# Emails

DocNumber: C05770166
MetadataSubject: NYT
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: PIR
MetadataDateSent: 2010-06-30T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0085/DOC_0C05770166/C05770166.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: NYT
ExtractedFrom: P1R <preines
ExtractedCc: CDM; Jake Sullivan
ExtractedDateSent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 10:07 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770166
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  Top 2 Civilians Face Rockiness in Afghan Shift By MARK LANDLER The New York Times Thu, July 1, 2010
  WASHINGTON — As General David H. Petraeus takes command in Afghanistan, the two top American civilian officials in
  the war face an uncertain and tricky future, working with a newly empowered military leader, under the gaze of an
  impatient president who has put them on notice that his fractious war council needs to pull together.
  Richard C. Holbrooke, the Obama administration's special representative to the region, and Karl W. Eikenberry, the
  ambassador to Afghanistan, both hung on to their jobs in the uproar that followed Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's career-
  ending quotes in Rolling Stone magazine.
  But privately, at least one senior White House official suggested using General McChrystal's exit as an excuse for a
  housecleaning, according to senior officials. That was rejected as too disruptive during a military campaign that relies
  heavily on civilian support, these people said.
  In recent days, other administration officials have begun floating the idea that Ambassador Eikenberry might be
  replaced by
  Ryan C. Crocker, the highly regarded former ambassador in Iraq who forged a close partnership with General Petraeus
  during the successful Iraq troop increase.
  Such a prospect is viewed as remote, given Mr. Crocker's prestigious new post at
  Texas A&M University. But the fact that his name is being invoked underlines the challenges that confront Ambassador
  Eikenberry, as he adapts to a new partner — one who has strong ideas about how soldiers and diplomats should work
  together in war.
  It also illustrates the remarkably powerful role that General Petraeus will assume in the nine-year-old war, setting him
  up as almost a viceroy in Afghanistan and a key broker in negotiations between President
  Hamid Karzai and Pakistan over an eventual political settlement.
  Prior to General Petraeus's arrival, some critics said the White House had created a problem by recruiting several
  forceful, ambitious personalities and giving them jobs with overlapping responsibilities. Administration officials
  acknowledge that, as one said, "There are obviously a number of substantial personalities on the team." But the White
  House believes that the current lineup can mesh, and that a difficult war demands this much talent.
  Still, the McChrystal blow-up has reverberated through the State Department. Secretary of State
  Hillary Rodham Clinton instructed Ambassador Eikenberry and Mr. Holbrooke to take a hard look at the civilian team,
  two officials said. She is not wedded to the current lineup if it continues to bog down in internecine battles, they said.
  "You can't have a major shift in a civ-mil structure without having the civilian side take a step back and look at
  everything," said a senior State Department official, using the jargon for a civilian-military campaign.
  Be
  General Petraeus, whose appointment was approved 99-0 by the Senate on Wednesday, took pains at his confirmation
  hearing on Tuesday to back a unified civilian and military effort. He noted then that he had telephoned Mr. Holbrooke
  and would rendezvous with Ambassador Eikenberry in Brussels, so the two could land in Kabul together.
  "Holbrooke has been my wingman, to a great degree," General Petraeus said in an interview. "We have had, and do
  have, a very good relationship." That role, he said, will now fall to Ambassador Eikenberry.
  Ambassador Eikenberry was highly critical of the Pentagon's proposal last year to send 60,000 additional troops to
  Afghanistan, which led to a difficult relationship with General McChrystal. But in fact General Petraeus was the true
  architect of the plan.
  The ambassador, a retired lieutenant general and former commander in Afghanistan, graduated from
  West Point in 1973, a year ahead of General Petraeus, but they did not know each other at the academy. The two share
  a scholarly bent: General Petraeus holds a Ph.D. from Princeton, while Ambassador Eikenberry has Master's degrees
  from
  Harvard and Stanford.
  While they were never assigned together, their careers intersected twice. In Iraq, General Eikenberry led an assessment
  of Iraqi security forces while General Petraeus was commanding the 101st Airborne Division in Mosul. When General
  Eikenberry was commander in Afghanistan, General Petraeus led an assessment of Afghan National Security Forces.
  General Petraeus declined to discuss personnel issues, while Ambassador Eikenberry and Mr. Holbrooke turned down
  requests for an interview. Mr. Crocker, now the dean of the George Bush School of Government at Texas A&M, did not
  return a call for comment.
  For Mr. Holbrooke, the new landscape is challenging in other ways. Officials said his job security was less in doubt than it
  was six months ago, when his ouster was the subject of endless Washington chatter. Yet he has arguably become a less
  central player:
  Jacob J. Lew, a deputy secretary of state, manages much of the civilian influx in Afghanistan that Mr. Holbrooke helped
  shape, while the embassy in Kabul is carrying it out. Mr. Holbrooke's current portfolio has played to his weaknesses, his
  own allies admit. He is best as a high-level negotiator, and not as comfortable with the nitty-gritty work of helping
  Afghanistan build an economy.
  These days, Mr. Holbrooke has become a globe-trotting diplomat, trying to retain flagging European allies while seeking
  to draw influential Muslim countries like Egypt into helping Afghanistan. At a recent conference of 35 countries in
  Madrid, Mr. Holbrooke drummed up more support from allies for the Afghan government's campaign to reintegrate
  Taliban fighters into mainstream society.
  Mr. Karzai's longer-term effort to reconcile with Taliban leaders, and his negotiations with Pakistan, could propel Mr.
  Holbrooke back into a central role. Were these talks to become more serious, several officials said, Mr. Holbrooke's
  negotiating skills could be put to use, as a broker and guardian of American interests. For now, though, as evidence of
  General Petraeus's influence, he will do most of the shuttling between Kabul and Islamabad.
  On his last visit to the region, Mr. Holbrooke met with Mr. Karzai and with senior Pakistani officials, including the army
  chief of staff,
  Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Mr. Holbrooke's past run-ins with Mr. Karzai, several officials said, have not hindered his ability to
  deal with the Afghan leader, and Pakistani officials said they trusted him.
  Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, said that Mr. Holbrooke took time to understand Pakistan's
  concerns. "Ambassador Holbrooke is liked by some, admired by others and seen as effective, even by those who may
  not like him," Mr. Haqqani said.
  Still, General Petraeus is indisputably the key player, and he has wasted no time asserting his control. On a secure
  videoconference call last Saturday, a person familiar with the call said, General Petraeus threw his support behind a
  costly, and controversial, plan to install temporary generators to supply more electricity to Kandahar, the Taliban
  stronghold that is the next major American military target.
  Mr. Holbrooke and Ambassador Eikenberry swiftly assented.

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770166 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: P1R <preines
  Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 10:07 PM
  To:
  Cc: CDM; Jake Sullivan
  Subject: NYT
  Top 2 Civilians Face Rockiness in Afghan Shift By MARK LANDLER The New York Times Thu, July 1, 2010
  WASHINGTON — As General David H. Petraeus takes command in Afghanistan, the two top American civilian officials in
  the war face an uncertain and tricky future, working with a newly empowered military leader, under the gaze of an
  impatient president who has put them on notice that his fractious war council needs to pull together.
  Richard C. Holbrooke, the Obama administration's special representative to the region, and Karl W. Eikenberry, the
  ambassador to Afghanistan, both hung on to their jobs in the uproar that followed Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's career-
  ending quotes in Rolling Stone magazine.
  But privately, at least one senior White House official suggested using General McChrystal's exit as an excuse for a
  housecleaning, according to senior officials. That was rejected as too disruptive during a military campaign that relies
  heavily on civilian support, these people said.
  In recent days, other administration officials have begun floating the idea that Ambassador Eikenberry might be
  replaced by
  Ryan C. Crocker, the highly regarded former ambassador in Iraq who forged a close partnership with General Petraeus
  during the successful Iraq troop increase.
  Such a prospect is viewed as remote, given Mr. Crocker's prestigious new post at
  Texas A&M University. But the fact that his name is being invoked underlines the challenges that confront Ambassador
  Eikenberry, as he adapts to a new partner — one who has strong ideas about how soldiers and diplomats should work
  together in war.
  It also illustrates the remarkably powerful role that General Petraeus will assume in the nine-year-old war, setting him
  up as almost a viceroy in Afghanistan and a key broker in negotiations between President
  Hamid Karzai and Pakistan over an eventual political settlement.
  Prior to General Petraeus's arrival, some critics said the White House had created a problem by recruiting several
  forceful, ambitious personalities and giving them jobs with overlapping responsibilities. Administration officials
  acknowledge that, as one said, "There are obviously a number of substantial personalities on the team." But the White
  House believes that the current lineup can mesh, and that a difficult war demands this much talent.
  Still, the McChrystal blow-up has reverberated through the State Department. Secretary of State
  Hillary Rodham Clinton instructed Ambassador Eikenberry and Mr. Holbrooke to take a hard look at the civilian team,
  two officials said. She is not wedded to the current lineup if it continues to bog down in internecine battles, they said.
  "You can't have a major shift in a civ-mil structure without having the civilian side take a step back and look at
  everything," said a senior State Department official, using the jargon for a civilian-military campaign.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770166 Date: 08/31/2015
  Be

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770166 Date: 08/31/2015
  General Petraeus, whose appointment was approved 99-0 by the Senate on Wednesday, took pains at his confirmation
  hearing on Tuesday to back a unified civilian and military effort. He noted then that he had telephoned Mr. Holbrooke
  and would rendezvous with Ambassador Eikenberry in Brussels, so the two could land in Kabul together.
  "Holbrooke has been my wingman, to a great degree," General Petraeus said in an interview. "We have had, and do
  have, a very good relationship." That role, he said, will now fall to Ambassador Eikenberry.
  Ambassador Eikenberry was highly critical of the Pentagon's proposal last year to send 60,000 additional troops to
  Afghanistan, which led to a difficult relationship with General McChrystal. But in fact General Petraeus was the true
  architect of the plan.
  The ambassador, a retired lieutenant general and former commander in Afghanistan, graduated from
  West Point in 1973, a year ahead of General Petraeus, but they did not know each other at the academy. The two share
  a scholarly bent: General Petraeus holds a Ph.D. from Princeton, while Ambassador Eikenberry has Master's degrees
  from
  Harvard and Stanford.
  While they were never assigned together, their careers intersected twice. In Iraq, General Eikenberry led an assessment
  of Iraqi security forces while General Petraeus was commanding the 101st Airborne Division in Mosul. When General
  Eikenberry was commander in Afghanistan, General Petraeus led an assessment of Afghan National Security Forces.
  General Petraeus declined to discuss personnel issues, while Ambassador Eikenberry and Mr. Holbrooke turned down
  requests for an interview. Mr. Crocker, now the dean of the George Bush School of Government at Texas A&M, did not
  return a call for comment.
  For Mr. Holbrooke, the new landscape is challenging in other ways. Officials said his job security was less in doubt than it
  was six months ago, when his ouster was the subject of endless Washington chatter. Yet he has arguably become a less
  central player:
  Jacob J. Lew, a deputy secretary of state, manages much of the civilian influx in Afghanistan that Mr. Holbrooke helped
  shape, while the embassy in Kabul is carrying it out. Mr. Holbrooke's current portfolio has played to his weaknesses, his
  own allies admit. He is best as a high-level negotiator, and not as comfortable with the nitty-gritty work of helping
  Afghanistan build an economy.
  These days, Mr. Holbrooke has become a globe-trotting diplomat, trying to retain flagging European allies while seeking
  to draw influential Muslim countries like Egypt into helping Afghanistan. At a recent conference of 35 countries in
  Madrid, Mr. Holbrooke drummed up more support from allies for the Afghan government's campaign to reintegrate
  Taliban fighters into mainstream society.
  Mr. Karzai's longer-term effort to reconcile with Taliban leaders, and his negotiations with Pakistan, could propel Mr.
  Holbrooke back into a central role. Were these talks to become more serious, several officials said, Mr. Holbrooke's
  negotiating skills could be put to use, as a broker and guardian of American interests. For now, though, as evidence of
  General Petraeus's influence, he will do most of the shuttling between Kabul and Islamabad.
  On his last visit to the region, Mr. Holbrooke met with Mr. Karzai and with senior Pakistani officials, including the army
  chief of staff,
  Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Mr. Holbrooke's past run-ins with Mr. Karzai, several officials said, have not hindered his ability to
  deal with the Afghan leader, and Pakistani officials said they trusted him.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770166 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770166 Date: 08/31/2015
  Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, said that Mr. Holbrooke took time to understand Pakistan's
  concerns. "Ambassador Holbrooke is liked by some, admired by others and seen as effective, even by those who may
  not like him," Mr. Haqqani said.
  Still, General Petraeus is indisputably the key player, and he has wasted no time asserting his control. On a secure
  videoconference call last Saturday, a person familiar with the call said, General Petraeus threw his support behind a
  costly, and controversial, plan to install temporary generators to supply more electricity to Kandahar, the Taliban
  stronghold that is the next major American military target.
  Mr. Holbrooke and Ambassador Eikenberry swiftly assented.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770166 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770167
MetadataSubject: FYI
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: sbwhoeop
MetadataDateSent: 2010-07-01T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0085/DOC_0C05770167/C05770167.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: fYi
ExtractedFrom: sbwhoeop
ExtractedCc: cheryl.mills
ExtractedDateSent: Thursday, July 1,2010 11:06 AM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770167
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  Maariv: Netanyahu won't meet Clinton; 'sources' say she
  "isn't relevant"
  Didi Remez I July 1,2010 at 15:25 I Categories: Diplomacy I URL: http://wp.me/pH1QV-Ep
  Do they honestly think that publicizing a quote like this, on record or off, works to their advantage?
  Israeli diplomatic [euphemism for Prime Minister's Office -- DR] sources said: "Clinton isn't relevant and
  is out of the circle of influence. Mitchell has taken over the peace process to a great extent and Obama, in
  any event, is the important person in this story because he is the one who decides."
  etanyahu to meet Obama, but not Clinton
  Eli Bardenstein, Maariv, July 1 2010 [page 7; Hebrew original here and at bottom of post]
  rime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is to leave next week for Washington, where he will meet
  with US President Barack Obama. Rather curiously, he is not scheduled to meet with Secretary of State
  Hillary Clinton in the course of his visit to Washington.
  Contrary to his previous visit in March, this time the US administration intends to create the impression,
  outwardly at least, that the severe crisis in the relationship has passed and that the relations between the
  two countries are as strong as ever. In order to bolster that impression, the two leaders will meet the media
  together and will be photographed. As opposed to the previous time, Netanyahu will also be put up at Blair
  House, the official White House guesthouse, and not at a hotel.
  That said, officials in Washington are waiting apprehensively for the answers that Netanyahu will provide in
  the course of the meeting, which is expected to address the transition from the proximity talks that are at an
  impasse to direct negotiations. Obama, apparently, will demand that Netanyahu agree to extend the
  construction freeze in Judea and Samaria beyond the September 26 expiration date in hope of securing PA
  Chairman Abu Mazen's consent to begin direct talks with Israel. For the time being, the forum of seven is
  divided over this issue.
  Read more of this post

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770167 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: sbwhoeop
  Sent: Thursday, July 1,2010 11:06 AM
  To:
  Cc: cheryl.mills
  Subject: fYi
  Maariv: Netanyahu won't meet Clinton; 'sources' say she
  "isn't relevant"
  Didi Remez I July 1,2010 at 15:25 I Categories: Diplomacy I URL: http://wp.me/pH1QV-Ep
  Do they honestly think that publicizing a quote like this, on record or off, works to their advantage?
  Israeli diplomatic [euphemism for Prime Minister's Office -- DR] sources said: "Clinton isn't relevant and
  is out of the circle of influence. Mitchell has taken over the peace process to a great extent and Obama, in
  any event, is the important person in this story because he is the one who decides."
  etanyahu to meet Obama, but not Clinton
  Eli Bardenstein, Maariv, July 1 2010 [page 7; Hebrew original here and at bottom of post]
  rime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is to leave next week for Washington, where he will meet
  with US President Barack Obama. Rather curiously, he is not scheduled to meet with Secretary of State
  Hillary Clinton in the course of his visit to Washington.
  Contrary to his previous visit in March, this time the US administration intends to create the impression,
  outwardly at least, that the severe crisis in the relationship has passed and that the relations between the
  two countries are as strong as ever. In order to bolster that impression, the two leaders will meet the media
  together and will be photographed. As opposed to the previous time, Netanyahu will also be put up at Blair
  House, the official White House guesthouse, and not at a hotel.
  That said, officials in Washington are waiting apprehensively for the answers that Netanyahu will provide in
  the course of the meeting, which is expected to address the transition from the proximity talks that are at an
  impasse to direct negotiations. Obama, apparently, will demand that Netanyahu agree to extend the
  construction freeze in Judea and Samaria beyond the September 26 expiration date in hope of securing PA
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770167 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770167 Date: 08/31/2015
  Chairman Abu Mazen's consent to begin direct talks with Israel. For the time being, the forum of seven is
  divided over this issue.
  Read more of this post
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770167 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770168
MetadataSubject: NOON, STATE OF PLAY
MetadataTo: sbwhoeop
MetadataFrom: H
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-07T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770168/C05770168.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Re: Noon, state of play
ExtractedTo: 'sbwhoeop
ExtractedFrom: H <hrod17@clintonemail.com>
ExtractedDateSent: Friday, May 7, 2010 9:03 AM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770168
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText: Pls keep the updates coming!
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770168 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: H <hrod17@clintonemail.com>
  Sent: Friday, May 7, 2010 9:03 AM
  To: 'sbwhoeop
  Subject: Re: Noon, state of play
  Pls keep the updates coming!
  Original Message
  From: sbwhoeop
  To: H
  Sent: Fri May 07 07:22:31 2010
  Subject: Noon, state of play
  Shaun is going to Downing St to meet with Gordon, Peter, and two others (Stuart Woods, Sue Nye, Gordon's aides) to
  discuss what to do, will learn outcome as soon as meeting is over. Sid
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770168 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770169
MetadataSubject: NOON, STATE OF PLAY
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: sbwhoeop
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-07T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770169/C05770169.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Re: Noon, state of play
ExtractedFrom: sbwhoeop
ExtractedDateSent: Friday, May 7, 2010 9:10 AM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770169
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  Going now to jonathan's office, will hear from shaun as soon as downing St meeting breaks up. On way from guardian.
  Think clegg misplaying, doesn't get his moment or power, will explain more later...

