."---

Tick Tock, Baby!

And then...

:juke:

[Hekate]

14. You've never actually worked for a government agency, have you?

Everyone wants their pet project "expedited", down to the lowliest pothole, and as soon as they are told there's an Environmental Impact Study in the offing, anyone with any brains knows the delay is going to be extensive.

Like about a decade. Sound familiar?

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. This is so average it is not even funny

It is the yearly dump in electronic form.

[NYC_SKP]

32. I realize that. I just so want someone who isn't so deeply mixed up with big money.

I confess that I've rejected both Clintons from the beginning when Bill was first running and executed a black man who'd undergone a lobotomy or similar procedure.

Just to look tough on crime, it would seem.

Sorry, I can't stand either of them.

[Hekate]

41. I respect that you feel this on a personal level. But please, for the sake of honesty....

....don't mix up personal dislike with the facts. In other words, just because it's Hillary who says the sun is up, don't be telling us it's actually midnight.

Also, you know she really wasn't governor, right? That was Bill.

[CountAllVotes]

127. +1

Agree 100%. You are not alone btw for what that may be worth to you.

[geek tragedy]

22. What do you think Hillary is hiding about Benghazi? Nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Not all has to do with PRESENT or recently retired SOS

You might find this one interesting. I heard of this document from one of my professors back in College, but never had evidence of it's actual existence, until NOW. This is so average, that historians will celebrate. Reporters, somewhat, but not really. The Benghazi part of it mostly, we know the story line already. Though there is some material in there regarding the activities of the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Arab League, France and the UK. Those will be nice to read.

The reason why I heard of this particular document is that he wrote a letter to Congressman Moody every year since he knew him from his past. My professor was Armenian, and the fact that the US never really went there rubbed him the wrong way. He used to tell us about this and how someday we might even see it in declassed material. This is the closest he got to getting that declared. So professor Deukmejian. I will have a nice toast in your name tonight.

And this is quite the blast from the past.

And as I wrote in the OP, this is quite the treasure trove of documents.

