Are there any non-conservative reporters out there who will just come out and say "the only reason to release documents this way is to obstruct the disclosure process and make it more difficult to analyze the records. This is yet another sleazy trick in this slowly unfolding scandal, which should give pause to everyone who may at first have been hesitant to ascribe nefarious motives to candidate Clinton. What a cunt."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2884861&forum_id=2#27927700)

Mr. Clinton had agreed, when his wife became secretary of state, to submit proposals for his paid speeches to the department for review. Some document requests related to the reviews. On this matter, too, Ms. Mills’s office sometimes objected to the release of records FOIA specialists thought ought to be handed over, this fourth person said.

Asked who had final say, the person said, “We negotiated it out,” and some documents were withheld or redacted.

Experts on FOIA said it might be acceptable for records reviewers to seek the views of political appointees, but there should be no negotiation. “Ultimately, the career people have to be the ones who make the final call,” said Miriam Nisbet, who recently retired as director of the federal FOIA ombudsman office at the National Archives and Records Administration.

...

In 2012, a State Department inspector general’s report said the departmental unit that processes records requests had serious leadership and management problems. It called the agency’s FOIA process “inefficient and ineffective,” saying requests were prone to delay and bureaus didn’t treat document requests as a priority.

A later IG report, in March 2015, found problems in the department’s system for storing emails. Only messages whose senders had marked them as “record email” were kept in archives and therefore were easily available to FOIA researchers looking for documents responsive to records requests.

Of more than a billion emails sent in 2011, only 61,156 had been marked this way, the IG found.

A person knowledgeable about the department’s records process said that there is no pressure on bureaus or embassies to respond to document searches in a timely fashion; that FOIA specialists hold little stature; and that there are no consequences for people who don’t produce documents requested.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2884861&forum_id=2#27927739)

The problems are:

- she set up this secret server specifically to frustrate record-keeping and oversight

- she was sole arbiter of which emails to keep

- individual scanning and OCR and manual entry all kind of suck and lead to errors. And what about attachments? Or email chains where maybe the whole email address doesn't show up sometimes, making searches less effective?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2884861&forum_id=2#27927841)

WHY THE FUCK WOULD THEY AGREE TO THAT?

JFC.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2884861&forum_id=2#27927865)

absolutely shameful that partisans are letting her get away with it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2884861&forum_id=2#27928217)