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770169 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: sbwhoeop
  Sent: Friday, May 7, 2010 9:10 AM
  To:
  Subject: Re: Noon, state of play
  Going now to jonathan's office, will hear from shaun as soon as downing St meeting breaks up. On way from guardian.
  Think clegg misplaying, doesn't get his moment or power, will explain more later...
  Original Message
  From: Hillary Clinton
  To: 'sbwhoeop
  Sent: May 7, 2010 2:02 PM
  Subject: Re: Noon, state of play
  Pls keep the updates coming!
  Original Message
  From: sbwhoeor
  To: H
  Sent: Fri May 07 07:22:31 2010
  Subject: Noon, state of play
  Shaun is going to Downing St to meet with Gordon, Peter, and two others (Stuart Woods, Sue Nye, Gordon's aides) to
  discuss what to do, will learn outcome as soon as meeting is over. Sid
  Sent via Cingular Xpress Mail with Blackberry
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770169 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770170
MetadataSubject: H: LATEST, AS OF 5:15 PM, LONDON TIME. SID
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: sbwhoeop
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-07T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770170/C05770170.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: H: Latest, as of 5:15 pm, London time. Sid
ExtractedFrom: sbwhoeop
ExtractedDateSent: Friday, May 7, 2010 12:20 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770170
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  May 7, 2010
  For: Hillary

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770170 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: sbwhoeop
  Sent: Friday, May 7, 2010 12:20 PM
  To:
  Subject: H: Latest, as of 5:15 pm, London time. Sid
  Attachments: hrc memo latest uk 050710.docx
  CONFIDENTIAL
  May 7, 2010
  For: Hillary
  From: Sid
  Re: Latest on UK (5:15 pm, Friday, London); plus Euro and Tony
  Everyone has their favorite scenario, but it seems fairly obvious that it will be almost impossible for Gordon to
  hang on. This process may take some days. Jonathan, who knows Clegg, says he's basically not who his voters
  think he is but a pro-Europeanist Tory. When Clegg was contemplating a political career he consulted Jonathan.
  Clegg comes from a Tory family. Jonathan told him to become a Tory, join a real political party rather than the
  Lib Dems, but Clegg thought he would advance further with LDs. So several theories: 1. Clegg makes an
  outright deal with Cameron, including for some form of proportional representation (giving LDs more seats in
  future elections) and cabinet positions. Clegg might become foreign secretary under this scenario. This is the
  scenario Jonathan believes may well happen. 2. Clegg supports Cameron to form a minority government, but
  doesn't go into a coalition. Instead his deal involves Cameron dropping almost the whole Tory program but a
  joint program on financial recovery to be proposed in the Queen's Speech (equivalent of State of the Union). I
  find this far-fetched. But who knows? 3. Clegg supports Cameron to form government, makes no deals.
  Jonathan Freedland, who spent last week with Clegg, told me today that Clegg told him a deal with Gordon
  would appear dirty. Yet making a deal with Cameron would also make Clegg to be a dealmaker, even without a
  deal on program. These are the convolutions people are going through waiting for resolution. Then, Gordon:
  Gordon is trying to figure out how to form a coalition. Clegg is refusing him. Gordon may propose Clegg's
  maximum demands to him to see if he will publicly refuse them. Hard to know when this comes to a head and if
  and when Gordon departs. Jonathan told me that Tony's view is that Gordon will go but that he couldn't see how
  Gordon would understand it or exactly how he would go. Barring any clear process, skipping ahead, David
  appears to be frontrunner for successor as leader of opposition. He would be well positioned to be the future PM
  if he plays it right under these circumstances. More to come...
  Also:
  1. You might consider making a statement on Europe and the financial crisis, not a detailed policy statement but
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770170 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770170 Date: 08/31/2015
  a general statement, a little music to position support for Merkel, which she would greatly appreciate, especially
  facing a harsh regional election in North Rhineland. I would make it short and sweet, simply something about
  the US commitment to the European project, there from the beginning, is as strong and steadfast as ever; that
  the US supports Merkel's efforts (and mention Sarkozy) to stabilize Europe and the Euro, etc. Timing TBD, but
  soon.
  2. Tony says he ready and willing to do more on the Middle East if you want to use him.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770170 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770171
MetadataSubject: LATEST ON UK (5:15 PM, FRIDAY, LONDON); PLUS EURO AND TONY
MetadataTo: Hillary
MetadataFrom: Sid
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-07T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770171/C05770171.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedFrom: Sid
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770171
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN FULL
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770171 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN FULL
  CONFIDENTIAL
  May 7, 2010
  For: Hillary
  From: Sid
  Re: Latest on UK (5:15 pm, Friday, London); plus Euro and Tony
  Everyone has their favorite scenario, but it seems fairly obvious that it will be almost impossible
  for Gordon to hang on. This process may take some days. Jonathan, who knows Clegg, says he's
  basically not who his voters think he is but a pro-Europeanist Tory. When Clegg was
  contemplating a political career he consulted Jonathan. Clegg comes from a Tory family.
  Jonathan told him to become a Tory, join a real political party rather than the Lib Dems, but
  Clegg thought he would advance further with LDs. So several theories: 1. Clegg makes an
  outright deal with Cameron, including for some form of proportional representation (giving LDs
  more seats in future elections) and cabinet positions. Clegg might become foreign secretary
  under this scenario. This is the scenario Jonathan believes may well happen. 2. Clegg supports
  Cameron to form a minority government, but doesn't go into a coalition. Instead his deal involves
  Cameron dropping almost the whole Tory program but a joint program on financial recovery to
  be proposed in the Queen's Speech (equivalent of State of the Union). I find this far-fetched. But
  who knows? 3. Clegg supports Cameron to form government, makes no deals. Jonathan
  Freedland, who spent last week with Clegg, told me today that Clegg told him a deal with
  Gordon would appear dirty. Yet making a deal with Cameron would also make Clegg to be a
  dealmaker, even without a deal on program. These are the convolutions people are going through
  waiting for resolution. Then, Gordon: Gordon is trying to figure out how to form a coalition.
  Clegg is refusing him. Gordon may propose Clegg's maximum demands to him to see if he will
  publicly refuse them. Hard to know when this comes to a head and if and when Gordon departs.
  Jonathan told me that Tony's view is that Gordon will go but that he couldn't see how Gordon
  would understand it or exactly how he would go. Barring any clear process, skipping ahead,
  David appears to be frontrunner for successor as leader of opposition. He would be well
  positioned to be the future PM if he plays it right under these circumstances. More to come...
  Also:
  1. You might consider making a statement on Europe and the financial crisis, not a detailed
  policy statement but a general statement, a little music to position support for Merkel, which she
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770171 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770171 Date: 08/31/2015
  would greatly appreciate, especially facing a harsh regional election in North Rhineland. I would
  make it short and sweet, simply something about the US commitment to the European project,
  there from the beginning, is as strong and steadfast as ever; that the US supports Merkel's efforts
  (and mention Sarkozy) to stabilize Europe and the Euro, etc. Timing TBD, but soon.
  2. Tony says he ready and willing to do more on the Middle East if you want to use him.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770171 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770172
MetadataSubject: THE DOWNING STREET MEETING TODAY
MetadataTo: Hillary
MetadataFrom: Sid
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-07T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770172/C05770172.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedFrom: Sid
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770172
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN FULL
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770172 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN FULL
  CONFIDENTIAL
  May 7, 2010
  For: Hillary
  From: Sid
  Re: The Downing Street meeting today
  Today a seven hour meeting took place at Downing Street to attempt to determine Gordon's
  strategy. The participants were Gordon, Shaun, Peter, Alastair Campbell, and Ed Balls (who is
  close to Gordon).
  1. Gordon has made a maximum proposal to Clegg through intermediaries, including a
  referendum on proportional representation, program, cabinet slots if Clegg wants them, or
  not if he prefers to be perceived as above dealmaking. The offer is open, too, and can be
  added to. Gordon is letting Cameron and Clegg have their conversation without going
  public. Clegg in private is in something of a state of shock. He actually expected to win
  about 125 seats—and finished at 57, losing 14 from what the Lib-Dems held. While
  Clegg is out front he cannot make a deal on his own; he requires his party's backing.
  Gordon and his people are in touch with people close to Clegg. Many of Clegg's senior
  people will not support the deal that Cameron has proposed. Vincent Cable, Clegg's
  number two, the shadow chancellor, is unhappy with the Tory deal. Clegg is therefore at
  sea. Clegg's party base, moreover, would not approve a deal that did not represent a
  "progressive" position. Much of the Lib-Dem base is idealistic and subject to
  disillusionment.
  2. Gordon is doing whatever he can to hold on to power. Shaun, for his part, is working on
  an economic package for Northern Ireland to win support from the DUP and other parties
  for Labour—a package to be proposed in the Queen's Speech. Peter floats in and out of
  the meeting and appears on TV. Alastair has emerged as a stalwart, providing Gordon
  with talking points and practical ideas hour by hour.
  3. The Tories are working overtime to foster the atmosphere that Gordon is repudiated and
  should leave. This perception is gaining ground as the Cameron-Clegg talks go on.
  Cameron seems to be dragging them out in order to undermine Gordon.
  4. The outcome is highly uncertain largely because Clegg is between a rock and a hard
  place within his own party. More to come later...
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770172 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770173
MetadataSubject: LATEST, LATEST, 5:30 PM
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: sbwhoeop
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-07T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770173/C05770173.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: latest, latest, 5:30 pm
ExtractedFrom: sbwhoeop
ExtractedDateSent: Friday, May 7, 2010 12:31 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770173
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  Cameron has openly reached out to Clegg for a deal, promising a party committee of inquiry on proportional
  representation. They seem to be coordinating, but hard to see how far right now. More to come...

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770173 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: sbwhoeop
  Sent: Friday, May 7, 2010 12:31 PM
  To:
  Subject: latest, latest, 5:30 pm
  Cameron has openly reached out to Clegg for a deal, promising a party committee of inquiry on proportional
  representation. They seem to be coordinating, but hard to see how far right now. More to come...
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770173 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770175
MetadataSubject: H: HERE IT IS! WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON. SID
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: sbwhoeop
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-07T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770175/C05770175.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: H: Here it is! What's really going on. Sid
ExtractedFrom: sbwhoeop
ExtractedDateSent: Friday, May 7, 2010 3:02 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770175
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  May 7, 2010
  For: Hillary

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770175 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: sbwhoeop
  Sent: Friday, May 7, 2010 3:02 PM
  To:
  Subject: H: Here it is! What's really going on. Sid
  Attachments: hrc memo very, very inside latest 050710.docx
  CONFIDENTIAL
  May 7, 2010
  For: Hillary
  From: Sid
  Re: The Downing Street meeting today
  Today a seven hour meeting took place at Downing Street to attempt to determine Gordon's strategy. The
  participants were Gordon, Shaun, Peter, Alastair Campbell, and Ed Balls (who is close to Gordon).
  Gordon has made a maximum proposal to Clegg through intermediaries, including a referendum on
  proportional representation, program, cabinet slots if Clegg wants them, or not if he prefers to be
  perceived as above dealmaking. The offer is open, too, and can be added to. Gordon is letting Cameron
  and Clegg have their conversation without going public. Clegg in private is in something of a state of
  shock. He actually expected to win about 125 seats—and finished at 57, losing 14 from what the Lib-
  Dems held. While Clegg is out front he cannot make a deal on his own; he requires his party's backing.
  Gordon and his people are in touch with people close to Clegg. Many of Clegg's senior people will not
  support the deal that Cameron has proposed. Vincent Cable, Clegg's number two, the shadow
  chancellor, is unhappy with the Tory deal. Clegg is therefore at sea. Clegg's party base, moreover,
  would not approve a deal that did not represent a "progressive" position. Much of the Lib-Dem base is
  idealistic and subject to disillusionment.
  Gordon is doing whatever he can to hold on to power. Shaun, for his part, is working on an economic
  package for Northern Ireland to win support from the DUP and other parties for Labour—a package to
  be proposed in the Queen's Speech. Peter floats in and out of the meeting and appears on TV. Alastair
  has emerged as a stalwart, providing Gordon with talking points and practical ideas hour by hour.
  The Tories are working overtime to foster the atmosphere that Gordon is repudiated and should leave. This
  perception is gaining ground as the Cameron-Clegg talks go on. Cameron seems to be dragging them out
  in order to undermine Gordon.
  The outcome is highly uncertain largely because Clegg is between a rock and a hard place within his own
  party. More to come later...
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770175 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770177
MetadataSubject: S VIDEO ON MOTHER'S DAY
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Valmoro, Lona J
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-06T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770177/C05770177.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: FW: S video on Mother's Day
ExtractedFrom: Valmoro, Lona J <ValmoroU@state.gov>
ExtractedDateSent: Friday, May 7, 2010 3:37 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770177
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText: MS -- A wonderful note!
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770177 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: Valmoro, Lona J <ValmoroU@state.gov>
  Sent: Friday, May 7, 2010 3:37 PM
  To:
  Subject: FW: S video on Mother's Day
  MS -- A wonderful note!
  From: Kane, Kristin M
  Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 3:34 PM
  To: Valmoro, Lona
  Subject: S video on Mother's Day
  Hi Lona, I just saw the S video for Mother's Day: After nearly 10 years of working for the Department, this ranks as one
  of my proudest, most fulfilling moments of serving as a Foreign Service Officer.
  Clearly I'm not the only one who has made these sacrifices or who has these frustrations; Secretary Clinton has heard
  our struggles (indeed has gone through her own struggles as a professional mom!), and she truly gets it.
  I just wanted to tell somebody, and I remembered your name from the women's conference in December. Forgive this
  long message. Happy Mother's Day, and congratulations on working with such an incredible person.
  Regards,
  Kristin
  Kristin M. Kane
  Office of Public Affairs and Outreach
  Bureau of International Organization Affairs
  U.S. Department of State
  Washington, DC
  Tel: (202)647-7994
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770177 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770178
MetadataSubject: DOCTRINE OF NO SURPRISES
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Muscatine, Lissa
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-07T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770178/C05770178.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: doctrine of no surprises
ExtractedFrom: Muscatine, Lissa <MuscatineL@state.gov>
ExtractedDateSent: Friday, May 7, 2010 3:52 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770178
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN FULL
ExtractedBodyText:
  I just wanted to make sure you know that the CARE speech is now going to focus on nutrition/health/early childhood,
  rather than being a major health speech. I still feel that you need to do a health speech as a bookend to food and water
  — perhaps before UNGA. You could focus on health in the context of the larger Millennium Dev Goals. You have not
  given a speech yet about maternal and child health. We have a great story to tell with our investment in GHI, and there
  will be an opportunity to tell it with the ramp-up to UNGA (with the Summit focusing on MDGs). There is a tremendous
  amount of activity going on elsewhere in the world. And this is a legacy issue for you. (I have already relayed this idea to
  CDM and Jake).

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770178 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN FULL
  From: Muscatine, Lissa <MuscatineL@state.gov>
  Sent: Friday, May 7, 2010 3:52 PM
  To:
  Subject: doctrine of no surprises
  I just wanted to make sure you know that the CARE speech is now going to focus on nutrition/health/early childhood,
  rather than being a major health speech. I still feel that you need to do a health speech as a bookend to food and water
  — perhaps before UNGA. You could focus on health in the context of the larger Millennium Dev Goals. You have not
  given a speech yet about maternal and child health. We have a great story to tell with our investment in GHI, and there
  will be an opportunity to tell it with the ramp-up to UNGA (with the Summit focusing on MDGs). There is a tremendous
  amount of activity going on elsewhere in the world. And this is a legacy issue for you. (I have already relayed this idea to
  CDM and Jake).
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770178 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770179
MetadataSubject: CAMPBELL - VISITATION AND FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS
MetadataTo: Band, Doug
MetadataFrom: MillsCD@state.gov
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-07T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770179/C05770179.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Campbell - Visitation and Funeral Arrangements
ExtractedTo: Doug Band; H
ExtractedFrom: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov>
ExtractedCc: ,'
ExtractedDateSent: Friday, May 7, 2010 4:23 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770179
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  From'
  Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 3:51 PM
  To: \
  Subject: Campbell - Visitation and Funeral Arrangements
  Sunday, May 9 — Visitation @ 3pm — 5pm
  Dunn's Funeral Home
  2121 Grand Avenue
  Des Moines, IA
  Monday, May 10 — Funeral @ 12:00n
  St. Anthony's Catholic Church (Southside)
  15 Indianola Avenue
  Des Moines, IA

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770179 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov>
  Sent: Friday, May 7, 2010 4:23 PM
  To: Doug Band; H
  Subject FW: Campbell - Visitation and Funeral Arrangements
  From'
  Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 3:51 PM
  To: \
  Subject: Campbell - Visitation and Funeral Arrangements
  Sunday, May 9 — Visitation @ 3pm — 5pm
  Dunn's Funeral Home
  2121 Grand Avenue
  Des Moines, IA
  Monday, May 10 — Funeral @ 12:00n
  St. Anthony's Catholic Church (Southside)
  15 Indianola Avenue
  Des Moines, IA
  From:
  Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 6:42 AM
  To:
  Cc:,'
  Subject: Edward Campbell
  From:
  Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 1:09 AM
  To:
  Subject: Edward
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770179 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770180
MetadataSubject: MORE ON LIEBERMAN'S BILL
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: MillsCD@state.gov
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-07T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770180/C05770180.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: More on Lleberman's bill
ExtractedFrom: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov>
ExtractedCc: Koh, Harold Hongju
ExtractedDateSent: Friday, May 7, 2010 4:30 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770180
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  See the highlighted specifically.
  cdm

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770180 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B5
  From: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov>
  Sent: Friday, May 7, 2010 4:30 PM
  To:
  Subject FW: More on Lieberman's bill
  See the highlighted specifically.
  cdm
  From: Koh, Harold Hongju
  Sent: Friday, May. 07, 2010 7:42 AM
  To: Crowley, Philip 3; Sullivan, Jacob 3; Jake Sullivan; Mills, Cheryl D; Verma, Richard R
  Cc: Koh, Harold Hongju
  Subject: More on Lleberman's bill
  Senator Lieberman's bill would strip American citizenship from anyone who has "provid[ed] material support
  or resources to a foreign terrorist organization" or "engaged in, or purposefully and materially support[ed],
  hostilities against the United States" or any of its allies.
  B5
  A. Constitutional Rules:
  B. Statute
  \ /
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770180 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770180 Date: 08/31/2015
  C. Administrative Policy:
  D. Lieberman bill
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770180 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770180 Date: 08/31/2015
  a
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770180 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770182
MetadataSubject: MAGGIE
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Valmoro, Lona J
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-07T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770182/C05770182.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedTo: H; Abedin, Huma
ExtractedFrom: Valmoro, Lona J <ValmoroU@state.gov>
ExtractedDateSent: Friday, May 7, 2010 5:06 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770182
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  MS -- Ijust spoke to Maggie and she can meet with you/do dinner on Tuesday night around 7pm. That works well on
  your schedule but of course wanted to double check before locking in with her.
  Lona Valmoro
  Special Assistant to the Secretary of State
  B6