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State CaseNo.F-211'17"n" ^--m-r17"2899 Date: 06/18/2014 ----
UNCLASSIFIED 26
SO 0 0 7 - 1 9 8 0
Washington, D.C. 20520
RELEASED IN FULL
Dear Mr. Moody:
I am replying to your letter of December 19, in which you
express your views on S.J. Res. 212, which would designate
April 24, 1990 as "National Day of Remembrance of the
Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide of
1915-1923."
The Administration is mindful of the close relationship
the United States has with its good friend and ally, Turkey.
We have repeatedly expressed our view that history should be
, the judge of this unfortunate period, and you may rest assured
that we strongly oppose S.J. Res. 212. However, we are
sensitive to the terrible tragedy of the Armenian people and
the need to commemorate all those who suffered during that
period, Christian and Moslem alike. As the President said in
his letters to Senator Dole and other Senate leaders, the
Administration could support a balanced and appropriate
commemorative resolution which does not damage our national
security interests. S.J. Res. 212 is not such a resolution.
It is offensive to Turkey, and we will continue to oppose it
vigorously.
Sincerely,
Ja t G. u1149,re
As stant Secretary
Le•islative Affairs
The Honorable
Jim Moody,
House of Representatives.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE
REVIEW AUTHORITY: ROBERT 0 HOMME
DATE/CASE ID: 07 MAR 2011 200704222
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of .......... No. FT2007-04222 Doc No. C17548899 Date: 06/18/2014
United States Department of State
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case m^ F-n^^7-^Annn n" m^ C17548899 Date: 06/18/2014
12/23/89, Wang 2697
Drafted:EUR/SE:Cauggi
Clearance: EUR/SE:SFriedmaN
EUR:CRamakan
D:MVRenne
S/S 8929517 0. _ teirP
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2007-04222 Doc No. C17548899 Date: 06/18/2014
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case m- -'111117-^Annn n" m- C17548899
UNCLASSIFIED
noo 007-1982
£ongre5 of the aintteb listatets
*oust of bortgentatibtO
Marninton, at 20515
JIM MOODY
WISCONSIN
CSMMITTEE ON
*YS AND MEANS
Date: 06/18/2014
1019 lormworms BUILDING
WASHINGTON. DC 20515
[phone]
135 WEST WELLS Sr
ROOM 618
MILWAUKEE. WI 53203
[phone]
December 19, 1989
Hon. James A. Baker, III
Secretary of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I am writing directly to you and Secretary Cheney to
underscore my deep concern over the current status of SJR 212, the
resolution that gives official American endorsement to the
allegation of genocide against the Armenian people living in the
old Ottoman Empire during the 1915-1923 period.
As I am sure you are aware, many of my colleagues in Congress
have opposed passage of this resolution because of national
security concerns. Others, like myself, have opposed the
resolution on the grounds of its unproven and disputed historical
assumptions.
I will not dwell here on the specifics of these two
perspectives, other than to note that we are all united in our deep
conviction that passage of this resolution is absolutely
antithetical to American interests, both political and military.
Since the resolution was reported out of the Senate Judiciary
Committee in October, the situation has become extremely
precarious. My nose count says the Senate vote could go either
way. Passage by the full Senate will create politically
irresistible momentum in the House. And that will be a disaster.
Only active, aggressive intervention by the Administration
now will ensure defeat of the resolution in the Senate, thereby
avoiding having to live with the greater of several evils.
The political reality is that the President cannot afford to
have this resolution pass, and the President cannot afford to have
to use his veto.
Post-World War I Turkey has been a critical and effective
buffer to the Soviet block. Attaturk's revolution was a
declaration that Turkey's future lay with the West. In the 1990s
Turkey will fulfill a similar and equally critical role as a
buffer (and a bridge) to the volatile Middle East.
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2007-04222 Doc No. C17548899 Date: 06/18/2014
Sincerely,
("fir
Jim Moody
Member of Congres
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Caseu
m-1\lan7A-InSnIFnin"bC17548899
Date: 06/18/2014
I••
2
Passage of this resolution will be the geopolitical equivalent
of spurning Turkey's outreached hand to the West. The subtleties
of our domestic ethnic politics will not be appreciated by anyone
in modern-day Turkey. Passage will strengthen the hand of those
who oppose Ataturk's vision of a pro-Western Turkish democracy and
who find their inspiration in Damascus and Teheran.
There are many members of the Congress, on both sides of the
aisle and across the spectrum of ideology, who will stand with you
and the Administration on this. We know that we can pay a small,
difficult price now --- or an enormous, potentially irreversible,
price down the road.
There is no question in my mind that this resolution can be
defeated. But it will not happen by itself, we cannot do nothing
and hope the issue just goes away --- it won't.
Mr. Secretary, I strongly urge you to counsel the President
to bring the full, active influence of the Administration to bear
in the Senate and defeat this resolution now, while we can.
With every warm best wish,
asursisaiss_.,,.,...._ UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2007-04222 Doc No. C17548899 Date: 06/18/2014

[pnwmom]

119. Every time a government official chooses whether to use the .gov account or a personal account,

prior to writing an email, s/he is making exactly the same decision. With no oversight. And no one is suggesting we should be able to read every private email of every government official.

The only difference here is that the sorting took place after the emails were written, instead of before.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. And quite brutally honest I do not think any of us wants to know

about wedding preparations or funeral preparations. Well I suppose historians would. That kind of stuff went into diaries often in the past. But they are not part of the public records that covers any of this.

[trumad]

3. BENGHAZI!

Sly shit there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Actually MI-6

and French Foreign Intel Service.

It is process... but there is quite a bit that is interesting.

Oh and let me add this, Issa is an idiot, there are a couple things already that COULD be used for a scandal with the Foundation.

[trumad]

5. yeah

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. I am taking the time

to go though them... and the big headline is the hearings were a lot adoo about nothing.

That said, the Sidney Blumenthal info is interesting, but also the tracking of all media appearances.

There is quite a bit in there for a few interesting stories.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

126. MI6?

what?

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. British Intel

what can I say? They were tight with us in all that mess.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. This is way procedural, included in the dump

is a 25 year declassification from a Kissinger document... that will be a pain to read. It is the state of the document. Not that it is Kissinger.

[Hekate]

15. Hot damn, Nadine, this is the kind of intelligent close reading more DUers should be doing

Thanks very much for sharing what you are doing. The part about Mr. Moody is a hoot, btw, coming as it does after so many years. Looks like the net that was cast picked up all kinds of fish.

To you:

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. I am mostly downloading and then will

curl up to them.

Now I know though why that resolution never quite went though. And yes it is about 25 years after the fact so that low level shit can be declassified.