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770182 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: Valmoro, Lona J <ValmoroU@state.gov>
  Sent: Friday, May 7, 2010 5:06 PM
  To: H; Abedin, Huma
  Subject Maggie
  MS -- Ijust spoke to Maggie and she can meet with you/do dinner on Tuesday night around 7pm. That works well on
  your schedule but of course wanted to double check before locking in with her.
  Lona Valmoro
  Special Assistant to the Secretary of State
  B6
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770182 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770183
MetadataSubject: MAGGIE
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Valmoro, Lona J
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-07T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770183/C05770183.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Re: Maggie
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770183
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  Valmoro, Lona J <ValmoroU@state.gov>
  Friday, May 7, 2010 5:31 PM
  Re: Maggie
  The VP/Karzai dinner is on Wednesday night but will check to see what he has on Tuesday too.
  Lona Valmoro
  Special Assistant to the Secretary of State
  B6

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770183 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From:
  Sent:
  To:
  Subject
  Valmoro, Lona J <ValmoroU@state.gov>
  Friday, May 7, 2010 5:31 PM
  Re: Maggie
  The VP/Karzai dinner is on Wednesday night but will check to see what he has on Tuesday too.
  Lona Valmoro
  Special Assistant to the Secretary of State
  B6
  Original Message ---
  From: H <HDR22@clintonemailcom>
  To: Valmoro, Lona J
  Sent: Fri May 07 17:24:58 2010
  Subject: Re: Maggie
  I can't remember but don't I have some Karzai event? If not, what is he doing then?
  Original Message --
  From: Valmoro, Lona J <ValmoroU@state.gov>
  To: H; Abedin, Huma <AbedinH@state.gov>
  Sent: Fri May 07 17:06:01 2010
  Subject: Maggie
  MS -- I just spoke to Maggie and she can meet with you/do dinner on Tuesday night around 7pm. That works well on
  your schedule but of course wanted to double check before locking in with her.
  Lona Valmoro
  Special Assistant to the Secretary of State
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770183 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770184
MetadataSubject: MORNING MEETING NOTES
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Mills, Cheryl D
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-07T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770184/C05770184.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Morning meeting notes
ExtractedFrom: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov>
ExtractedDateSent: Friday, May 7, 2010 5:38 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770184
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770184 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B5
  From: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov>
  Sent: Friday, May 7, 2010 5:38 PM
  To:
  Subject FW: Morning meeting notes
  From: Moy, Kin W
  Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 5:13 PM
  To: Mills, Cheryl D
  Subject: Morning meeting notes
  Cheryl,
  Below are the notes I took at this morning's senior staff meeting. As you can see, it was a little perfunctory with the A-
  team mostly out of the building. I believe Harold sought out the Secretary on this topic at midday...have a nice
  weekend...km
  Summary of 8:45 meeting, May 7, 2010:
  (M) Pat Kennedy chaired, with (L) Harold Koh, (PA) Pi Crowley, (S/P) Ann-Marie Slaughter, (H) Matthew Rooney, (D)
  Sheba Crocker, (D) Piper Campbell, (P) Alice Wells, and (S/ES)Kin Moy attending.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770184 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770185
MetadataSubject: MAGGIE
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Valmoro, Lona J
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-07T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770185/C05770185.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Re: Maggie
ExtractedFrom: Valmoro, Lona J <ValmoroU@state.gov>
ExtractedCc: Abedin, Huma
ExtractedDateSent: Friday, May 7, 2010 5:40 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770185
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  On Tuesday night, after our reception, he has nothing planned, "rest" time at the hotel. The VP dinner is Wednesday
  night.
  Lona Valmoro
  Special Assistant to the Secretary of State B6

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770185 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: Valmoro, Lona J <ValmoroU@state.gov>
  Sent: Friday, May 7, 2010 5:40 PM
  To:
  Cc: Abedin, Huma
  Subject Re: Maggie
  On Tuesday night, after our reception, he has nothing planned, "rest" time at the hotel. The VP dinner is Wednesday
  night.
  Lona Valmoro
  Special Assistant to the Secretary of State B6
  Original Message ---
  From: H <HDR22@clintonemail.com>
  To: Valmoro, Lona J
  Sent: Fri May 07 17:24:58 2010
  Subject: Re: Maggie
  I can't remember but don't I have some Karzai event? If not, what is he doing then?
  Original Message ---
  From: Valmoro, Lona1 <ValmoroU@state.gov>
  To: H; Abedin, Huma <AbedinH@state.gov>
  Sent: Fri May 07 17:06:01 2010
  Subject: Maggie
  MS -- I just spoke to Maggie and she can meet with you/do dinner on Tuesday night around 7pm. That works well on
  your schedule but of course wanted to double check before locking in with her.
  Lona Valmoro
  Special Assistant to the Secretary of State
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770185 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770186
MetadataSubject: MAGGIE
MetadataTo: Valmoro, Lona J
MetadataFrom: Abedin, Huma
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-07T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770186/C05770186.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Re: Maggie
ExtractedTo: Valmoro, Lona 1; H
ExtractedFrom: Abedin, Huma <AbedinH@state.gov>
ExtractedCc: Abedin, Huma
ExtractedDateSent: Friday, May 7, 2010 5:41 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770186
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText: Doesn't give u chance to change your mind if u decide to go to dinner.
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770186 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: Abedin, Huma <AbedinH@state.gov>
  Sent: Friday, May 7, 2010 5:41 PM
  To: Valmoro, Lona 1; H
  Subject: Re: Maggie
  Doesn't give u chance to change your mind if u decide to go to dinner.
  Original Message ----
  From: Valmoro, Lona
  To: shdr22@clintonemail.com' <hdr22@clintonemail.com>
  Cc: Abedin, Huma
  Sent: Fri May 07 17:39:40 2010
  Subject: Re: Maggie
  On Tuesday night, after our reception, he has nothing planned, "rest" time at the hotel. The VP dinner is Wednesday
  night.
  Lona Valmoro
  Special Assistant to the Secretary of State
  B6
  Original Message --
  From: H <HDR22@clintonemail.com>
  To: Valmoro, Lona1
  Sent: Fri May 07 17:24:58 2010
  Subject: Re: Maggie
  I can't remember but don't I have some Karzai event? If not, what is he doing then?
  Original Message --
  From: Valmoro, Lona J <ValmoroU@state.gov>
  To: H; Abedin, Huma <AbedinH@state.gov>
  Sent: Fri May 07 17:06:01 2010
  Subject: Maggie
  MS -- I just spoke to Maggie and she can meet with you/do dinner on Tuesday night around 7pm. That works well on
  your schedule but of course wanted to double check before locking in with her.
  Lona Valmoro
  Special Assistant to the Secretary of State
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770186 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770187
MetadataSubject: MAGGIE
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Valmoro, Lona J
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-07T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770187/C05770187.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770187
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  Valmoro, Lona J <ValmoroU@state.gov>
  Friday, May 7, 2010 5:49 PM
  Abedin, Huma
  Re: Maggie
  Sounds good.
  Lona Valmoro
  Special Assistant to the Secretary of State B6

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770187 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From:
  Sent:
  To:
  Cc:
  Subject:
  Valmoro, Lona J <ValmoroU@state.gov>
  Friday, May 7, 2010 5:49 PM
  Abedin, Huma
  Re: Maggie
  Sounds good.
  Lona Valmoro
  Special Assistant to the Secretary of State B6
  Original Message
  From: H <HDR22@clintonemail.com>
  To: Valmoro, Lona J
  Sent: Fri May 07 17:44:22 2010
  Subject: Re: Maggie
  Ok--lets do Maggie. Maybe I could take her out to dinner.
  Original Message
  From: Valmoro, Lona J <ValmoroU@state.gov>
  To: H
  Cc: Abedin, Huma <AbedinH@state.gov>
  Sent: Fri May 07 17:39:40 2010
  Subject: Re: Maggie
  On Tuesday night, after our reception, he has nothing planned, "rest" time at the hotel. The VP dinner is Wednesday
  night.
  Lona Valmoro
  Special Assistant to the Secretary of State
  Original Message ---
  From: H <HDR22@clintonemail.com>
  To: Valmoro, Lona
  Sent: Fri May 07 17:24:58 2010
  Subject: Re: Maggie
  I can't remember but don't I have some Karzai event? If not, what is he doing then?
  Original Message
  From: Valmoro, Lona J <ValmoroU@state.gov>
  To: H; Abedin, Huma <AbedinH@state.gov>
  Sent: Fri May 07 17:06:01 2010
  Subject: Maggie
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770187 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770187 Date: 08/31/2015
  MS -- I just spoke to Maggie and she can meet with you/do dinner on Tuesday night around 7pm. That works well on
  your schedule but of course wanted to double check before locking in with her.
  Lona Valmoro
  Special Assistant to the Secretary of State B6
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770187 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770188
MetadataSubject: WHAT MAX DID ON JULY 31
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: sbwhoeop
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-01T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770188/C05770188.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: what Max did on July 31.
ExtractedFrom: sbwhoeop
ExtractedDateSent: Sunday, August 1, 2010 10:43 AM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770188
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/07/the-summer-camp-of-destruction-israeli-high-schoolers-join-in-the-destructionrof-a-
  bedouin-town/
  1
  The "Summer Camp Of Destruction:" Israeli High Schoolers
  Assist The Razing Of A Bedouin Town
  On 07.31.10, By Max Blumenthal
  AL-ARAKIB, ISRAEL — On July 26, Israeli police demolished 45 buildings in the unrecognized Bedouin village of al-
  Arakib, razing the entire village to the ground to make way for a Jewish National Fund forest. The destruction was part of
  a larger project to force the Bedouin community of the Negev away from their ancestral lands and into seven Indian
  reservation-style communities the Israeli government has constructed for them. The land will then be open for Jewish
  settlers, including young couples in the army and those who may someday be evacuated from the West Bank after a
  peace treaty is signed. For now, the Israeli government intends to uproot as many villages as possible and erase them
  from the map by establishing "facts on the ground" in the form of JNF forests. (See video of of al-Arakib's
  demolition here).
  Moments before the destruction of the Bedouin village of al-Arakib, Israeli high school age police volunteers lounge on
  furniture taken from a family's home. [The following four photos are by Ata Abu Madyam of Arab Negev News.
  One of the most troubling aspects of the destruction of al-Arakib was a report by CNN that the hundreds of Israeli riot
  police who stormed the village were accompanied by "busloads of cheering civilians." Who were these civilians and why
  didn't CNN or any outlet investigate further?
  I traveled to al-Arakib yesterday with a delegation from Ta'ayush, an Israeli group that promotes a joint Arab-Jewish
  struggle against the occupation. The activists spent the day preparing games and activities for the village's traumatized
  children, helping the villagers replace their uprooted olive groves, and assisting in the reconstruction of their demolished
  homes. In a massive makeshift tent where many of al-Arakib's residents now sleep, I interviewed village leaders about the
  identity of the cheering civilians. Each one confirmed the presence of the civilians, describing how they celebrated the
  demolitions. As I compiled details, the story grew increasingly horrific. After interviewing more than a half dozen 'elders of
  the village, I was able to finally identify the civilians in question. What I discovered was more disturbing than I had
  ima. med.
  Israeli police youth volunteers pick through the belongings an al-Arakib family
  Arab Negev News publisher Ata Abu Madyam supplied me with a series of photos he took of the civilians in action. They
  depicted Israeli high school students who appeared to have volunteered as members of the Israeli police civilian guard (I
  'am working on identifying some participants by name). Prior to the demolitions, the student volunteers were sent into the
  villagers' homes to extract their furniture and belongings. A number of villagers including Madyam told me the volunteers
  smashed windows and mirrors in their homes and defaced family photographs with crude drawings. Then they lounged
  around on the furniture of al-Arakib residents in plain site of the owners. Finally, according to Matyam, the volunteers
  celebrated while bulldozers destroyed the homes.
  "What we learned from the summer camp of destruction," Madyam remarked, "is that Israeli youth are not being educated
  on democracy, they are being raised on racism." (The cover of the latest issue of Madyam's Arab Negev News features a
  photo of Palestinians being expelled to Jordan in 1948 juxtaposed with a photo of a family fleeing al-Arakib last week. The
  headline reads, "Nakba 2010.")
  0
  According to residents of al-Arakib, the youth volunteers vandalized homes throughout the village
  The Israeli civilian guard, which incorporates 70,000 citizens including youth as young as 15 (about 15% of Israeli police
  volunteers are teenagers), is one of many programs designed to incorporate Israeli children into the state's military
  apparatus. It is not hard to imagine what lessons the high school students who participated in the leveling of al-Arakib took
  from their experience, nor is it especially difficult to predict what sort of citizens they will become once they reach'
  adulthood. Not only are they being indoctrinated to swear blind allegiance to the military, they are learning to treat the
  Arab outclass as less than human. The volunteers' behavior toward Bedouins, who are citizens of Israel and serve loyally
  in Israeli army combat units despite widespread racism, was strikingly reminiscent of the behavior of settler youth in
  Hebron who pelt Palestinian shopkeepers in the old city with eggs, rocks and human waste. If there is a distinction
  between the two cases, it is that the Hebron settlers act as vigilantes while the teenagers of Israeli civilian guard vandalize
  Arab property as agents of the state.
  The spectacle of Israeli youth helping destroy al-Arakib helps explain why 56% of Jewish Israeli high school students do
  not believe Arabs should be allowed to serve in the Knesset — why the next generation wants apartheid. Indeed, the
  widespread indoctrination of Israeli youth by the military apparatus is a central factor in Israel's authoritarian trend. It
  would be difficult for any adolescent boy to escape from an experience like al-Arakib, where adults in heroic warror garb
  encoura e him to articipate in and gloat over acts of massive destruction, with even a trace of democratic values.
  Youth volunteers extract belongings from village homes as bulldozers move in
  As for the present condition of Israeli democracy, it is essential to consider the way in which the state pits its own citizens
  against one another, enlisting the Jewish majority as conquerers while targeting the Arab others as, in the wordsI of Zionist
  founding father Chaim Weizmann, "obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path." Historically, only failing states
  have encouraged such corrosive dynamics to take hold. That is why the scenes from al-Arakib, from the demolished
  homes to the uprooted gardens to the grinning teens who joined the mayhem, can be viewed as much more than the
  destruction of a village. They are snapshots of the phenomenon that is laying Israeli society as a whole to waste
  0
  ...and the destruction begins

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770188 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART B6
  From: sbwhoeop
  Sent: Sunday, August 1, 2010 10:43 AM
  To:
  Subject: what Max did on July 31.
  http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/07/the-summer-camp-of-destruction-israeli-high-schoolers-join-in-the-destructionrof-a-
  bedouin-town/
  1
  The "Summer Camp Of Destruction:" Israeli High Schoolers
  Assist The Razing Of A Bedouin Town
  On 07.31.10, By Max Blumenthal
  AL-ARAKIB, ISRAEL — On July 26, Israeli police demolished 45 buildings in the unrecognized Bedouin village of al-
  Arakib, razing the entire village to the ground to make way for a Jewish National Fund forest. The destruction was part of
  a larger project to force the Bedouin community of the Negev away from their ancestral lands and into seven Indian
  reservation-style communities the Israeli government has constructed for them. The land will then be open for Jewish
  settlers, including young couples in the army and those who may someday be evacuated from the West Bank after a
  peace treaty is signed. For now, the Israeli government intends to uproot as many villages as possible and erase them
  from the map by establishing "facts on the ground" in the form of JNF forests. (See video of of al-Arakib's
  demolition here).
  Moments before the destruction of the Bedouin village of al-Arakib, Israeli high school age police volunteers lounge on
  furniture taken from a family's home. [The following four photos are by Ata Abu Madyam of Arab Negev News.
  One of the most troubling aspects of the destruction of al-Arakib was a report by CNN that the hundreds of Israeli riot
  police who stormed the village were accompanied by "busloads of cheering civilians." Who were these civilians and why
  didn't CNN or any outlet investigate further?
  I traveled to al-Arakib yesterday with a delegation from Ta'ayush, an Israeli group that promotes a joint Arab-Jewish
  struggle against the occupation. The activists spent the day preparing games and activities for the village's traumatized
  children, helping the villagers replace their uprooted olive groves, and assisting in the reconstruction of their demolished
  homes. In a massive makeshift tent where many of al-Arakib's residents now sleep, I interviewed village leaders about the
  identity of the cheering civilians. Each one confirmed the presence of the civilians, describing how they celebrated the
  demolitions. As I compiled details, the story grew increasingly horrific. After interviewing more than a half dozen 'elders of
  the village, I was able to finally identify the civilians in question. What I discovered was more disturbing than I had
  ima. med.
  Israeli police youth volunteers pick through the belongings an al-Arakib family
  Arab Negev News publisher Ata Abu Madyam supplied me with a series of photos he took of the civilians in action. They
  depicted Israeli high school students who appeared to have volunteered as members of the Israeli police civilian guard (I
  'am working on identifying some participants by name). Prior to the demolitions, the student volunteers were sent into the
  villagers' homes to extract their furniture and belongings. A number of villagers including Madyam told me the volunteers
  smashed windows and mirrors in their homes and defaced family photographs with crude drawings. Then they lounged
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770188 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770188 Date: 08/31/2015
  around on the furniture of al-Arakib residents in plain site of the owners. Finally, according to Matyam, the volunteers
  celebrated while bulldozers destroyed the homes.
  "What we learned from the summer camp of destruction," Madyam remarked, "is that Israeli youth are not being educated
  on democracy, they are being raised on racism." (The cover of the latest issue of Madyam's Arab Negev News features a
  photo of Palestinians being expelled to Jordan in 1948 juxtaposed with a photo of a family fleeing al-Arakib last week. The
  headline reads, "Nakba 2010.")
  0
  According to residents of al-Arakib, the youth volunteers vandalized homes throughout the village
  The Israeli civilian guard, which incorporates 70,000 citizens including youth as young as 15 (about 15% of Israeli police
  volunteers are teenagers), is one of many programs designed to incorporate Israeli children into the state's military
  apparatus. It is not hard to imagine what lessons the high school students who participated in the leveling of al-Arakib took
  from their experience, nor is it especially difficult to predict what sort of citizens they will become once they reach'
  adulthood. Not only are they being indoctrinated to swear blind allegiance to the military, they are learning to treat the
  Arab outclass as less than human. The volunteers' behavior toward Bedouins, who are citizens of Israel and serve loyally
  in Israeli army combat units despite widespread racism, was strikingly reminiscent of the behavior of settler youth in
  Hebron who pelt Palestinian shopkeepers in the old city with eggs, rocks and human waste. If there is a distinction
  between the two cases, it is that the Hebron settlers act as vigilantes while the teenagers of Israeli civilian guard vandalize
  Arab property as agents of the state.
  The spectacle of Israeli youth helping destroy al-Arakib helps explain why 56% of Jewish Israeli high school students do
  not believe Arabs should be allowed to serve in the Knesset — why the next generation wants apartheid. Indeed, the
  widespread indoctrination of Israeli youth by the military apparatus is a central factor in Israel's authoritarian trend. It
  would be difficult for any adolescent boy to escape from an experience like al-Arakib, where adults in heroic warror garb
  encoura e him to articipate in and gloat over acts of massive destruction, with even a trace of democratic values.
  Youth volunteers extract belongings from village homes as bulldozers move in
  As for the present condition of Israeli democracy, it is essential to consider the way in which the state pits its own citizens
  against one another, enlisting the Jewish majority as conquerers while targeting the Arab others as, in the wordsI of Zionist
  founding father Chaim Weizmann, "obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path." Historically, only failing states
  have encouraged such corrosive dynamics to take hold. That is why the scenes from al-Arakib, from the demolished
  homes to the uprooted gardens to the grinning teens who joined the mayhem, can be viewed as much more than the
  destruction of a village. They are snapshots of the phenomenon that is laying Israeli society as a whole to waste
  0
  ...and the destruction begins
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770188 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770192
MetadataSubject: FYI
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: sbwhoeop
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-02T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770192/C05770192.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770192
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  sbwhoeop
  Monday, August 2, 2010 12:37 PM
  fyi
  Go Back
  Print this page
  Skip to content
  Subscribe to The New Yorker
  C3
  The Political Scene
  The Empty Chamber
  Just how broken is the Senate?
  Seventy-six nominees for judgeships and executive posts have been approved by committees but, because of blocks,
  haven't come up for a vote in the full Senate, leaving courtrooms idle and jobs unfilled across the upper levels of the
  Obama Administration....
  The tally of cloture votes reflects only a small fraction of senatorial obstruction. Three hundred and forty-five bills passed
  by the House have been prevented from even coming up for debate in the Senate....
  by George Packer August 9, 2010
  Text Size:
  Small Text
  Medium Text
  Large Text
  Print E-Mail Feeds
  Cit and watch us for seven days," one senator says of the deadlocked chamber. "You know what you'll see happening?
  Nothing."
  'This is just one of those days when you want to throw up your hands and say, 'What in the world are we doing?'"
  Senator Claire McCaskill, the Missouri Democrat, said.
  "It's unconscionable," Carl Levin, the senior Democratic senator from Michigan, said. "The obstructionism has become
  mindless."
  The Senators were in the Capitol, sunk into armchairs before the marble fireplace in the press lounge, which is directly
  behind the Senate chamber. It was four-thirty on a Wednesday afternoon. McCaskill, in a matching maroon jacket and
  top, looked exasperated; Levin glowered over his spectacles.
  "Also, it's a dumb rule in itself," McCaskill said. "It's time we started looking at some of these rules."
  She was referring to Senate Rule XXVI, Paragraph 5, which requires unanimous consent for committees and
  subcommittees to hold hearings after two in the afternoon while the Senate is in session. Both Levin and McCaskill had
  scheduled hearings that day for two-thirty. Typically, it wouldn't be difficult to get colleagues to waive the rule; a general
  and an admiral had flown halfway around the world to appear before Levin's Armed Services Committee, and McCaskill's
  Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight of the Homeland Security Committee was investigating the training of Afghan
  police. But this was March 24th, the day after President Barack Obama signed the health-care-reform bill, in a victory
  ceremony at the White House; it was also the day that the Senate was to vote on a reconciliation bill for health-care
  reform, approved by the House three nights earlier, which would retroactively remove the new law's most embarrassing
  sweetheart deals and complete the yearlong process of passing universal health care. Republicans, who had fought the
  bill as a bloc, were in no mood to make things easy.
  So, four hours earlier, when Levin went to the Senate floor and asked for consent to hold his hearing, Senator Richard
  Burr, Republican of North Carolina, and a member of Levin's committee, had refused. "I have no personal objection to
  continuing," Burr said. But, he added, "there is objection on our side of the aisle. Therefore, I would have to object."
  Burr had to object on behalf of his party because he was the only Republican in the chamber when Levin spoke. In
  general, when senators give speeches on the floor, their colleagues aren't around, and the two or three who might be
  present aren't listening. They're joking with aides, or e-mailing Twitter ideas to their press secretaries, or getting their first
  look at a speech they're about to give before the eight unmanned cameras that provide a live feed to C-SPAN2. The
  presiding officer of the Senate—freshmen of the majority party take rotating, hour-long shifts intended to introduce them to
  the ways of the institution—sits in his chair on the dais, scanning his BlackBerry or reading a Times article about the
  Senate. Michael Bennet, a freshman Democrat from Colorado, said, "Sit and watch us for seven days—just watch the
  floor. You know what you'll see happening? Nothing. When I'm in the chair, I sit there thinking, I wonder what they're
  doing in China right now?"
  Between speeches, there are quorum calls, time killers in which a Senate clerk calls the roll at the rate of one name every
  few minutes. The press gallery, above the dais, is typically deserted, as journalists prefer to hunker down in the press
  lounge, surfing the Web for analysis of current Senate negotiations; television screens alert them if something of interest
  actually happens in the chamber. The only people who pay attention to a speech are the Senate stenographers. On this
  afternoon, two portly bald men in suits stood facing the speaker from a few feet away, tapping at the transcription
  machines, which resembled nineteenth-century cash registers, slung around their necks. The Senate chamber is an
  intimate room where men and women go to talk to themselves for the record.
  Like many other aspects of senatorial procedure, Rule XXVI, Paragraph 5 is a relic from the days when senators had to
  hover around their desks to know what was happening on the floor during the main afternoon debate. (The desks, some
  built as long ago as 1819, are mahogany, and their lids lift up, like those in an old schoolhouse; the desks of the Majority
  and Minority Leader are still equipped with brass spittoons.) In the press lounge, McCaskill said, with light sarcasm,
  "Somebody told me the rule is to make sure people pay attention to what's happening on the floor during debate and not
  be distracted by committee work. Clearly, it's an old rule."
  The Republicans had turned this old rule into a new means of obstruction. There would be no hearings that afternoon; the
  general and the admiral would have to come back another day. Like investment bankers on Wall Street, senators these
  days direct much of their creative energy toward the manipulation of arcane rules and loopholes, scoring short-term
  successes while magnifying their institution's broader dysfunction.
  Around five o'clock, the chamber began to fill, as the reconciliation bill came up for a vote; there were twenty-three
  amendments pending, all from Republicans, and perhaps many more to come. Ordinarily, debate and voting on an
  amendment might take two legislative days, but under the rules of the reconciliation bill the senators were to dispatch the
  amendments one after another, as in a hot-dog-eating contest, with a minute of debate for each side. The goal was to
  finish the bill by the end of the evening, so that senators wouldn't miss a day of their spring recess—apparently, the only
  thing worse than a government takeover of the health-care system. The usual longueurs of the Senate, where forty
  minutes can tick away on the antique clock above the rear double doors without a word's being spoken, were about to
  yield to a frenzy. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader, from Nevada, had predicted that the process, known as Vote-O-Rama,
  would go past two in the morning, and had warned senators to stay close to the chamber.
  Max Baucus, of Montana, the manager of the bill for the Democrats, rose and said, "This is the first time in recent memory
  that a reconciliation bill has all the amendments on one side only. These are clearly amendments designed to kill the
  reconciliation and, therefore, kill health-care reform. So I very much hope that all of these amendments are defeated."
  Tall, gaunt Judd Gregg, of New Hampshire, the bill's Republican manager, took the floor. "The position on the other side
  of the aisle is: no amendments allowed, even if they are good," he said. Indignation rouged his cheeks, and his voice rose
  half an octave. "Obviously, they presume the Republican Party is an inconvenience. The democratic process is an
  inconvenience. It also appears, considering the opposition to this out in America, that the American people are an
  inconvenience."
  The Senate chamber is laid out in four concentric semicircles, with adjacent desks almost touching on the crowded
  Democratic side, and the desks of the much smaller Republican minority spaced loosely apart. The design is meant to
  emphasize the senators' unity. But Baucus and Gregg avoided eye contact across the six feet of aisle that now divides the
  chamber into two constantly warring factions. Senators are required, by custom, to speak of one another in the third
  person, directing their anger and sarcasm through whichever poor freshman happens to be the presiding officer at the
  moment. Rule XIX, Paragraphs 2 and 3—one of the original rules drawn from Thomas Jefferson's "Manual of
  Parliamentary Practice"—bars senators from imputing unworthy conduct or motives to another senator, and from insulting
  any senator's state. But there is no rule against finger-wagging, and Baucus wagged his at Gregg while shouting at Al
  Franken, of Minnesota, who had started a shift in the presiding officer's chair: "Mr. President, make no mistake, the intent
  of every single one of the amendments offered on the other side of the aisle is to kill health-care reform. . . . A senator on
  the other side of the aisle stood up and said that this is hopefully the President's Waterloo. They want to kill health-care
  reform!"
  The voice of Stuart Smalley filled the chamber: "The time of the senator has expired."
  For the next nine hours, the chamber became the stage of a theatrical whose ending, like almost everything that happens
  on the Senate floor, was known in advance to all. The Republican goal in Vote-O-Rama was to embarrass the Democrats
  while appearing to suggest useful changes; the Democratic goal was to prevent any change to the bill, so that it wouldn't
  have to return to the House, where it might be voted down. Several of the Republican amendments had been designed to
  make Democrats look hypocritical, by forcing them to vote against policies that the Party typically supports. One
  amendment, for example, declared that the health-care bill could not be linked to a tax hike on individuals making less
  than two hundred thousand dollars a year. Other amendments were more nakedly partisan, and outlandish. David Vitter, a
  Louisiana Republican, proposed an amendment that repealed the entire law. Senator Tom Coburn, a Republican
  obstetrician from Oklahoma, introduced an amendment to insure that veterans diagnosed with mental illness would not be
  denied the right to own firearms, and another to prevent "convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders" from
  buying erectile-dysfunction drugs with taxpayer funds. Coburn got through the minute he was allotted to explain his Viagra
  amendment without cracking a smile. "This is not a game amendment," he insisted. "It actually saves money."
  So many senators snickered that the presiding officer banged his gavel for order.
  "The amendment offered by the senator from Oklahoma makes a mockery of this Senate," Baucus declared. "It is a crass
  political stunt aimed at making thirty-second commercials, not public policy." Baucus asked for the yeas and nays, and a
  clerk called the roll at a ragged pace. "Mr. Coburn, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins." Thirty-five-second pause. "Mr. Conrad, Mr.
  Corker." Ten seconds. "Mr. Cornyn." Senators pay no attention to the sound of their name; they cast votes when they're
  so inclined—wandering in late, shuffling down the chamber's gentle blue-carpeted steps to the swarm of colleagues
  milling about in the well, where the clerks sit at a table, and then holding a finger up or down. At one point, John McCain—
  now just one of a hundred senators and struggling to stay in office—spent half a minute waving stiff-armed, trying to catch
  the eye of a clerk so he could cast his vote. In the end, two Democrats—Evan Bayh, of Indiana, and Ben Nelson, of
  Nebraska—joined the Republicans in opposing Viagra for sex offenders. The amendment was defeated.
  The carpeting in the chamber absorbs voices, and during the long night one of the few that rose above the muffled drone
  was that of Charles Schumer, who said to Gregg, "Get to work! Stop screwing around with health care!" Sporadically, a
  sharp cackle emanated from Al Franken, who wandered the chamber, looking for Republicans he could charm into
  laughing. Observed from the press gallery, the senators in their confined space began to resemble zoo animals—Levin a
  shambling brown bear, John Thune a loping gazelle, Jim Bunning a maddened grizzly. Each one displayed a limited set of
  behaviors: in conversations, John Kerry planted himself a few inches away, loomed, and clamped his hands down on a
  colleague's shoulders. Joe Lieberman patted everyone on the back. It became clear which senators were loners (Russ
  Feingold, Daniel Akaka) and which were social (Blanche Lincoln, Lindsey Graham); which senators were important (Dick
  Durbin, Jon Kyl) and which were ignored (Bayh, Bunning).
  Past midnight, Durbin slumped at his desk, one hand over his face, yawning painfully. Susan Collins was going through
  her mail. Twenty-three amendments had been voted down, and the Republicans were proposing a fresh batch. "Can we
  get some order?" Bunning growled, before he introduced a proposal to let senior citizens opt out of parts of Medicare. It
  was the only amendment that any Republicans joined the Democrats to defeat.
  Harry Reid controls the Senate's schedule, but Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, who is the Minority Leader, can object.
  Since nearly everything in the Senate depends on unanimous consent, the main business of the place is a continuous
  negotiation between these two supremely unsentimental men. That night, they played a game of chicken: McConnell,
  unsmiling, his eyes riveted ahead, held out the prospect of dozens more amendments; Reid, a former boxer, was
  hunched and mumbling, playing rope-a-dope, vowing to fend off amendments all night. The two leaders left the chamber
  to confer privately about how to proceed. Inside, the atmosphere of a slumber party set in. Debbie Stabenow, of Michigan,
  her hand across her heart, sang a sentimental duet with Robert Menendez, of New Jersey. Exhaustion momentarily
  eased the partisan divide. Claire McCaskill sat down beside Tom Coburn, held up an erect finger in his face, as if casting
  her Viagra vote, then let it go limp. Coburn could be heard to joke, "The longest it lasted was thirty seconds."
  At two-forty-five in the morning, Reid suddenly declared the Senate adjourned. The Senate parliamentarian had just found
  two small violations of the reconciliation rules, meaning that in the morning, despite the Democrats' efforts, the bill would
  go back to the House for another vote. At the bang of the gavel, the senators fled. In the parking lot, on the Capitol's
  northeast side, McCaskill climbed into her S.U.V. Levin, in a cramped sedan, was chauffeured off into the empty streets.
  On a marble ledge near the exit, Arlen Specter sat alone, a ghost in a brown suit, staring straight ahead, as if waiting for
  someone to take him away.
  The Senate reconvened at 9:45 A.M. Around two in the afternoon, the members gathered for the final vote, and the
  Democrats were giddy. Tom Harkin, of Iowa, and Christopher Dodd, of Connecticut, even exchanged a hug. "Everyone's
  tired," Reid declared before the final vote. "This legislative fight is one for the record books." He was so fatigued that he
  initially voted the wrong way. Lindsey Graham came in late, delaying the tally by ten minutes. "Way to go, Lindsey, way to
  stretch it out," Sam Brownback told him. A few Republicans lingered and took in the moment, like players on the losing
  team at the end of the World Series. After a year of work, health-care reform had passed, 56-43, and for a moment the
  chamber's Tweeting pygmies had become legislative giants.
  The Senate is often referred to as "the world's greatest deliberative body." Jeff Merkley, a freshman Democrat from
  Oregon, said, "That is a phrase that I wince each time I hear it, because the amount of real deliberation, in terms of
  exchange of ideas, is so limited." Merkley could remember witnessing only one moment of floor debate between a
  Republican and a Democrat. "The memory I took with me was: 'Wow, that's unusual—there's a conversation occurring in
  which they're making point and counterpoint and challenging each other.' And yet nobody else was in the chamber."
  Tom Udall, a freshman Democrat from New Mexico, could not recall seeing a senator change another senator's mind.
  "You would really need a good hour or two of extensive exchange among folks that really know the issue," he said.
  Instead, a senator typically gives "a prepared speech that's already been vetted through the staff. Then another guy gets
  up and gives a speech on a completely different subject." From time to time, senators of the same party carry on a
  colloquy—"I would be interested in the distinguished senator from Iowa's view of the other side's Medicare Advantage
  plan"—that has been scripted in advance by aides.
  While senators are in Washington, their days are scheduled in fifteen-minute intervals: staff meetings, interviews, visits
  from lobbyists and home-state groups, caucus lunches, committee hearings, briefing books, floor votes, fund-raisers.
  Each senator sits on three or four committees and even more subcommittees, most of which meet during the same
  morning hours, which helps explain why committee tables are often nearly empty, and why senators drifting into a hearing
  can barely sustain a coherent line of questioning. All this activity is crammed into a three-day week, for it's an unwritten
  rule of the modern Senate that votes are almost never scheduled for Mondays or Fridays, which allows senators to spend
  four days away from the capital. Senators now, unlike those of several decades ago, often keep their families in their
  home states, where they return most weekends, even if it's to Alaska or Idaho—a concession to endless fund-raising, and
  to the populist anti-Washington mood of recent years. (When Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House, in 1995, he
  told new Republican members not to move their families to the capital.) Tom Daschle, the former Democratic leader, said,
  "When we scheduled votes, the only day where we could be absolutely certain we had all one hundred senators there
  was Wednesday afternoon."
  Nothing dominates the life of a senator more than raising money. Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat, said, "Of any free time
  you have, I would say fifty per cent, maybe even more," is spent on fund-raising. In addition to financing their own
  campaigns, senators participate at least once a week in the Power Hour, during which they make obligatory calls on