[Hekate]

19. Have a hot toddy on me when you curl up with that bedtime reading. How I wish ...

....our current crop of DUers had the skills-- but most of all the will-- to do that with the TPP. All people have is opinions and whinging, and when I have suggested that interested parties could take what's known of the doc, split it up, and analyze it, I am told it's too long and no one could understand it anyway. My feelings about answers like that are along the lines of: So what you're saying is you lack the necessary intelligence. But I have refrained because I have a feeling that comment would get alerted on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Well I have read the leaked documents

and it is not pretty. Some of it is nafta on steroids, and it will hurt workers around the world. Of course, for all i know the actual document has limits that are not in the leaked documents, but given history and other FTA's I doubt it.

[joshcryer]

21. This was destined to be released at Obama's Presidential library.

People don't understand that the goings on in an administration truly aren't that controversial, people do their jobs the best they can and with the best policy wonks they can surround themselves with.

It's actually kind of boring when you get down to it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. I knew history was boring

But do explain to me why Dr. Kissinger's material and Armenian genocide material of the First Bush Administration will be at Obama's library?

This dump is more like the annual state declassification dump.

You would know this if you took the time to go through this crap.

[joshcryer]

24. Because the emails were sent under Obama's administration?

It would clearly and unambiguously fall under a Presidential Library Collection. Some of this might have qualified under the Presidential Records Act (12 year embargo period), so there's that. Otherwise it's boilerplate policy work.

The most interesting thing to me before I got bored of looking at these emails is that Clinton was indeed using Sid's emails and forwarding them to her people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Yes she was

Against the wishes of the WH.

Nah there is more interesting stuff. The fact that husband was going arm the Lybian rebels on TV. When State was publicly saying nope, but privately the recommendations were there.

Of course the transcripts and editorials of every TV, radio and paper media on this is kind of creepy.

[MADem]

30. +1. People who aren't familiar with the format of letters think there's more "there" than

is actually there. Words like "consider" and "appreciate" and "study with interest" are often used to kick cans down the road, say no without seeming to say no, or tell people "You're on hold for the time being." People who don't "get" the use of language see hope or an inference that just isn't there.

The most exciting thing about it is when someone fresh comes to the drafting process, and finds a newer, more clever way to say pretty much nothing!

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. I am familiar with this crap

and going over it, I am now positive one theory of one of my professors has been proven right. IN the age of the typewriters things were far more concise. This dump is evidence to that.

[MADem]

93. It's not crap. It's just everyday correspondence.

In the days of typewriters, there was plenty of dreck typed, as well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. Ok if I were to be techhically correct

it is primary sources.

But the theory was that word processors have made documents much longer.

And you wrong, this release is not just average daily correspondence.

[MADem]

95. Well, most government form letters -- the ones that last, anyway-- are three paragraphs,

four tops, and a single page. They are frequently signed with a CG signature or autopen.

I haven't read every document, but what is presented in this thread is nothing out of the ordinary. Really.

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. I did not say otherwise

Some others are here screaming that it is just smear. This is the annual declassification dump... or at least that is what it looks to me. It is so average it is not even funny, I posted some of the material to show just how much had none to do with the current administration.

Some will make very interesting reading... if you care for this stuff. I just went though Congressman Sullivan's concerns over the Christian community in Iraq as early as 2010. It is chilling for the foreshadowing, and quite a bit of it was not released either.

It is like what is new? This was not surprising at all. Though I have local sources to speak about that though.

The material on the Armenian holocaust and SR 212 is shedding new light on that. It's been in the news lately due to a coming anniversary, so by the logic of some here, I guess I am about to smear Jeff Bush by writing a story involving his father... but by the logic some use...



That is all is left. But I think a retrospective on that will be of interest to some.

But some are not just daily correspondence, but daily reports... the kind of middling stuff every embassy does every day of the week, maybe except on Sunday, around the world. (And I hate all caps messages).

But I give links to reports we report on if possible. The story will have a link to the release, though I might have to upload the PDFs, not too many people will go hunt for them. I posted them here because quite honestly, we the people should take a look at that stuff too. My opinion, quite honestly I am baffled that some folks think this is a smear. But I work with public records, so to me complete public records is not a partisan issue.

The big headline is regarding Libya... no smoking gun... but it will add to our understanding (from the POV of state) of other powers games during the Libyan debacle. Those are quite extensive. Some of those were suspected as well, and now they are quite confirmed. But nope, there is no smoking gun. Though there is a car wreck in there that we paid reparations for... this is Tuesday for State... but given how unfamiliar Americans are about those kinds of things... I am shocked Issa did not grab that quite honestly... if you are looking to create a scandal... oh the waste! (Not really, but you get the point).

It just tells me how badly those hearings were managed and I suspected he lost his chairmanship partly due to that. The material confirms it. Oh they guy IS a putz... you got no idea how badly.

[MADem]

97. Sorry--tldr. Will try to find time another day. Have a nice night. nt

[bluestateguy]

26. Ha Ha! Memorial Day weekend document dump

[MaggieD]

50. So that blows the theory....

That people at the state department hate her. Another meme bites the dust!

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Oh that graphic does not start to cover it

trust me.

[jwirr]

37. That is what I expected. Thanks.

[MaggieD]

42. More right wing talking points?

What else is new.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. So do tell me what exactly is right wing talking point

about Senate Resolution 212? You are way out of your league. This is a treasure trove. Your comment reveals your disdain for history. Now move along.

[MaggieD]

49. benghazi!!!!!!!111!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Do some in the dump deal with Benghazi?

Yes.

Are you going to scream that RW talking point when this shows up in a history book? I suspect you will. One trick pony and all. By my calculations after going over quite a bit of the dump those are a minority.

I suspect hate history. Do not open history books in a few years. This dump will lead to a few. Some will indeed revise our understanding of what happened in Libya while she was SOS.

I am personally looking forward to the RW talking points from the Kissinger memos in there. And SR 212, that was amazing to find.

As I said, way out of your league.

[MaggieD]

54. Sorry - I'm appalled

That this Benghazi stuff is even permitted here. It is well beyond the pale in my view. We've had untold right wing witch hunt investigations wasting millions in taxpayer funding and we have to listen to it HERE as well?

If that is the case this place has lost its way. Big time, IMO. It's sad what Skinner has let this place turn into. Just sad.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. So it is not a valid news item that the Department of State

released over 800 individual pages of documents that deal with Benghazi and here is the real news, most of the rest, the vast majority, did not deal with Benghazi, or Libya.

By the way, there are also letters from people like Senator Franken dealing with banking and how to get money from American Somalis to their families. the last bank in Minnesota to do transfers was going to stop and that was a concern for the Senator. Then there is the letter from Koubichar after we closed a trade mission in Kazakhstan. Pretty mild stuff actually.

You want visa applications? A bunch of them. This is a run of the mill State Department declassification dump. They do this every year. It used to be a multi volume set sent to Universities where people like me went though them in Graduate school. You know shit like the Zimmerman Telegram is in them, but so is the usual crap of day in and day out shit that State does. (for that matter the Dept. of Commerce does this every year too, and the US Congress... hell all Federal agencies and multiple state agencies do this shit every year. It is called sunsine laws.)

The only reason this is happening ahead of schedule for the already known in the media (The Blumenthal letters) and some of the other crap well ahead of the 25 year time line, or the 10 year timeline, or even the 5 year time line is a FOIA request put in by multiple media organizations.

As I said, you are a one trick pony. In the USSR they used to remove people from State photos and disappear records. Are you telling me you are a fan of that? Becuase you sure are making it sound like you are.

Will I go though the section on Libya? You can bet your ass I will. But I am actually interested in what MI-6 had to do with that mess (that one surprised me, to be honest I do not expect that crap to be declassed for at least 25 years)... and there is some material on what MI-6, the Syrians, the Egyptians and my friends in Paris were up to. To me that is far more fascinating than the rest of it. And no, I do not expect most media, beyond Foreign Policy, or other high level reporting, to care either.

I am honestly gobsmacked Issa did NOT grab on the vehicle accident about ten days before the 12 hours you seem to be interested in that cost the tax payer a lot of money. For the record, we paying out after people get killed in a car accident involving diplomatic vehicles, that is Tuesday, but most Americans do not know that. This said, I am actually wondering if that caused some of the anger that led to what happened later. Alas that is the historian in me asking questions.

But I do not expect you to be an adult and ask those questions. As you posted BENGHAZIII TM RW talking point... because history is never just about history. And yes, in the best I can say is that you agree with the folks in Moscow that disappeared people, destroyed records, and air brushed people out of official photos. You would love to erase this from history, and that speaks an awful lot about you. By the way, not in a good way.