  behalf of the Party (in the Democrats' case, from a three-story town house across Constitution Avenue from the Senate
  office buildings, since they're barred from using their own offices to raise money). Lamar Alexander, the Tennessee
  Republican, insisted that the donations are never sufficient to actually buy a vote, but he added, "It sucks up time that a
  senator ought to be spending getting to know other senators, working on issues."
  In June, 2009, top aides to Max Baucus, whose Finance Committee was negotiating the health-care-reform bill, took time
  to meet with two health-care lobbyists, who themselves were former Baucus aides. (Baucus received more than a million
  dollars from the industry for his 2008 reelection campaign.) That month, according to Common Cause, industry groups
  were spending $1.4 million a day to lobby members of Congress. Udall, speaking of the corrosive effect of fund-raising
  and lobbying, said, "People know it in their heart—they know this place is dominated by special interests. The over-all bills
  are not nearly as bold because of the influence of money."
  Deschle sketched a portrait of the contemporary senator who is too busy to think: "Sometimes, you're dialling for dollars,
  you get the call, you've got to get over to vote, you've got fifteen minutes. You don't have a clue what's on the floor, your
  staff is whispering in your ears, you're running onto the floor, then you check with your leader—you double check—but,
  just to make triple sure, there's a little sheet of paper on the clerk's table: The leader recommends an aye vote, or a no
  vote. So you've got all these checks just to make sure you don't screw up, but even then you screw up sometimes. But, if
  you're ever pressed, 'Why did you vote that way?'—you just walk out thinking, Oh, my God, I hope nobody asks, because
  I don't have a clue."
  Aides, at the elbows of senators as they shuttle between their offices and the Capitol, have proliferated over the past few
  decades, and they play a crucial role. Lamar Alexander, who has an office of fifty people, pointed out that staff members,
  who are younger and often more ideological than their bosses, and less dependent on institutional relationships, tend to
  push senators toward extremes. Often, aides are the main actors behind proposed legislation—writing bills, negotiating
  the details—while the senator is relegated to repeating talking points on Fox' or MSNBC.
  One day in his office, Udall picked up some tabloids from his coffee table and waved them at me. "You know about all
  these rags that cover the Hill, right?" he said, smiling. There are five dailies—Politico, The Hill, Roll Call, Con gressDaily,
  and CQ Today—all of which emphasize insider conflict. The senators, who like to complain about the trivializing effect of
  the "24/7 media," provide no end of fodder for it. The news of the day was what Udall called a "dust-up" between Scott
  Brown, the freshman Massachusetts Republican, and a staffer for Jim DeMint, the arch-conservative from South Carolina;
  the staffer had Tweeted that Brown was voting too often with the Democrats, leading Brown to confront DeMint on the
  Senate floor over this supposed breach of protocol. Bloggers carry so much influence that many senators have a young
  press aide dedicated to the care and feeding of online media. News about, by, and for a tiny kingdom of political
  obsessives dominates the attention of senators and staff, while stories that might affect their constituents go unreported
  because their home-state papers can no longer afford to have bureaus in Washington. Dodd, who came to the Senate in
  1981 and will leave next January, told me, "I used to have eleven Connecticut newspaper reporters who covered me on a
  daily basis. I don't have one today, and haven't had one in a number of years. Instead, D.C. publications only see me
  through the prism of conflict." Lamar Alexander described the effect as "this instant radicalizing of positions to the left and
  the right."
  Both Alexander and Gregg said that the Senate had been further polarized by the rising number of senators—now nearly
  fifty—who come from the House, rather than from governorships or other positions where bipartisan coOperation is still
  permissible. "A lot of senators don't understand the history or tradition of the institution," Gregg said. "Substantive,
  thoughtful, moderate discussion is pushed aside."
  Encumbered with aides, prodded by hourly jolts from electronic media, racing from the hearing room to the caucus lunch
  to the Power Hour to the airport, senators no longer have the time, or perhaps the inclination, to get to know one
  another—least of all, members of the other party. Friendships across party lines are more likely among the few spouses
  who live in Washington. After Udall joined the Senate, last year, he was invited to dinner by Alexander, because Jill
  Cooper Udall and Honey Alexander had become friends through a women's social club. It remains the only time Udall has
  set foot in the house of a Republican senator. (Vice-President Joe Biden, in his autobiography, recalls that, in the
  seventies, a bipartisan group of senators and their wives hosted a monthly dinner: "In those days Democrats and
  Republicans actually enjoyed each other's company.") When I asked Chris Dodd how well he knew, for example, Jim
  DeMint, Dodd said, "Not at all. Whereas Jesse Helms and I knew each other pretty well." He repeated something that Jon
  Kyl, the Republican whip, from Arizona, had recently said to him: "There's no trust." Dodd, whose father was a senator,
  went on, "That's really all there is—this place really operates on that. I don't think anyone would argue with that
  conclusion. And if that's missing.
  There remains a veneer—badly chipped—of comity. On the floor, senators still refer to members of the opposing party as
  "friends." Gregg described Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, as "one of my best friends in the Senate," and
  both Gregg and Alexander ticked off examples of little-known legislation that they are currently working on with
  Democrats; Alexander and Ben Cardin, of Maryland, have introduced a bill to ban mountaintop-removal coal mining. Udall
  noted that he had become friendly with John McCain when they went on a congressional tour of Iraq. But opportunities to
  bond are rare. On the first floor of the Capitol, there is a private dining room for senators, the "inner sanctum," where
  Republicans and Democrats used to have lunch (at separate tables, but in the same room). In the seventies, old bulls
  such as James Eastland, Hubert Humphrey, and Jacob Javits held court there; later, Daniel Patrick Moynihan did. "You
  learned, and also you found out what was going on," Dodd said, adding, "It's awfully difficult to say crappy things about
  someone that you just had lunch with." These days, the inner sanctum is nearly always empty. Senators eat lunch in their
  respective caucus rooms with members of their party, or else "downtown," which means asking donors for money over
  steak and potatoes at the Monocle or Charlie Palmer. The tradition of the "caucus lunch" was instituted by Republicans in
  the fifties, when they lost their majority; Democrats, after losing theirs in 1980, followed suit. Caucus lunches work
  members on both sides into a state of pep-rally fervor. During one recent Republican lunch, Jim Bunning referred to Harry
  Reid as an idiot. "At least he had the courtesy to do it behind closed doors," Alexander joked, adding, "We spend most of
  our time in team meetings deciding what we're going to do to each other."
  In 2007, Alexander and Lieberman started a series of bipartisan Tuesday breakfasts. "They kind of dwindled off during the
  health-care debate," Alexander said. Udall has tried to revive the Wednesday inner-sanctum lunch. For the first few
  months, only Democrats attended. Then, one Wednesday in May, Susan Collins, the Maine Republican, showed up,
  joking nervously about being a turncoat; to protect her reputation, her presence was kept secret.
  These efforts at resurrecting dead customs are as self-conscious and, probably, as doomed as the get-togethers of lovers
  who try to stay friends after a breakup. Ira Shapiro, a Washington lawyer and a former aide to Senator Gaylord Nelson, of
  Wisconsin, put it this way: "Why would they want to have lunch together when they hate each other?"
  The upper chamber of Congress was a constitutional compromise between popular sovereignty and state sovereignty.
  The Senate was designed, as part of the separation of powers, to check the impulses of the House and the popular will.
  For some Federalists, it also had an aristocratic purpose: to collect knowledge and experience, and to guard against a
  levelling spirit that might overtake the majority. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the Senate, in 1832, he was deeply
  impressed by the quality of its members: "They represent only the lofty thoughts [of the nation] and the generous instincts
  animating it, not the petty passions." But he also recognized that "a minority of the nation dominating the Senate could
  completely paralyze the will of the majority represented in the other house, and that is contrary to the spirit of
  constitutional government." As long as the Senate continued to be composed of America's most talented statesmen,
  Tocqueville implied, it would restrain its own anti-democratic potential.
  Robert A. Caro, in "Master of the Senate," the third volume of his life of Lyndon Johnson, argues that after the Civil War •
  the Senate was captured by wealthy and sectional interests, ending a more high-minded age when Daniel Webster, Henry
  Clay, and John C. Calhoun engaged in brilliant debate. Aside from spasms of legislation at the start of the Presidencies of
  Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, Caro writes, the Senate remained controlled by an alliance of Southern racists
  and Republican corporate shills, and was "the dam against which the waves of social reform dashed themselves in vain—
  the chief obstructive force in the federal government." By the fifties, the Senate had become far more conservative than
  the public. And not just conservative: William S. White, in his 1956 book "Citadel," called the Senate "to a most peculiar
  degree, a Southern Institution . . . growing at the heart of this ostensibly national assembly" and "the only place in the
  country where the South did not lose the war."
  By mid-century, it had become a journalistic cliché to call the Senate broken. Otto Preminger's 1962 film "Advise and
  Consent," based on the novel by Allen Drury, is about the Senate of that period, and it presents Democrats and
  Republicans as equally amoral, calculating, and power-hungry. But the institution, as depicted by Preminger, still works, in
  its way: though the deals stink, they get cut. The senators know their colleagues and the rules; they back-stab one
  another in the lunchroom, then drink cocktails and play cards on Saturday nights. There are no lobbyists, no fund-raisers,
  no media, no constituents—only senators' intricate relations with one another. The Senate is its own world.
  In a memoir, Johnson's longtime aide Harry McPherson recalls learning that the Senate's "famous 'club' atmosphere is
  based on the members' mutual acceptance of responsibility and concentration on the tasks at hand. . . . They thrust hard
  at one another in debate over serious matters," but, he writes, "understanding and accommodation in the ordinary course
  of the Senate day was essential to sanity." Johnson, the most powerful Majority Leader in history, bent the Senate to his
  will and forced it to become more efficient. He saw his colleagues as either "whales"—the heavyweight chairmen who
  negotiated legislation—or "minnows," the followers who went along with the brokered deals. And when, in 1958, a
  formidable new class of liberal Democrats entered the Senate—including Edmund Muskie, Eugene McCarthy, and Philip
  Hart—the legislative machinery began to produce reform. Michael Janeway, the author of "The Fall of the House of
  Roosevelt," worked as a summer staff member between 1958 and 1962. "They used to talk to each other—that's my most
  vivid recollection," he said. "If Wayne Morse talked of constitutional law on the floor, the Southerners would come in to
  hear him. The same with Hubert Humphrey on farm policy. My strongest impression was of it being a deliberative body,
  drawing each other out—sometimes pedantically." Senators who ran for office in order to work on foreign policy, social
  welfare, or urbanization had to win credibility with the whales. "But if you wanted to do something there was a mechanism
  by which you could do it," Janeway said.
  In the sixties and seventies, Southern-conservative control was broken by a coalition of left-of-center Democrats and
  moderate Republicans. Donald Ritchie, the Senate historian, who started working there in 1976, described the Senate of
  those decades as "a bipartisan liberal institution." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written largely out of the office of the
  Republican Minority Leader, Everett Dirksen. Every major initiative—voting rights, open housing, environmental law,
  campaign reform—enjoyed bipartisan support. In the rare event of a filibuster, the motion to end debate was often filed
  jointly by leaders of both parties. When Medicare—that government takeover of health care for the elderly—was passed,
  in 1965, it won 70-24.
  The Senate's momentum nurtured superb talent: William Fulbright, Everett Dirksen, Henry Jackson, Frank Church,
  Howard Baker. In 1969, George McGovern chaired a select committee on hunger that actually held bipartisan "field
  hearings" in poor regions, calling witnesses in migrant labor camps, and then, with Bob Dole's indispensable support,
  greatly expanded the food-stamp program. The intensity of senatorial purpose in those years must strike today's
  legislators as profoundly humbling. After Joe Biden came to the Senate, in 1973, Hubert Humphrey took him aside and
  said, "You have to pick an issue that becomes yours. That's how you attract your colleagues to follow you, Joe. That's
  how you demonstrate your bona fides. Don't be a gadfly." Humphrey's career advice: "You should become Mr. Housing.
  Housing is the future."
  The Senate's modern decline began in 1978, with the election of a new wave of anti-government conservatives, and
  accelerated as Republicans became the majority in 1981. "The Quayle generation came in, and there were a number of
  people just like Dan—same generation, same hair style, same beliefs," Gary Hart, the Colorado Democrat, recalled. "They
  were harder-line. They weren't there to get along with Democrats. But they look accommodationist compared to
  Republicans in the Senate today." Church, McGovern, Javits, and Birch Bayh were gone. Ira Shapiro, the former aide,
  who is writing a book about the Senate of the sixties and seventies, said, "It was a huge loss of the most experienced,
  accomplished senators being replaced by neophytes. All of a sudden, in 1981, more than half the Senate had been there
  less than six years." He added, "The shattering of the great Senate has long-term effects that keep showing up. It gets
  worse over time, but it just never gets restored. There was a phrase I heard from Helms and the younger ones: 'Others
  didn't want to make waves; I wanted to drain the swamp.'"
  After C-SPAN went on the air, in 1979, the cozy atmosphere that encouraged both deliberation and back-room deals
  began to yield to transparency and, with it, posturing. "So Damn Much Money," a recent book by the Washington Post
  reporter Robert G. Kaiser, traces the spectacular rise of Washington lobbying to the same period. Liberal Republicans
  began to disappear, and as Southern Democrats died out they were replaced by conservative Republicans. Bipartisan
  coalitions on both wings of the Senate vanished. The institutionalist gave way to the free agent, who controlled his own
  fund-raising apparatus and media presence, and whose electoral base was a patchwork of single-issue groups. Members
  of both parties—Howard Metzenbaum, the Ohio Democrat; Jesse Helms, the North Carolina Republican—took to
  regularly using the Senate's rules to tie up business for narrowly ideological reasons. The number of filibusters shot up in
  the eighties and continued to rise in the following decades, as the parties kept alternating control of the Senate and
  escalating a procedural arms race, routinely blocking the confirmation of executive and judicial appointees. Democrats
  filibustered Republican nominees to the bench; then Republicans threatened to ban the filibuster in such cases—the so-
  called "nuclear option." Older members were perturbed when, in 2004, the Republican Majority Leader, Bill Frist, went to
  South Dakota to campaign against the Democratic Minority Leader, Tom Daschle (who went on to lose). A few years
  earlier, such an action would have been unthinkable.
  The weakened institution could no longer withstand pressures from outside its walls; as money and cameras rushed in,
  independent minds fell more and more in line with the partisans. Rough parity between the two parties meant that every
  election had the potential to make or break a majority, crushing the incentive to cooperate across the aisle. The Senate,
  no longer a fount of ideas, became a backwater of the U.S. government. During the Clinton years, the main action was
  between the White House and the Gingrich House of Representatives; during the Bush years, the Republican Senate
  majority abdicated the oversight role that could have placed a vital check on executive power.
  Norman Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said that the Senate has increasingly
  become populated by "ideologues and charlatans." He went on, "When we do get good people who come in, they very
  quickly get ground up by the dynamic and the culture of the parties. And once you get there, look at what it takes to stay
  there." He spoke of Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican, who, nearing the end of his career, spent much of last year
  working closely with his friend Max Baucus on the health-care bill. Then, in August, Grassley went home and, faced with
  angry Republican voters and the prospect of a primary challenge from the right, started warning about "pulling the plug on
  Grandma." Ornstein added that similar pressures had led John McCain to begin "altering his behavior and abandoning
  every issue, including campaign-finance reform."
  One morning in April, I visited Harry McPherson, the former L.B.J. aide, at the offices of the legal and lobbying firm D. L.
  A. Piper, in downtown Washington. McPherson, who is eighty, had on his desk the firm's spiral-bound directory for the
  111th Congress. I asked him who, in Johnsonian terms, were the whales of the current Senate. McPherson ran his finger
  down the list of senators. He did it again. "I'm trying here, looking for a remote descendant. Judas Priest, look at this." He
  was stumped. "Well, I see some good people, I see some people who are going to get coalitions together over time." He
  put the directory aside. "I'm just having the damnedest time."
  Down the hall from McPherson's office was that of Mel Martinez, a former Republican senator from Florida; he was hired
  last year, two weeks after resigning his Senate seat without completing his first term. (He has since moved on to
  JPMorgan Chase.) William Cohen, the former Maine senator and Secretary of Defense, has an office downstairs. Tom
  Daschle works at D. L. A. Piper; his predecessor as Democratic leader, George Mitchell, was the firm's chairman, until
  President Obama appointed him to be his Middle East envoy. One feature of the diminished U.S. senator is the ease with
  which he moves from legislating to lobbying. Between 1998 and 2004, half the senators who left office became lobbyists.
  In 2007, Trent Lott, a Republican leader in the Senate less than a year into his fourth term, abruptly resigned and formed
  a lobbying firm with former Senator John Breaux, just a few weeks before a new law took effect requiring a two-year
  waiting period between serving and lobbying.
  When you spend your days at the Senate, it's easy to forget about everything else. The House of Representatives seems
  miles away (it's just down a corridor and across the rotunda), the White House is another country, and actual foreign
  countries are unimaginable. The place remains insular, labyrinthine, and opaque—even physically. Senators commute
  thirty seconds between their offices and the chamber by electric subway cars that run along a tunnel under Constitution
  Avenue. Many signs are misleading or obsolete (the gilded lettering over the visitors' gallery says "Men's Gallery"), and
  the Capitol is filled with secret passageways and spare rooms, called hideaways, doled out according to seniority, where
  senators can read, drink, doze, and wait for the buzzer announcing an imminent vote. The most pervasive authority over
  the institution is not the Constitution or the Bible but, rather, an impenetrable sixteen-hundred-page tome, by Floyd M.
  Riddick, called "Senate Procedure: Precedents and Practices," which only the late Robert Byrd, of West Virginia, was
  known to have read in its entirety. The procedures are so abstruse that a parliamentarian must sit below the presiding
  officer and, essentially, tell him or her what to say.
  After half a century, the picture given by Preminger's "Advise and Consent" is still faintly visible. "The Senate, by its
  nature, is a place where consensus reigns and personal relationships are paramount," Lamar Alexander said. "And that's
  not changed." Which is exactly the problem: it's a self-governing body that depends on the reasonableness of its
  members to function. Sarah Binder, a congressional scholar at George Washington University, said, "To have a chamber
  that rules by unanimous consent—it's nutty! Especially when you've got Jim Bunning to please."
  In 2006 and 2008, sixteen Democrats entered the Senate, giving the Party its current majority of fifty-nine to forty-one
  (counting two independents). They include moderates, like Jon Tester, of Montana, and Mark Warner, of Virginia; liberals,
  like Sherrod Brown, of Ohio, and Sheldon Whitehouse, of Rhode Island; policy specialists, like Amy Klobuchar, of
  Minnesota, and Jeff Merkley; and iconoclasts, like Claire McCaskill. Their interest in legislating has won the admiration of
  senior senators. "If they can stay, I think they'll be terrific," Chris Dodd said. "My worry is they won't stay. Because it's not
  productive."
  The Democratic class of 2008 arrived with President Obama, expecting to usher in 6 dynamic new era. Instead, their
  young Senate careers have passed in a daily slog of threatened filibusters and "secret holds"—when a senator
  anonymously objects to bringing an appointment up for a vote, which requires unanimous consent. On April 20th, Claire
  McCaskill took the trouble to read off the names of fifty-six Obama nominees languishing in the limbo of secret holds, and
  Jon Kyl objected to every one of them. Just getting a bill to the floor for debate can require days of tactical gamesmanship
  between the party leaders. There were times when Warner wondered if anyone had ever quit in the first year. Michael
  Bennet said, "We find ourselves at a moment in our history when the questions are huge ones, not small ones, and where
  things have been put off for a really long period of time." He mentioned the national debt, energy policy, and the financial
  crisis. "Yet you have a Senate that's designed not to advance change but to slow it."
  We were talking in his hideaway, a windowless room in the Capitol basement, which had a mini-fridge stocked with bottled
  water, black leatherette furniture circa 1962, and a TV tuned to C-SPAN2 on mute; Senator Kyl's mouth was moving.
  Bennet, the former superintendent of schools in Denver, was appointed to a vacant seat in 2009, and already has to
  defend it this year. He described the Senate with the dry bluntness of an outsider who hasn't allowed himself to grow too
  attached. Bennet repeated a story he had heard. about a new congressman giving his maiden speech: "And then some
  more veteran guy came over and said, 'Son, you're talking like this place is on the level. It's not on the level.' As the fifteen
  months or so have gone by that I've been here, the less on the level it seems."
  Earlier this year, the Senate's procedural absurdities became national news twice in one month. On February 4th,
  Con gressDaily reported that Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, was secretly blocking the confirmation of seventy
  Obama appointees over a dispute involving defense earmarks for his•state. (His tactics exposed, Shelby—whose office
  maintains that he was responsible for fewer than fifty holds—lifted all but three.) Later that month, Bunning spent several
  days and a late night on the Senate floor, filibustering to prevent benefits from being paid to millions of unemployed
  Americans. When Merkley tried to reason with him, Bunning responded, "Tough shit." (Eventually, Republicans persuaded
  Bunning to stop.)
  These incidents elicited a brief outcry, but the extent of the Senate's routine folly remains largely hidden. For example,
  Grassley and Ron Wyden, of Oregon, have been trying since 1997 to end the practice of secret holds, without success. In
  2007, the Senate passed a bill banning secret holds that last longer than six days. But to get around the ban two or more
  senators can pass the hold back and forth—it's called "rolling holds"—and their party leader facilitates the game by
  keeping their names secret.
  Many of the Senate's antique rules and precedents have been warped beyond recognition by the modern pressures of