[MaggieD]

59. It's appalling

As far as I can tell from your posts your only agenda here is to smear democrats. I find that offensive on a site meant to promote them.

As for history. History will show Benghazi was primarily used as a vehicle to smear democrats. There were 13 embassy bombings under Bush and many lives were lost. Have you "investigated" any of those?

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Really?

Yes, that is one chapter as far as Issa. There is a reason why Issa is no longer in the powerful position he used to be.

But you agree with the Politburo, That is so sad.

And exactly how am I smearing democrats by giving a link to the actual release from the United States Department of State? Please do explain that logic. If you cared as much as you pretend you would actually do some of the hard work and actually take a look at that dump.

By your logic any document release is smearing democrats. Sad.

[MaggieD]

64. Who subpoenaed them again?

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. My friend, this was going to get released sooner or later

by the way, this is no longer about what Issa did, but the FOIAs from large news organizations. By the way, do try to connect the Kissinger papers to this... that should be fun.

Would you like me to send you the PDFs so you do not have to go hunt.

(Sunshine laws, they exist for a reason and they are not partisan. Local planning group hates them as much as you do)

[MaggieD]

72. Who subpoenaed them?

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. It matters little under sunshine laws this was going to come out

I know you cannot accept that, but this was going to come out.

And it saddens me, but does not surprise me, that you are unable to comprehend this.

So in your mind all these documents should have been destroyed. That is not how democracies work. We are not one, but at least we like to pretend.

[MaggieD]

77. Who subpoenaed them?

Why don't you want to say?

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Becauase it is immaterial

it was going to come out. The fact that you cannot comprehend that is not my issue, it is yours.

You would rather have all these documents destroyed. I am positive of it.

By the way, since this includes this, do connect SOS Hillary Clinton to a weapons transfer to Switzerland in the 1970s, under the Nixon administration to the tune of over 7 million dollars.

That one was curious to me, but I am sure you think that I will try to connect it to her. To me it was kind of, we are exporting crap to Switzerland?

This is what many of those documents reveal.

You are so out of your league it is not even funny, By the way, you do know why the AP, the NYT and other did the FOIA? I will tell you why... in your partisan mind you will not get it. It had none to do with the Committee, but all to do with the PRIVATE SERVER, and SUNSHINE LAWS.

You are unable to comprehend that.

[MaggieD]

83. It's very material

Because it's part of an agenda to smear the democratic front runner. And that is ALL it is. As you are well aware.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. Nope, you are barking at the wrong tree

FOIA and sunshine laws have not one thing to do with Democrats, If this was what you contend, why the hell di I have reports on ISIL activity in Kirkuk in 2014? Was she still secretary of state?

If it was as you contend, why is this release have crap that goes all the way to Nixon?

This is an average, mild release that happens to include some of that material you would prefer was destroyed. Do you want to destroy those documents only, or all that have ever been written by a Democrat? And does that include every Federal Office, or will you include every state and local? I mean, what the hell could we find in FDRs memoirs for the smear?

You guys are hilarious... truly.

[MaggieD]

86. Enough already

Your real agenda is crystal clear.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. Your mind reading abilities are crappy

Does this have anything to do with Clinton? Please explain to all how

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2007-04222 Doc No. C05574748 Date: 06/12/2014
110054-2085
RELEASED IN FULL
United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
January 2, 1990
REVIEW AUTHORITY: Theodore Sellin, Senior Reviewer


Mr. Armen G. Avedisian
Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Centennial Commission
41 Broad Street
Lake Geneva, Wisconsin 53147
Dear Mr. Avedisian:
The President has asked me to respond to your recent letter in which you express your views about S.J. Res. 212.
We are aware of the strong feelings Americans on both sides of the issue have about this resolution, which was introduced in the last session of Congress on September 29. While the Administration is sensitive to the tragic suffering of the Armenian people and the need to commemorate the victims of that period, we are equally mindful of our close relationship and strong friendship with Turkey and of the differing views of how the terrible events during that time should properly be characterized. Accordingly, the Administration opposes S.J. Res. 212.
We appreciated hearing from you on this very important issue.
Sincerely yours,
Carol Lancaster Milano
Coordinator for Intergovernmental Affairs
Bureau of Public Affairs

[demtenjeep]

117. asking questions expecting real honest answers is moot

[haikugal]

129. Nadin..

I haven't waded into the documents but I thought MI-6 was the British Intelligence rather than the French...?

I'm glad you're reading and reporting. Thanks!

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. It's the Brits.

And we did indeed run a story on the content of the emails. Not fit for here.

[bigtree]

51. can we see the emails of ALL the candidates for president?

...frankly, I find this to be unfair. Trey Gowdy engineered this fishing expedition against ONE candidate in the upcoming election and I find the opportunistic reporting that's occurred so far on items other than Benghazi to be little more than clipped perspectives accompanied by biased speculation.

Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post just wrote a huge article on what the emails say about Clinton's 'management style,' as if they alone should or could be fairly used to judge the totality of those who she relies on for counsel. What makes it so offensive is that the MAIN reason for the email dump was a court-assisted insistence by republican opponents that there was something in there which would supposedly implicate her on some wrongdoing in their trumped-up Benghazi witchhunt.

Of course, THAT ISSUE gets little more than a shrug from people who are clearly stretching to find something to use against Hillary Clinton in the upcoming election (just as republican creep Gowdy intends). It shouldn't be too much to ask from the media (and others), who claimed to be concerned about her role in the Benghazi tragedy, to spend as much time muckraking over emails related to that issue, as they devote print to opportunistic speculation and analysis over emails which likely mean little more (or less) than what's represented on the face of them.

Can you really make a fair case against Clinton from an email? I sincerely doubt it. At any rate, it's only fair that there be the same effort from folks engaging in this fishing expedition to cast their line in the direction of other candidates and their personal communications - from this quarter of the political spectrum, the republican opposition would seem a good place to start.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Were they public employees?

Those who were we should, under sunshine laws yes I am talking of Jeb Bush.

[MaggieD]

55. How about Bernie's?

Can we see all his emails too? I assume you're filing a FOIA right now. Right?

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. He has been quite open with what he puts out

and yes, he is a US Senator. I suspect he will not fight it, unless... and some of them are classified. they are.

Like any case work with the United States Department of State, but I don't expect you to know this.

And no kid, I am not putting a FOIA, I do not cover US Political races for the most part. Now I cover big money in politics

You are way out of your league. I mean WAY OUT.

[bigtree]

60. I must have missed your post scrutinizing Jeb's

...of course I'm being sarcastic. The myopic priorities of those selectively raking through Hillary's emails for dirt are transparent in their opposition to her candidacy.

The value of the revelation you highlighted in this thread above is predictably exaggerated and distorted by your own bias against her (bias which I may well share). That particular email is no more revelatory of her views, motive, or intent than your own strained speculation. It's a tawdry exercise which is even less a journalistic endeavor, than it's a mirror of the scandalmongering politics practiced by the republican pinheads associated with Gowdy and his Benghazi sham.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. What bias????

I guess i am also biased against Fraken for actually having an interest in his exchanges with the State Department regarding Franklin Bank.

For the record, I am appalled that Jeb has not released more than 10 percent of his emails, and that unlike State's release, private information such as names, and social security numbers were not scrubbed from them.

You missed it because when that mess happened, I was not posting here. But yes, I am. I am a fan of sunshine laws, I want all that can be released to be released. That does not include HIPPA protected data or SS numbers. Bad, bad Jeb.

But like MaggieD you think that the release of these documents is NOT news worthy? Or that most of the documents have like nothing to do with Benghazi? You would know if you actually bothered going though the documents. I downloaded already what was interesting to me. Among them what I already pointed out from Franken. as well as his concerns of kids in Afghanistan over the winter of 2011.

Another fascinating one has to do with Casey's letters detailing the horrors under Maliiki for the Christian community. You could say foreshadowing.

I must admit the Kissinger papers there were kind of WHAT THE HELL? And so were the SR 212 which never was actually done under Bush senior.

I am sure all this will somehow be bad for HRC... especially the Kissinger papers.

since you obviously will need it.

[bigtree]

63. it's 'newsworthy' alright

...as worthy as the tawdry state of 'news' these days.

"What bias????"

Really? The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. I s'pose if you were around in the 1970s

you would be ok with the missing minutes of tape from the Nixon White House and want the NYT for the Pentagon papers.

Yes, it is newsworthy Bigtree. The United States Department of State releasing this extremely large data dump IS news worthy. What is even more news worthy, at least for Historians, are documents that have like zero to do with the Obama administration, or the Clinton administration but the Bush Sr. Bush Jr. the Reagan and Nixon administrations. I am sorry, but I have not come across any from either the Carter or Ford Administrations. I have not gone though all of it either.