  partisanship. The hold, for example, was a courtesy extended to senators in the days of horse travel, when they needed
  time to get back to Washington and read a bill or question an appointee before casting their vote. Sarah Binder, who co-
  authored a book on the filibuster, calls the procedure a historical accident: in 1806, the Senate got rid of a little-used rule
  that allowed the "previous question" to be called to a vote. Suddenly, there was no inherent limit on debate, and by the
  eighteen-thirties senators had begun taking advantage of this loophole, derailing the proceedings by getting up and talking
  until their voice, legs, or bladder gave out. (The word "filibuster' comes from vrijbuiter—old Dutch for "looter.")
  In 1917, Woodrow Wilson, with his wartime legislative agenda blocked by filibusters, forced the Senate to pass Rule XXII,
  which allowed a two-thirds majority to bring a floor debate to an end with a "cloture" vote. For decades, the rule was rarely
  used; between 1919 and 1971, there were only forty-nine cloture votes, fewer than one per year. In the seventies and
  eighties, the annual average rose to about a dozen. (Frustration with this increase led the Senate, in 1975, to lower the
  threshold for cloture to sixty votes.) In the nineties and early aughts, the average went up to twenty-five or thirty a year, as
  both parties escalated their use of the filibuster when they found themselves in the minority. After the Republicans lost
  their majority in 2006, filibusters became everyday events: there were a hundred and twelve cloture votes in 2007 and
  2008, and this session Republicans are on target to break their own filibuster record.
  The tally of cloture votes reflects only a small fraction of senatorial obstruction. Three hundred and forty-five bills passed
  by the House have been prevented from even coming up for debate in the Senate. "Why?" Steny Hoyer, the outraged
  Democratic Majority Leader of the House, asked me. "Because they do not do their business in a way that facilitates
  noncontroversial things. Thankfully, the House of Representatives is not becoming the Senate." Last week, six House
  Democrats expressed their displeasure with the upper chamber by staging a sit-in of sorts on the Senate floor.
  Seventy-six nominees for judgeships and executive posts have been approved by committees but, because of blocks,
  haven't come up for a vote in the full Senate, leaving courtrooms idle and jobs unfilled across the upper levels of the
  Obama Administration. (The Democrats also practiced the art of blocking nominees during the Bush Administration.)
  There's often no objection to the individual being blocked: after an eight-month hold, Martha Johnson, nominated to run
  the General Services Administration, was confirmed 96-0. On an issue like health-care reform, when the objection was
  substantive, Republicans ransacked Riddick's "Senate Procedure" for every conceivable way to delay a debate and vote.
  Judd Gregg even sent a memo on stalling tactics to his Republican colleagues. Tom Coburn demanded the reading aloud
  of an entire seven-hundred-and-sixty-seven-page amendment proposed by Bernie Sanders, the Vermont socialist; Senate
  clerks, working in half-hour shifts, were three hours into the chore when Sanders withdrew the amendment in frustration.
  Under McConnell, Republicans have consistently consumed as much of the Senate's calendar as possible with legislative
  maneuvering. The strategy is not to extend deliberation of the Senate's agenda but to prevent it. Tom Harkin, who first
  proposed reform of the filibuster in 1995, called his Republican colleagues "nihilists," who want to create chaos because it
  serves their ideology. "If there's chaos, things will tend toward simple solutions," Harkin said. "In chaos people don't listen
  to reason." McConnell did not respond to requests for an interview, but he has often argued that the Republican strategy
  reflects the views of a majority of Americans. In March, he told the Times, "To the extent that they"—the Democrats—
  "want to do things that we think are in the political center and would be helpful to the country, we'll be helpful. To the
  extent they are trying to turn us into a Western European country, we are not going to be helpful."
  One of the mysteries of the Senate is how Mitch McConnell has been able to keep his members in line, on vote after vote.
  Why do moderates with years of experience and their own power base back home—Richard Lugar, of Indiana; Susan
  Collins, of Maine; George Voinovich, of Ohio—keep siding with the more extreme members of their caucus? Alexander
  said that McConnell listens well to all his members, adding, "When you have your back against the wall and the gallows
  are hanging in front of you, it tends to unify. Operating with forty members—it concentrates the mind."
  Lindsey Graham described to the Times how McConnell exhorted his caucus after the disastrous 2008 election: "He said
  if we didn't stick together on big things, we wouldn't be relevant." Last December, the Republicans decided to filibuster a
  military-spending bill in order to delay the looming vote on health care until as close to Christmas as possible. Thad
  Cochran, the Republican ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, promised Daniel Inouye, the chairman, that
  he wouldn't join the effort. But at the last minute Cochran, who has been in the Senate since 1979 and brings
  disproportionate amounts of defense money to Mississippi, told Reid that his leadership wouldn't allow him to vote with
  the Democrats and end the filibuster—even on a matter of national security. (The Democrats were able to impose cloture,
  and the vote on health care finally took place on Christmas Eve.)
  Republican defections have been rare. In early 2009, Collins and Olympia Snowe, also of Maine, voted for the stimulus
  bill, along with Arlen Specter (who promptly switched parties). Snowe also voted for the Finance Committee's health-care-
  reform bill last October, the only Republican to do so. But in December, at the pivotal moment, she voted against the
  version that went before the full Senate. "I wasn't interested in expanding this program beyond the Finance Committee
  version—it grew by a thousand pages," Snowe said. She wasn't included in the negotiations with White House officials
  that took place in an elegant conference room across from Reid's suite of offices, and said that the Democrats "did not
  accept any of my proposals. As I said to the President, it was all windup and no pitch." McConnell was able to exploit her
  alienation. A friend of Snowe cited another reason for her reversal: "She actually said to me once that she had never felt
  the pressure that she felt on health care, never before had that pressure been quite as evident to her or quite as real or
  troubling. Kyl and McConnell were saying things like 'You just can't let us down, we're all in this together. You're a senior
  Republican member of this caucus, and you just have to hang tough with us. We expect it and you're going to do it.' "
  Reid doesn't use such tough tactics; he has achieved his position, in spite of his public shortcomings, by being the senator
  who helped other Democrats, always answered their calls, and got them what they wanted through masterly
  maneuvering. This has made him enormously popular within the Democratic caucus, but it doesn't give him the leverage
  of McConnell, let alone of Lyndon Johnson.
  In the current Senate, it has become normal for a handful of senators, sometimes representing just ten or twenty per cent
  of the country's population, to hold everything up. And the status quo has become sufficiently frustrating that a few new
  senators have considered a radical option: mutiny.
  Tom Udall, who is sixty-two, is older than most freshman senators. He has the crow's-feet of a Westerner who has spent
  time in the sun, and a slow, good-natured voice. His father, Stewart, was an Arizona congressman and the Interior
  Secretary for Presidents Kennedy and Johnson; his uncle Mo was a legendary Arizona representative; his cousin Mark is
  a freshman senator from Colorado. Udall served five terms in the House before winning a Senate seat from New Mexico,
  in 2008. And yet he has the air of a political Candide—he is always earnest, capable of disappointment but not cynicism.
  "I ran on the idea that the Senate should not be a graveyard for good ideas," he said. "Then to be on the inside—the thing
  that strikes you is how one senator can hold up the whole show."
  In his first year in office, Udall decided to do something audacious: he would try to change the Senate's rules.
  Customarily, the rules continue session after session, and a provision in Rule XXII requires sixty-seven votes to amend
  them, making it extremely difficult. ("Rule XXII is a Catch-22," Ted Kennedy used to joke.) Udall embraced a different
  idea—the "constitutional option." Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that "each House may determine the Rules
  of its Proceedings" at the beginning of the new Congress. So, in theory, a senator could take the floor next January and
  propose debating its rules from scratch, including the filibuster. New rules could be passed with a simple majority. There's
  even a precedent for this: moves to revisit the rules by invoking the constitutional option have been made three times,
  most recently in 1975. Udall has spent much of the past year trying to build support for the idea.
  At the request of Udall and others, Schumer, who is the chairman of the Rules Committee, has held a series of hearings
  on the filibuster, calling witnesses such as Sarah Binder, the historian, and Walter Mondale, who was in the Senate when
  the constitutional option was invoked in 1975. Dick Durbin, the second-highest-ranking Democrat, has organized working
  groups among newer members on other internal reforms, such as ending secret holds and choosing committee chairs by
  caucus vote rather than by seniority. (Lamar Alexander wryly suggested to me that Schumer and Durbin were competing
  for the favor of newer members, in case Harry Reid loses his seat in the fall and they run against each other for Majority
  Leader.)
  For Republican institutionalists, such as Alexander and Gregg, the push for rules reform is folly. "If you want a
  parliamentary form of government, go over to the House," Gregg, who is about to retire, scoffed. "Why even run for the
  Senate?" Udall's plan for next January, he said, would be a "gigantic mistake."
  "They'll get over it," Alexander said of the Democrats' enthusiasm for rules reform. "And they'll get over it quicker if they're
  in the minority next January. Because they'll instantly see the value of slowing the Senate down to consider whatever they
  have to say." He added that the Senate "may be getting done about as much as the American people want done." The
  President's ambitious agenda, after all, has upset a lot of voters, across the political spectrum. None of the Republicans I
  spoke to agreed with the contention that the Senate is "broken." Alexander claimed that he and other Republicans were
  exercising the moderating, thoughtful influence on legislation that the founders wanted in the Senate. "The Senate wasn't
  created to be efficient," he argued. "It was created to be inefficient." At one of the filibuster hearings, in April, Alexander,
  sitting across the table from Udall, said that, for all the times the Democrats charge the Republicans with obstructing
  legislation, "we could say that's the number of times the majority has tried to cut off our right to debate, our right to offer
  amendments, which is the essence of the Senate."
  Newcomers like Udall seem to think that the Senate has grown so absurd and extreme that some kind of reform is
  inevitable. Perhaps they need more time to plumb the depths of the institution's intransigence. According to Sarah Binder,
  a change in rules is extremely unlikely; Republicans would be implacably opposed to, say, weakening the filibuster, and
  so would some Democrats, especially long-serving ones. "I would oppose that," Chris Dodd said, adding of the freshmen,
  "These are people who have never been in the minority." For older Democrats, who have put in their years, grown adept
  at working the rules, and now chair powerful committees, the reform impulse could be a threat. (Among senior senators,
  the sole enthusiast for rules reform is Tom Harkin.) One senator spoke of the Senate as being divided not between
  whales and minnows but, rather, between bulls and calves. The older Democrats are too accustomed to the Senate's
  ways to share the frustrations of the newcomers; the handful of older moderate Republicans are too weak to challenge the
  newer radicals who now dominate the caucus.
  Even if the freshmen Democrats can somehow reform the filibuster next January, the Senate will remain a sclerotic,
  wasteful, unhappy body. The deepest source of its problems is not rules and precedents but, rather, its human beings,
  who have created a culture where Tocqueville's "lofty thoughts" and "generous impulses" have no place.
  A few days after passing health-care reform, the Senate struggled to its feet to take on a second large task. Financial
  regulatory reform should have been the easiest piece of major legislation of the Obama Presidency, the likeliest to win
  real bipartisan support. The financial crisis had been catastrophic for millions of Americans, and after the 2008 bailout
  Wall Street had become even more hated than the Senate was. In April, a lineup of bankers from Goldman Sachs
  appeared before Senator Levin's subcommittee on investigations, and managed to appear as arrogant, callous, and
  evasive as their reputations had suggested. The public demanded action. Some Republicans had a genuine desire to
  pass a bill. If health-care reform had been a war of attrition, financial reform was a promising liaison.
  The affair began with a Republican, Bob Corker, and a Democrat, Mark Warner—both multimillionaires serving their first
  term, both considered centrists. Corker is a small, dapper former construction magnate who became the mayor of
  Chattanooga; Warner is a tall, preppily dressed former telecommunications entrepreneur who became the governor of
  Virginia. Chris Dodd, the Banking Committee chairman, assigned them to work together on the section of the bill having to
  do with the liquidation of troubled firms—making sure that there would never be another taxpayer bailout. They worked
  through the winter, in Warner's office, in Corker's office, over dinner, sometimes without staff, as if they were members of
  a Senate from the past. They hosted a series of afternoon seminars, inviting guests such as Ben Bernanke, Alan
  Greenspan, and Sheila Bair. Corker and Warner were sometimes said to be the only Democrat and Republican still
  talking to each other. In January, Business Week called them the Senate's "Odd Couple." By February, they had finished
  their work.
  Meanwhile, discussions about the entire bill between Dodd and Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the committee,
  dragged on, repeatedly breaking down. Finally, on February 10th, Dodd called Corker, who, though he was one of the
  committee's junior members, agreed to be the chairman's Republican negotiating partner. When Corker informed
  McConnell and Shelby, they expressed surprise. "It was an odd place to be," Corker recalled. "And yet that night we
  began meeting." The junior Republican savored the rare experience of creating, rather than opposing, legislation. In
  response, Shelby's conservative staff tried to undermine Corker, spreading rumors among Republicans and their lobbyists
  that he was giving too much away. (A Shelby aide said that staff members were simply informing other Republicans of the
  Party's line on financial reform.)
  On March 10th, Dodd concluded that he had to move a bill to the floor. He called Corker and said, "You've been a great
  partner." He was ending their talks after only a month. "It's a little stunning, I've got to be honest," Corker told reporters
  afterward. Someone close to the negotiations compared Corker to Dickens's Miss Havisham, unable to get over the
  rebuff, forever awaiting the arrival of her groom, all her clocks stopped. Corker later said that Dodd had ended the talks
  under pressure from the White House and other Democrats. Dodd said that Corker had been unable to bring any other
  Republicans with him. "Baloney," Corker said. "If Dodd had reached an agreement with me, we'd've had at least twenty-
  five Republican votes."
  The bill that Dodd brought before the Senate, after a year of discussions with Democrats and Republicans alike,
  incorporated the bipartisan plan of Warner and Corker to prevent another bank bailout: setting up a fifty-billion-dollar fund,
  paid for by the banks, to insure orderly liquidation, and establishing a risk council to detect warning signs of another crisis.
  But in mid-April Mitch McConnell—who had just met with Wall Street executives in New York, and was now parroting
  talking points from a memo written by the Republican strategist Frank Luntz—called it a "partisan bill" that "will guarantee
  perpetual taxpayer bailout of Wall Street banks." McConnell presented a letter, signed by all forty-one Republicans,
  suggesting that they would filibuster the financial-reform bill.
  His remarks amounted to a repudiation of Corker's work as well as of Dodd's. The next day, April 15th, Corker pleaded
  with his colleagues, in his Tennessee twang, "Let's come to the floor and let's act like adults. Let's tone down the rhetoric.
  Let's don't exaggerate the pluses or minuses. Let's do what the Senate was created to do. . . . We were supposed to be
  the people that took some of the red-hot activities that sometimes come from the other body and sat down with cooler
  heads and resolved the issues like adults. We can do that. As a matter of fact, I would say, if we cannot do that on
  financial regulation, an issue that really doesn't have any real philosophical bearings to it . . ." Corker didn't allow the
  thought to ripen—he had already gone farther than almost any Republican would have dared.
  Dodd spoke later in the day and completed Corker's speech: "I know my friends on the other side of the aisle are faced
  with a difficult choice between supporting their party leadership and participating in this complicated, difficult debate. I am
  not naïve. I know that is a hard place to be. But if we can't act like U.S. senators for the sake of this issue . . . then why
  are we even here?" He went on, "We work for an American public that is sick and tired of feeling like no one is looking out
  for their interests, like the political hacks and lobbyists hold all the cards in these discussions. The minority seems intent
  on proving them right. . . . I have been here a long time. I know this institution is better than that. I know there are friends
  of mine on the other side of the aisle who care about this bill, who want to be a part of the debate, who want to be part of
  the solution."
  In the same speech, Dodd joined the partisan fight, accusing McConnell of lying about the bill. Turning crimson-faced, he
  chopped the air with his hand as he shouted, "I have to ask myself, why did I go through this process over the last four or
  five months, agreeing to much of what they were offering, and there is not a single political vote to show for it. . . . I have
  to say to the younger members, the newer members coming along: be careful!"
  Corker, having heard that Dodd was speaking, returned to the chamber and asked to respond. "You and I went a long
  way," Corker told Dodd. "Then we stopped. On March 10th it ended. I understand that, look, you were losing Democrats
  on your committee."
  "And I was not gaining Republicans," Dodd replied.
  "You had one, and that is all you asked for when you started. I never said I could speak for anybody but myself. And I did
  not leave the table." Corker urged Dodd to keep talking to Republicans—their differences could be sorted out in a few
  days.
  But this was not McConnell's agenda. Instead, financial reform became a slightly more polite repeat of the health-care-
  reform brawl: the Republicans threatened filibusters, the Democrats threatened all-nighters, and thousands of lobbyists
  prowled the Capitol, charging their Wall Street clients more than a billion dollars. On April 28th, I was sitting in the ornate
  Reception Room with Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman. On the other side of the wall, there was the noise of furniture
  scraping across a tile floor. "Those are cots being set up in the L.B.J. Room," Manley said. "Very little happens around
  here without a deadline." The cots persuaded Republicans to allow the bill to move to the floor for debate. A few weeks
  later, on May 20th, yet another filibuster was defeated by yet another cloture motion, and financial reform finally came to a
  vote. It passed, 59-39. Only four Republicans had joined the majority. Corker wasn't among them. He had even voted for
  an amendment, offered by his Republican colleague Jeff Sessions, of Alabama, that would have scrapped Corker's work
  of many months with Warner.
  "The idea of watching Bob Corker vote for the Sessions amendment!" Dodd said afterward, sitting in his red-curtained
  office, under a print of Holbein's portrait of Thomas More. "It's the Senate, I guess." McConnell's strategy of obstruction
  had once again come close to succeeding, Dodd said, but he knew that a "shrinking number" of Republicans were
  frustrated. The previous day, Dodd had said to Susan Collins, "God, I would have loved to have you as my ranking
  member on this." Collins responded, "We could have had such a great time on this bill."
  Warner, who said that he believed in bipartisanship because "the American people don't trust either political party enough
  to give them a blank check," was astonished that so few Republicans voted for financial reform. "There was zero
  substantive reason why this couldn't have been eighty votes," he said. I asked him why Bob Corker had voted no on the
  bill. Warner started to talk about the consumer-protection title, and then said, "If you want to vote against something, you
  can always find your reasons."
  But Corker hadn't seemed to want to vote against it. He had spent months trying to act like a U.S. senator, alienating
  himself from his own party and then the other party, and on the day of the vote he held the floor for the better part of thirty
  minutes, as if he were still reluctant to let the effort go. "I am obviously disappointed," he said. "I think I have spent as
  much time as any senator. . . on policy regarding our financial system. I think any bill—even this bill—has good things in
  it. There is no question. And I appreciate the thrust. But I think there is a lot of overreaching, and I think not enough time
  was spent on some of the core issues."
  As the senators cast their votes, I noticed Robert Kaiser, the author of "So Damn Much Money," in the press gallery. I later
  asked him if, with the passage of two big reform bills in three months, we were witnessing a possible renewal of the
  Senate. "If you can engage public opinion in a way politicians can understand, public opinion can still blow away money
  and interest groups," he said. "But over the past few decades the reflex has grown in the Senate that, all things
  considered, it's better to avoid than to take on big issues. This is the kind of thing that drives Michael Bennet nutty: here
  you've arrived in the United States Senate and you can't do fuck-all about the destruction of the planet."
  After the final vote on financial reform, the Republicans flew home, and the Democratic leaders held a press conference,
  smiling before the microphones outside the Senate chamber. Reid said, "For those who wanted to protect Wall Street, it
  didn't work." He then excused himself: he had to join Biden for a telephone fund-raiser with "some Nevadans."
  Durbin said, "I was stunned that only four Republicans would join us in passing this historic legislation. What does it take
  to bring the Republican Party into the conversation about the future of America?"
  Dodd, glowing with triumph, said, "I wanted to demonstrate that the Senate of the United States could conduct its
  business much as our founders intended. We did that."
  On July 21st, President Obama signed the completed bill. The two lasting achievements of this Senate, financial
  regulation and health care, required a year and a half of legislative warfare that nearly destroyed the body. They
  depended on a set of circumstances—a large majority of Democrats, a charismatic President with an electoral mandate,
  and a national crisis—that will not last long or be repeated anytime soon. Two days after financial reform became law,
  Harry Reid announced that the Senate would not take up comprehensive energy-reform legislation for the rest of the year.
  And so climate change joined immigration, job creation, food safety, pilot training, veterans' care, campaign finance,
  transportation security, labor law, mine safety, wildfire management, and scores of executive and judicial appointments on
  the list of matters that the world's greatest deliberative body is incapable of addressing. Already, you can feel the Senate
  slipping back into stagnant waters.
  ILLUSTRATION: STEVE BRODNER
  • Print
  • E-Mail
  • Feeds
  Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • More
  To get more of The New Yorker's signature mix of politics, culture and the arts: Subscribe now
  Related Links
  Ask the Author: Join a live chat with George Packer about the Senate on Wednesday, August 4, at 3 P.M. E.T.
  Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/09/100809fa fact packer?printable=true#ixzz0vT1PYxi7

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART B6
  From:
  Sent:
  To:
  Subject:
  sbwhoeop
  Monday, August 2, 2010 12:37 PM
  fyi
  Go Back
  Print this page
  Skip to content
  Subscribe to The New Yorker
  C3
  The Political Scene
  The Empty Chamber
  Just how broken is the Senate?
  Seventy-six nominees for judgeships and executive posts have been approved by committees but, because of blocks,
  haven't come up for a vote in the full Senate, leaving courtrooms idle and jobs unfilled across the upper levels of the
  Obama Administration....
  The tally of cloture votes reflects only a small fraction of senatorial obstruction. Three hundred and forty-five bills passed
  by the House have been prevented from even coming up for debate in the Senate....
  by George Packer August 9, 2010
  Text Size:
  Small Text
  Medium Text
  Large Text
  Print E-Mail Feeds
  Cit and watch us for seven days," one senator says of the deadlocked chamber. "You know what you'll see happening?
  Nothing."
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015
  'This is just one of those days when you want to throw up your hands and say, 'What in the world are we doing?'"
  Senator Claire McCaskill, the Missouri Democrat, said.
  "It's unconscionable," Carl Levin, the senior Democratic senator from Michigan, said. "The obstructionism has become
  mindless."
  The Senators were in the Capitol, sunk into armchairs before the marble fireplace in the press lounge, which is directly
  behind the Senate chamber. It was four-thirty on a Wednesday afternoon. McCaskill, in a matching maroon jacket and
  top, looked exasperated; Levin glowered over his spectacles.
  "Also, it's a dumb rule in itself," McCaskill said. "It's time we started looking at some of these rules."
  She was referring to Senate Rule XXVI, Paragraph 5, which requires unanimous consent for committees and
  subcommittees to hold hearings after two in the afternoon while the Senate is in session. Both Levin and McCaskill had
  scheduled hearings that day for two-thirty. Typically, it wouldn't be difficult to get colleagues to waive the rule; a general
  and an admiral had flown halfway around the world to appear before Levin's Armed Services Committee, and McCaskill's
  Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight of the Homeland Security Committee was investigating the training of Afghan
  police. But this was March 24th, the day after President Barack Obama signed the health-care-reform bill, in a victory
  ceremony at the White House; it was also the day that the Senate was to vote on a reconciliation bill for health-care
  reform, approved by the House three nights earlier, which would retroactively remove the new law's most embarrassing
  sweetheart deals and complete the yearlong process of passing universal health care. Republicans, who had fought the
  bill as a bloc, were in no mood to make things easy.
  So, four hours earlier, when Levin went to the Senate floor and asked for consent to hold his hearing, Senator Richard
  Burr, Republican of North Carolina, and a member of Levin's committee, had refused. "I have no personal objection to
  continuing," Burr said. But, he added, "there is objection on our side of the aisle. Therefore, I would have to object."
  Burr had to object on behalf of his party because he was the only Republican in the chamber when Levin spoke. In
  general, when senators give speeches on the floor, their colleagues aren't around, and the two or three who might be
  present aren't listening. They're joking with aides, or e-mailing Twitter ideas to their press secretaries, or getting their first
  look at a speech they're about to give before the eight unmanned cameras that provide a live feed to C-SPAN2. The
  presiding officer of the Senate—freshmen of the majority party take rotating, hour-long shifts intended to introduce them to
  the ways of the institution—sits in his chair on the dais, scanning his BlackBerry or reading a Times article about the
  Senate. Michael Bennet, a freshman Democrat from Colorado, said, "Sit and watch us for seven days—just watch the
  floor. You know what you'll see happening? Nothing. When I'm in the chair, I sit there thinking, I wonder what they're
  doing in China right now?"
  Between speeches, there are quorum calls, time killers in which a Senate clerk calls the roll at the rate of one name every
  few minutes. The press gallery, above the dais, is typically deserted, as journalists prefer to hunker down in the press
  lounge, surfing the Web for analysis of current Senate negotiations; television screens alert them if something of interest
  actually happens in the chamber. The only people who pay attention to a speech are the Senate stenographers. On this
  afternoon, two portly bald men in suits stood facing the speaker from a few feet away, tapping at the transcription
  machines, which resembled nineteenth-century cash registers, slung around their necks. The Senate chamber is an
  intimate room where men and women go to talk to themselves for the record.
  Like many other aspects of senatorial procedure, Rule XXVI, Paragraph 5 is a relic from the days when senators had to
  hover around their desks to know what was happening on the floor during the main afternoon debate. (The desks, some
  built as long ago as 1819, are mahogany, and their lids lift up, like those in an old schoolhouse; the desks of the Majority
  and Minority Leader are still equipped with brass spittoons.) In the press lounge, McCaskill said, with light sarcasm,
  "Somebody told me the rule is to make sure people pay attention to what's happening on the floor during debate and not
  be distracted by committee work. Clearly, it's an old rule."
  The Republicans had turned this old rule into a new means of obstruction. There would be no hearings that afternoon; the
  general and the admiral would have to come back another day. Like investment bankers on Wall Street, senators these
  days direct much of their creative energy toward the manipulation of arcane rules and loopholes, scoring short-term
  successes while magnifying their institution's broader dysfunction.
  Around five o'clock, the chamber began to fill, as the reconciliation bill came up for a vote; there were twenty-three
  amendments pending, all from Republicans, and perhaps many more to come. Ordinarily, debate and voting on an
  amendment might take two legislative days, but under the rules of the reconciliation bill the senators were to dispatch the
  amendments one after another, as in a hot-dog-eating contest, with a minute of debate for each side. The goal was to
  finish the bill by the end of the evening, so that senators wouldn't miss a day of their spring recess—apparently, the only
  thing worse than a government takeover of the health-care system. The usual longueurs of the Senate, where forty
  minutes can tick away on the antique clock above the rear double doors without a word's being spoken, were about to
  yield to a frenzy. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader, from Nevada, had predicted that the process, known as Vote-O-Rama,
  would go past two in the morning, and had warned senators to stay close to the chamber.
  Max Baucus, of Montana, the manager of the bill for the Democrats, rose and said, "This is the first time in recent memory
  that a reconciliation bill has all the amendments on one side only. These are clearly amendments designed to kill the
  reconciliation and, therefore, kill health-care reform. So I very much hope that all of these amendments are defeated."
  Tall, gaunt Judd Gregg, of New Hampshire, the bill's Republican manager, took the floor. "The position on the other side
  of the aisle is: no amendments allowed, even if they are good," he said. Indignation rouged his cheeks, and his voice rose
  half an octave. "Obviously, they presume the Republican Party is an inconvenience. The democratic process is an
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015
  inconvenience. It also appears, considering the opposition to this out in America, that the American people are an
  inconvenience."
  The Senate chamber is laid out in four concentric semicircles, with adjacent desks almost touching on the crowded
  Democratic side, and the desks of the much smaller Republican minority spaced loosely apart. The design is meant to
  emphasize the senators' unity. But Baucus and Gregg avoided eye contact across the six feet of aisle that now divides the
  chamber into two constantly warring factions. Senators are required, by custom, to speak of one another in the third
  person, directing their anger and sarcasm through whichever poor freshman happens to be the presiding officer at the
  moment. Rule XIX, Paragraphs 2 and 3—one of the original rules drawn from Thomas Jefferson's "Manual of
  Parliamentary Practice"—bars senators from imputing unworthy conduct or motives to another senator, and from insulting
  any senator's state. But there is no rule against finger-wagging, and Baucus wagged his at Gregg while shouting at Al
  Franken, of Minnesota, who had started a shift in the presiding officer's chair: "Mr. President, make no mistake, the intent
  of every single one of the amendments offered on the other side of the aisle is to kill health-care reform. . . . A senator on
  the other side of the aisle stood up and said that this is hopefully the President's Waterloo. They want to kill health-care
  reform!"
  The voice of Stuart Smalley filled the chamber: "The time of the senator has expired."
  For the next nine hours, the chamber became the stage of a theatrical whose ending, like almost everything that happens
  on the Senate floor, was known in advance to all. The Republican goal in Vote-O-Rama was to embarrass the Democrats
  while appearing to suggest useful changes; the Democratic goal was to prevent any change to the bill, so that it wouldn't
  have to return to the House, where it might be voted down. Several of the Republican amendments had been designed to
  make Democrats look hypocritical, by forcing them to vote against policies that the Party typically supports. One
  amendment, for example, declared that the health-care bill could not be linked to a tax hike on individuals making less
  than two hundred thousand dollars a year. Other amendments were more nakedly partisan, and outlandish. David Vitter, a
  Louisiana Republican, proposed an amendment that repealed the entire law. Senator Tom Coburn, a Republican
  obstetrician from Oklahoma, introduced an amendment to insure that veterans diagnosed with mental illness would not be
  denied the right to own firearms, and another to prevent "convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders" from
  buying erectile-dysfunction drugs with taxpayer funds. Coburn got through the minute he was allotted to explain his Viagra
  amendment without cracking a smile. "This is not a game amendment," he insisted. "It actually saves money."
  So many senators snickered that the presiding officer banged his gavel for order.
  "The amendment offered by the senator from Oklahoma makes a mockery of this Senate," Baucus declared. "It is a crass
  political stunt aimed at making thirty-second commercials, not public policy." Baucus asked for the yeas and nays, and a
  clerk called the roll at a ragged pace. "Mr. Coburn, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins." Thirty-five-second pause. "Mr. Conrad, Mr.
  Corker." Ten seconds. "Mr. Cornyn." Senators pay no attention to the sound of their name; they cast votes when they're
  so inclined—wandering in late, shuffling down the chamber's gentle blue-carpeted steps to the swarm of colleagues
  milling about in the well, where the clerks sit at a table, and then holding a finger up or down. At one point, John McCain—
  now just one of a hundred senators and struggling to stay in office—spent half a minute waving stiff-armed, trying to catch
  the eye of a clerk so he could cast his vote. In the end, two Democrats—Evan Bayh, of Indiana, and Ben Nelson, of
  Nebraska—joined the Republicans in opposing Viagra for sex offenders. The amendment was defeated.
  The carpeting in the chamber absorbs voices, and during the long night one of the few that rose above the muffled drone
  was that of Charles Schumer, who said to Gregg, "Get to work! Stop screwing around with health care!" Sporadically, a
  sharp cackle emanated from Al Franken, who wandered the chamber, looking for Republicans he could charm into
  laughing. Observed from the press gallery, the senators in their confined space began to resemble zoo animals—Levin a
  shambling brown bear, John Thune a loping gazelle, Jim Bunning a maddened grizzly. Each one displayed a limited set of
  behaviors: in conversations, John Kerry planted himself a few inches away, loomed, and clamped his hands down on a
  colleague's shoulders. Joe Lieberman patted everyone on the back. It became clear which senators were loners (Russ
  Feingold, Daniel Akaka) and which were social (Blanche Lincoln, Lindsey Graham); which senators were important (Dick
  Durbin, Jon Kyl) and which were ignored (Bayh, Bunning).
  Past midnight, Durbin slumped at his desk, one hand over his face, yawning painfully. Susan Collins was going through
  her mail. Twenty-three amendments had been voted down, and the Republicans were proposing a fresh batch. "Can we
  get some order?" Bunning growled, before he introduced a proposal to let senior citizens opt out of parts of Medicare. It
  was the only amendment that any Republicans joined the Democrats to defeat.
  Harry Reid controls the Senate's schedule, but Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, who is the Minority Leader, can object.
  Since nearly everything in the Senate depends on unanimous consent, the main business of the place is a continuous
  negotiation between these two supremely unsentimental men. That night, they played a game of chicken: McConnell,
  unsmiling, his eyes riveted ahead, held out the prospect of dozens more amendments; Reid, a former boxer, was
  hunched and mumbling, playing rope-a-dope, vowing to fend off amendments all night. The two leaders left the chamber
  to confer privately about how to proceed. Inside, the atmosphere of a slumber party set in. Debbie Stabenow, of Michigan,
  her hand across her heart, sang a sentimental duet with Robert Menendez, of New Jersey. Exhaustion momentarily
  eased the partisan divide. Claire McCaskill sat down beside Tom Coburn, held up an erect finger in his face, as if casting
  her Viagra vote, then let it go limp. Coburn could be heard to joke, "The longest it lasted was thirty seconds."
  At two-forty-five in the morning, Reid suddenly declared the Senate adjourned. The Senate parliamentarian had just found
  two small violations of the reconciliation rules, meaning that in the morning, despite the Democrats' efforts, the bill would
  go back to the House for another vote. At the bang of the gavel, the senators fled. In the parking lot, on the Capitol's
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015
  northeast side, McCaskill climbed into her S.U.V. Levin, in a cramped sedan, was chauffeured off into the empty streets.
  On a marble ledge near the exit, Arlen Specter sat alone, a ghost in a brown suit, staring straight ahead, as if waiting for
  someone to take him away.
  The Senate reconvened at 9:45 A.M. Around two in the afternoon, the members gathered for the final vote, and the
  Democrats were giddy. Tom Harkin, of Iowa, and Christopher Dodd, of Connecticut, even exchanged a hug. "Everyone's
  tired," Reid declared before the final vote. "This legislative fight is one for the record books." He was so fatigued that he
  initially voted the wrong way. Lindsey Graham came in late, delaying the tally by ten minutes. "Way to go, Lindsey, way to
  stretch it out," Sam Brownback told him. A few Republicans lingered and took in the moment, like players on the losing
  team at the end of the World Series. After a year of work, health-care reform had passed, 56-43, and for a moment the
  chamber's Tweeting pygmies had become legislative giants.
  The Senate is often referred to as "the world's greatest deliberative body." Jeff Merkley, a freshman Democrat from
  Oregon, said, "That is a phrase that I wince each time I hear it, because the amount of real deliberation, in terms of
  exchange of ideas, is so limited." Merkley could remember witnessing only one moment of floor debate between a
  Republican and a Democrat. "The memory I took with me was: 'Wow, that's unusual—there's a conversation occurring in
  which they're making point and counterpoint and challenging each other.' And yet nobody else was in the chamber."
  Tom Udall, a freshman Democrat from New Mexico, could not recall seeing a senator change another senator's mind.
  "You would really need a good hour or two of extensive exchange among folks that really know the issue," he said.
  Instead, a senator typically gives "a prepared speech that's already been vetted through the staff. Then another guy gets
  up and gives a speech on a completely different subject." From time to time, senators of the same party carry on a
  colloquy—"I would be interested in the distinguished senator from Iowa's view of the other side's Medicare Advantage
  plan"—that has been scripted in advance by aides.
  While senators are in Washington, their days are scheduled in fifteen-minute intervals: staff meetings, interviews, visits
  from lobbyists and home-state groups, caucus lunches, committee hearings, briefing books, floor votes, fund-raisers.
  Each senator sits on three or four committees and even more subcommittees, most of which meet during the same
  morning hours, which helps explain why committee tables are often nearly empty, and why senators drifting into a hearing
  can barely sustain a coherent line of questioning. All this activity is crammed into a three-day week, for it's an unwritten
  rule of the modern Senate that votes are almost never scheduled for Mondays or Fridays, which allows senators to spend
  four days away from the capital. Senators now, unlike those of several decades ago, often keep their families in their
  home states, where they return most weekends, even if it's to Alaska or Idaho—a concession to endless fund-raising, and
  to the populist anti-Washington mood of recent years. (When Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House, in 1995, he
  told new Republican members not to move their families to the capital.) Tom Daschle, the former Democratic leader, said,
  "When we scheduled votes, the only day where we could be absolutely certain we had all one hundred senators there
  was Wednesday afternoon."
  Nothing dominates the life of a senator more than raising money. Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat, said, "Of any free time
  you have, I would say fifty per cent, maybe even more," is spent on fund-raising. In addition to financing their own
  campaigns, senators participate at least once a week in the Power Hour, during which they make obligatory calls on
  behalf of the Party (in the Democrats' case, from a three-story town house across Constitution Avenue from the Senate
  office buildings, since they're barred from using their own offices to raise money). Lamar Alexander, the Tennessee
  Republican, insisted that the donations are never sufficient to actually buy a vote, but he added, "It sucks up time that a
  senator ought to be spending getting to know other senators, working on issues."
  In June, 2009, top aides to Max Baucus, whose Finance Committee was negotiating the health-care-reform bill, took time
  to meet with two health-care lobbyists, who themselves were former Baucus aides. (Baucus received more than a million
  dollars from the industry for his 2008 reelection campaign.) That month, according to Common Cause, industry groups