Again, you would know this if you actually cared. You don't, but this is what makes this place so damn entertaining.

Please do tell me more about how much you really do not care about sunshine laws.

[bigtree]

67. well, you did progress

...from a document from this administration to more historic ones from past presidencies.

Still, you should understand where I'm coming from, given that you led with a weak and dubious email concerning Keystone.

Are you certain those past administration's documents aren't already available and documented in some presidential papers somewhere? It seems unlikely they're singularly obscured by their inclusion in Clinton's communications.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. That document is in there

there is traffic from the US Embassy in London from 9\12. This is what it is and that is what you can find in there.

There is a LOT OF STUFF. If you even had the willingness, which I do not think you do, quite honestly. Most of this will not hurt a fly, but change our understanding of events from a lot to slightly, most of them slightly.

But you lack the interest, and that is sad. I am a full fan of sunshine laws, and I am not one bit partisan about it. If you violate the brown act I will scream, even if you are my local planning board. and trust me, their material is really boring. So why pray tell me I cannot see the news worthiness of this release?

It is a shame you can't

[bigtree]

71. again

...I think what you're fawning over and inflating in importance are documents already in the public record which are incidentally wrapped up in Hillary's communications at State.

Are you certain these are 'new' revelations? I think they're likely old news to historians, apart from this administration's communications.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Yuo really have no idea of the importance of primary documents

but thanks for playing

[bigtree]

75. were those communications you think are historic actually private?

...or were they normal cables archived at State and available to historians (and Congress), unlike the personal communications of Hillary?

Why would past administration's communications be hidden in Hillary's personal email? More likely, they are incidental inclusions drawn from publicly available records. It may well be convenient to you or me to view them in this form, but I doubt they were as private as Hillary's personal email and were archived like most of the rest of government communications.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. If you bothered reading this material, which you are not,

you would notice that all of this crap is public material, like the Zimmerman Telegram. Most of this is pretty mild stuff, that has NOTHING to do with the current administration, unless Kisssenger was SOS for Obama...

[bigtree]

90. where was it housed?

...is it just now declassified?

The issue has been that there are regular communications which are regularly archived, and the private communications which were not.

What prevented those communications you describe from seeing the light of day? Certainly the Obama State Dept. had access to them - more importantly, their release now should be some indication that they weren't necessarily protected communications. Why were they classified (if that was the case)?

Here they appear, in Hillary's personal emails - evidently used as reference material - obviously drawn from some database for her dept's consumption. Or, are you asserting they were just included for the heck of it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. My read is that they basically answered the foia from media

and used the opportunity for the annual declassification Some of this might have been on the server, why it was caught, as historical material. But a lot, if not most of this, is the annual exercise that State does.

But most of this has like nothing to do with Libya. There are letters from US Senators regarding a multitude of issues. And I wonder why that Kissinger material would be there, not even good for historical reference, though I suspect a few cold war historians will love it.

The material has to do with town hall meetings in American cities over cold war policy. It came, not kidding, from scanning material, from a college thesis, the idea that is.

Though it is also proof that State (and other government agencies) will classify a fart if they could.

[LordGlenconner]

68. I'm sure you'll get to the bottom of it, Scoop

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. There are some "scoops" but for the history books

not the news paper for the most part.

And the material that you will see emerge of this will likely be in the not so widely read "the Cable" at Foreign Policy. I don't even expect the NYT to run more than a few stories of how unimpressive and we knew this stuff.

If anybody is looking for a smoking gun on Benghazi, they will be sorely disappointed. But the MI-6 role, I almost expect to see it at places like Foreign Policy.

[trumad]

76. this thread has evolved into exactly what I thought it would

BENGHAZI!

[MaggieD]

78. Clearly that was the whole point

[trumad]

80. of course it was...

I can't wait until she's nominated. ..then bye bye to this shit.

[MaggieD]

85. I'll second that

[workinclasszero]

104. Third

My alert button finger will get a real workout after the nomination I bet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. Thanks to some of your friends

I have been trying to point out that the dump has things going back 40 years, that have like zero to do with Benghazi... unless the traffic from the embassy in London on 9-12 was connected to it. That be news to me. Or Franken's concerns over banking had something to do with it.

It is your friends.


You keep good company. But my impression is that some democrats, like some republicans, hate sunshine laws. I wonder why? Because this is an amazing commonality.

[MFrohike]

98. Nice info

Thanks for posting this stuff. I'm sorry that some people are too obsessed with being part of Team Blue that they can't appreciate the historical value of this stuff. I know it's a political board, but it's nice to see a thread about American history that isn't solely agenda-driven.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. What is gobsmacking to me is how some people are that obsessed

some of the things in there are really nice.

[Fla Dem]

103. If these emails are from HRC's server, what's with the documents going back all the way to 1904?

I sorted the emails in ascending order and the first document looks like a scanned letter from 1904. I'm confused. On the other hand, good luck to whatever investigative journalist or RW nut job who decides they are going to dig up dirt on HRC by going thru all these documents. It will be a life career.

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. Because a tiny minority are

From that server. This is the annual declassification exercise. State does this every year.

Kudos for looking.

[Fla Dem]

108. Thank you, that clears it up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. I am personally fascinated by SR 212

and will write a story on this, since we are coming to the 100 anniversary of the Armenian genocide. I think a retrospective to that period and how the Reagan WH did not want that to be passed by the Senate will be a nice one to do. Some of my readers will be interested as well since they are from that community.

And to the logic some use here use, I will be smearing Jeb in the process.

I really do not know how that logic actually works, but bless hyper partisans.

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. By the way I am going though the HRC emails

and as I suspected there is enough here for an article for The Cable in Foreign Policy. It clarifies some of what went on the ground. But really, a scandal, there is really not one in here.

Though on a much larger picture, it reveals to me just how much of a failure the Global War on Terror has been. This is the kind of digging into the archives that those looking for scandals will not like. Ok, ok, they could possibly make one out of the crash in Benghazi involving the Ambassador, and the pay out to the death people in that car, (no seat belts), but anybody who is serious about this crap... partisans mostly are not serious, will know that this is Tuesday for the State Department.

I think I will write a couple articles, mostly we do policy... this shit is policy.

[demtenjeep]

118. how many readers do you have?

do you get monthly donations?

I am wondering how one can live in one of the most expensive cities in the USA and live off of a blog.

Please tell me more, I would love to be able to retire early

How do you do it?

[Logical]

120. LOL, someone alerted this. Wow, talk about a silly alert......

On Sun May 24, 2015, 04:42 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

how many readers do you have?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6722436

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This person is not asking an honest question. She is mostly harassing. She has a history of doing this as well. She is not interested in answers, just plain out harassment.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun May 24, 2015, 04:50 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm not seeing it and I'm not getting pulled into one of those intricate DU dramas.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Wow, what a worthless alert
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I suppose this is sarcasm but I can't tell without context.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It is offensive to ask? Wow.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I see nothing wrong with the question.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No violation I can see.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[zappaman]

121. "Treasure trove" implies there is something of value.

So what have you found that makes it a "treasure trove"?

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. Since you asked quite a bit actually

but I do not expect you to be interested in history.

Some stuff that might surprise you though since this was the yearly unclasification dump. It has very little of the Libya documents actually.

Quite a bit of the data involving Senate Resolution 212, and how that was fought by the WH, perhaps before your time, that would be the Reagan White House. Some of the emails to VP Bush from oh Boeing are kind of cute, on how this would affect their business. The messages from Ankara (US Embassy) and how this would affect NATO are nice. Will provide a new understanding of that mess.

Then there are quite a bit of the drama behind the scenes over our Libya policy, including the back and forth of whether we should arm the rebels, Those who did not want to were correct by the way. Also knowing just how badly the GWOT has failed... but that is policy... not scandal. The possible involvement of Mercs training the rebels is kind of a sad commentary of where we are as a world, not just a nation, and that is a direct consequence of the GWOT.

The Arab league involvement in the whole mess is kind of fascinating if you care for that stuff. Especially the internal divisions as reported by staff... and the role of Syria in taking the side of Qhadaffi, which is far more extensive than we knew from reporting. And of course the role of France (not that surprising,) and the UK in this.

Then there are the Kissinger documents from how we should educate the American people by holding community meetings on foreign policy and the cold war. Those are from 1973 or so. The date is so degraded in the scans it is sad.

A scandal in the in the beltway sense of the word. NOPE, But records are treasure troves if you care for history. I am not so sure you do.

Oh and I have not scratched even the surface of this.

If you are searching for a scandal, good luck. I don't think you will find it, not in the classic sense of in the belt way scandal.

Dive right in, I beg ya.