  were spending $1.4 million a day to lobby members of Congress. Udall, speaking of the corrosive effect of fund-raising
  and lobbying, said, "People know it in their heart—they know this place is dominated by special interests. The over-all bills
  are not nearly as bold because of the influence of money."
  Deschle sketched a portrait of the contemporary senator who is too busy to think: "Sometimes, you're dialling for dollars,
  you get the call, you've got to get over to vote, you've got fifteen minutes. You don't have a clue what's on the floor, your
  staff is whispering in your ears, you're running onto the floor, then you check with your leader—you double check—but,
  just to make triple sure, there's a little sheet of paper on the clerk's table: The leader recommends an aye vote, or a no
  vote. So you've got all these checks just to make sure you don't screw up, but even then you screw up sometimes. But, if
  you're ever pressed, 'Why did you vote that way?'—you just walk out thinking, Oh, my God, I hope nobody asks, because
  I don't have a clue."
  Aides, at the elbows of senators as they shuttle between their offices and the Capitol, have proliferated over the past few
  decades, and they play a crucial role. Lamar Alexander, who has an office of fifty people, pointed out that staff members,
  who are younger and often more ideological than their bosses, and less dependent on institutional relationships, tend to
  push senators toward extremes. Often, aides are the main actors behind proposed legislation—writing bills, negotiating
  the details—while the senator is relegated to repeating talking points on Fox' or MSNBC.
  One day in his office, Udall picked up some tabloids from his coffee table and waved them at me. "You know about all
  these rags that cover the Hill, right?" he said, smiling. There are five dailies—Politico, The Hill, Roll Call, Con gressDaily,
  and CQ Today—all of which emphasize insider conflict. The senators, who like to complain about the trivializing effect of
  the "24/7 media," provide no end of fodder for it. The news of the day was what Udall called a "dust-up" between Scott
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015
  Brown, the freshman Massachusetts Republican, and a staffer for Jim DeMint, the arch-conservative from South Carolina;
  the staffer had Tweeted that Brown was voting too often with the Democrats, leading Brown to confront DeMint on the
  Senate floor over this supposed breach of protocol. Bloggers carry so much influence that many senators have a young
  press aide dedicated to the care and feeding of online media. News about, by, and for a tiny kingdom of political
  obsessives dominates the attention of senators and staff, while stories that might affect their constituents go unreported
  because their home-state papers can no longer afford to have bureaus in Washington. Dodd, who came to the Senate in
  1981 and will leave next January, told me, "I used to have eleven Connecticut newspaper reporters who covered me on a
  daily basis. I don't have one today, and haven't had one in a number of years. Instead, D.C. publications only see me
  through the prism of conflict." Lamar Alexander described the effect as "this instant radicalizing of positions to the left and
  the right."
  Both Alexander and Gregg said that the Senate had been further polarized by the rising number of senators—now nearly
  fifty—who come from the House, rather than from governorships or other positions where bipartisan coOperation is still
  permissible. "A lot of senators don't understand the history or tradition of the institution," Gregg said. "Substantive,
  thoughtful, moderate discussion is pushed aside."
  Encumbered with aides, prodded by hourly jolts from electronic media, racing from the hearing room to the caucus lunch
  to the Power Hour to the airport, senators no longer have the time, or perhaps the inclination, to get to know one
  another—least of all, members of the other party. Friendships across party lines are more likely among the few spouses
  who live in Washington. After Udall joined the Senate, last year, he was invited to dinner by Alexander, because Jill
  Cooper Udall and Honey Alexander had become friends through a women's social club. It remains the only time Udall has
  set foot in the house of a Republican senator. (Vice-President Joe Biden, in his autobiography, recalls that, in the
  seventies, a bipartisan group of senators and their wives hosted a monthly dinner: "In those days Democrats and
  Republicans actually enjoyed each other's company.") When I asked Chris Dodd how well he knew, for example, Jim
  DeMint, Dodd said, "Not at all. Whereas Jesse Helms and I knew each other pretty well." He repeated something that Jon
  Kyl, the Republican whip, from Arizona, had recently said to him: "There's no trust." Dodd, whose father was a senator,
  went on, "That's really all there is—this place really operates on that. I don't think anyone would argue with that
  conclusion. And if that's missing.
  There remains a veneer—badly chipped—of comity. On the floor, senators still refer to members of the opposing party as
  "friends." Gregg described Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, as "one of my best friends in the Senate," and
  both Gregg and Alexander ticked off examples of little-known legislation that they are currently working on with
  Democrats; Alexander and Ben Cardin, of Maryland, have introduced a bill to ban mountaintop-removal coal mining. Udall
  noted that he had become friendly with John McCain when they went on a congressional tour of Iraq. But opportunities to
  bond are rare. On the first floor of the Capitol, there is a private dining room for senators, the "inner sanctum," where
  Republicans and Democrats used to have lunch (at separate tables, but in the same room). In the seventies, old bulls
  such as James Eastland, Hubert Humphrey, and Jacob Javits held court there; later, Daniel Patrick Moynihan did. "You
  learned, and also you found out what was going on," Dodd said, adding, "It's awfully difficult to say crappy things about
  someone that you just had lunch with." These days, the inner sanctum is nearly always empty. Senators eat lunch in their
  respective caucus rooms with members of their party, or else "downtown," which means asking donors for money over
  steak and potatoes at the Monocle or Charlie Palmer. The tradition of the "caucus lunch" was instituted by Republicans in
  the fifties, when they lost their majority; Democrats, after losing theirs in 1980, followed suit. Caucus lunches work
  members on both sides into a state of pep-rally fervor. During one recent Republican lunch, Jim Bunning referred to Harry
  Reid as an idiot. "At least he had the courtesy to do it behind closed doors," Alexander joked, adding, "We spend most of
  our time in team meetings deciding what we're going to do to each other."
  In 2007, Alexander and Lieberman started a series of bipartisan Tuesday breakfasts. "They kind of dwindled off during the
  health-care debate," Alexander said. Udall has tried to revive the Wednesday inner-sanctum lunch. For the first few
  months, only Democrats attended. Then, one Wednesday in May, Susan Collins, the Maine Republican, showed up,
  joking nervously about being a turncoat; to protect her reputation, her presence was kept secret.
  These efforts at resurrecting dead customs are as self-conscious and, probably, as doomed as the get-togethers of lovers
  who try to stay friends after a breakup. Ira Shapiro, a Washington lawyer and a former aide to Senator Gaylord Nelson, of
  Wisconsin, put it this way: "Why would they want to have lunch together when they hate each other?"
  The upper chamber of Congress was a constitutional compromise between popular sovereignty and state sovereignty.
  The Senate was designed, as part of the separation of powers, to check the impulses of the House and the popular will.
  For some Federalists, it also had an aristocratic purpose: to collect knowledge and experience, and to guard against a
  levelling spirit that might overtake the majority. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the Senate, in 1832, he was deeply
  impressed by the quality of its members: "They represent only the lofty thoughts [of the nation] and the generous instincts
  animating it, not the petty passions." But he also recognized that "a minority of the nation dominating the Senate could
  completely paralyze the will of the majority represented in the other house, and that is contrary to the spirit of
  constitutional government." As long as the Senate continued to be composed of America's most talented statesmen,
  Tocqueville implied, it would restrain its own anti-democratic potential.
  Robert A. Caro, in "Master of the Senate," the third volume of his life of Lyndon Johnson, argues that after the Civil War •
  the Senate was captured by wealthy and sectional interests, ending a more high-minded age when Daniel Webster, Henry
  Clay, and John C. Calhoun engaged in brilliant debate. Aside from spasms of legislation at the start of the Presidencies of
  Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, Caro writes, the Senate remained controlled by an alliance of Southern racists
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015
  and Republican corporate shills, and was "the dam against which the waves of social reform dashed themselves in vain—
  the chief obstructive force in the federal government." By the fifties, the Senate had become far more conservative than
  the public. And not just conservative: William S. White, in his 1956 book "Citadel," called the Senate "to a most peculiar
  degree, a Southern Institution . . . growing at the heart of this ostensibly national assembly" and "the only place in the
  country where the South did not lose the war."
  By mid-century, it had become a journalistic cliché to call the Senate broken. Otto Preminger's 1962 film "Advise and
  Consent," based on the novel by Allen Drury, is about the Senate of that period, and it presents Democrats and
  Republicans as equally amoral, calculating, and power-hungry. But the institution, as depicted by Preminger, still works, in
  its way: though the deals stink, they get cut. The senators know their colleagues and the rules; they back-stab one
  another in the lunchroom, then drink cocktails and play cards on Saturday nights. There are no lobbyists, no fund-raisers,
  no media, no constituents—only senators' intricate relations with one another. The Senate is its own world.
  In a memoir, Johnson's longtime aide Harry McPherson recalls learning that the Senate's "famous 'club' atmosphere is
  based on the members' mutual acceptance of responsibility and concentration on the tasks at hand. . . . They thrust hard
  at one another in debate over serious matters," but, he writes, "understanding and accommodation in the ordinary course
  of the Senate day was essential to sanity." Johnson, the most powerful Majority Leader in history, bent the Senate to his
  will and forced it to become more efficient. He saw his colleagues as either "whales"—the heavyweight chairmen who
  negotiated legislation—or "minnows," the followers who went along with the brokered deals. And when, in 1958, a
  formidable new class of liberal Democrats entered the Senate—including Edmund Muskie, Eugene McCarthy, and Philip
  Hart—the legislative machinery began to produce reform. Michael Janeway, the author of "The Fall of the House of
  Roosevelt," worked as a summer staff member between 1958 and 1962. "They used to talk to each other—that's my most
  vivid recollection," he said. "If Wayne Morse talked of constitutional law on the floor, the Southerners would come in to
  hear him. The same with Hubert Humphrey on farm policy. My strongest impression was of it being a deliberative body,
  drawing each other out—sometimes pedantically." Senators who ran for office in order to work on foreign policy, social
  welfare, or urbanization had to win credibility with the whales. "But if you wanted to do something there was a mechanism
  by which you could do it," Janeway said.
  In the sixties and seventies, Southern-conservative control was broken by a coalition of left-of-center Democrats and
  moderate Republicans. Donald Ritchie, the Senate historian, who started working there in 1976, described the Senate of
  those decades as "a bipartisan liberal institution." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written largely out of the office of the
  Republican Minority Leader, Everett Dirksen. Every major initiative—voting rights, open housing, environmental law,
  campaign reform—enjoyed bipartisan support. In the rare event of a filibuster, the motion to end debate was often filed
  jointly by leaders of both parties. When Medicare—that government takeover of health care for the elderly—was passed,
  in 1965, it won 70-24.
  The Senate's momentum nurtured superb talent: William Fulbright, Everett Dirksen, Henry Jackson, Frank Church,
  Howard Baker. In 1969, George McGovern chaired a select committee on hunger that actually held bipartisan "field
  hearings" in poor regions, calling witnesses in migrant labor camps, and then, with Bob Dole's indispensable support,
  greatly expanded the food-stamp program. The intensity of senatorial purpose in those years must strike today's
  legislators as profoundly humbling. After Joe Biden came to the Senate, in 1973, Hubert Humphrey took him aside and
  said, "You have to pick an issue that becomes yours. That's how you attract your colleagues to follow you, Joe. That's
  how you demonstrate your bona fides. Don't be a gadfly." Humphrey's career advice: "You should become Mr. Housing.
  Housing is the future."
  The Senate's modern decline began in 1978, with the election of a new wave of anti-government conservatives, and
  accelerated as Republicans became the majority in 1981. "The Quayle generation came in, and there were a number of
  people just like Dan—same generation, same hair style, same beliefs," Gary Hart, the Colorado Democrat, recalled. "They
  were harder-line. They weren't there to get along with Democrats. But they look accommodationist compared to
  Republicans in the Senate today." Church, McGovern, Javits, and Birch Bayh were gone. Ira Shapiro, the former aide,
  who is writing a book about the Senate of the sixties and seventies, said, "It was a huge loss of the most experienced,
  accomplished senators being replaced by neophytes. All of a sudden, in 1981, more than half the Senate had been there
  less than six years." He added, "The shattering of the great Senate has long-term effects that keep showing up. It gets
  worse over time, but it just never gets restored. There was a phrase I heard from Helms and the younger ones: 'Others
  didn't want to make waves; I wanted to drain the swamp.'"
  After C-SPAN went on the air, in 1979, the cozy atmosphere that encouraged both deliberation and back-room deals
  began to yield to transparency and, with it, posturing. "So Damn Much Money," a recent book by the Washington Post
  reporter Robert G. Kaiser, traces the spectacular rise of Washington lobbying to the same period. Liberal Republicans
  began to disappear, and as Southern Democrats died out they were replaced by conservative Republicans. Bipartisan
  coalitions on both wings of the Senate vanished. The institutionalist gave way to the free agent, who controlled his own
  fund-raising apparatus and media presence, and whose electoral base was a patchwork of single-issue groups. Members
  of both parties—Howard Metzenbaum, the Ohio Democrat; Jesse Helms, the North Carolina Republican—took to
  regularly using the Senate's rules to tie up business for narrowly ideological reasons. The number of filibusters shot up in
  the eighties and continued to rise in the following decades, as the parties kept alternating control of the Senate and
  escalating a procedural arms race, routinely blocking the confirmation of executive and judicial appointees. Democrats
  filibustered Republican nominees to the bench; then Republicans threatened to ban the filibuster in such cases—the so-
  called "nuclear option." Older members were perturbed when, in 2004, the Republican Majority Leader, Bill Frist, went to
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015
  South Dakota to campaign against the Democratic Minority Leader, Tom Daschle (who went on to lose). A few years
  earlier, such an action would have been unthinkable.
  The weakened institution could no longer withstand pressures from outside its walls; as money and cameras rushed in,
  independent minds fell more and more in line with the partisans. Rough parity between the two parties meant that every
  election had the potential to make or break a majority, crushing the incentive to cooperate across the aisle. The Senate,
  no longer a fount of ideas, became a backwater of the U.S. government. During the Clinton years, the main action was
  between the White House and the Gingrich House of Representatives; during the Bush years, the Republican Senate
  majority abdicated the oversight role that could have placed a vital check on executive power.
  Norman Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said that the Senate has increasingly
  become populated by "ideologues and charlatans." He went on, "When we do get good people who come in, they very
  quickly get ground up by the dynamic and the culture of the parties. And once you get there, look at what it takes to stay
  there." He spoke of Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican, who, nearing the end of his career, spent much of last year
  working closely with his friend Max Baucus on the health-care bill. Then, in August, Grassley went home and, faced with
  angry Republican voters and the prospect of a primary challenge from the right, started warning about "pulling the plug on
  Grandma." Ornstein added that similar pressures had led John McCain to begin "altering his behavior and abandoning
  every issue, including campaign-finance reform."
  One morning in April, I visited Harry McPherson, the former L.B.J. aide, at the offices of the legal and lobbying firm D. L.
  A. Piper, in downtown Washington. McPherson, who is eighty, had on his desk the firm's spiral-bound directory for the
  111th Congress. I asked him who, in Johnsonian terms, were the whales of the current Senate. McPherson ran his finger
  down the list of senators. He did it again. "I'm trying here, looking for a remote descendant. Judas Priest, look at this." He
  was stumped. "Well, I see some good people, I see some people who are going to get coalitions together over time." He
  put the directory aside. "I'm just having the damnedest time."
  Down the hall from McPherson's office was that of Mel Martinez, a former Republican senator from Florida; he was hired
  last year, two weeks after resigning his Senate seat without completing his first term. (He has since moved on to
  JPMorgan Chase.) William Cohen, the former Maine senator and Secretary of Defense, has an office downstairs. Tom
  Daschle works at D. L. A. Piper; his predecessor as Democratic leader, George Mitchell, was the firm's chairman, until
  President Obama appointed him to be his Middle East envoy. One feature of the diminished U.S. senator is the ease with
  which he moves from legislating to lobbying. Between 1998 and 2004, half the senators who left office became lobbyists.
  In 2007, Trent Lott, a Republican leader in the Senate less than a year into his fourth term, abruptly resigned and formed
  a lobbying firm with former Senator John Breaux, just a few weeks before a new law took effect requiring a two-year
  waiting period between serving and lobbying.
  When you spend your days at the Senate, it's easy to forget about everything else. The House of Representatives seems
  miles away (it's just down a corridor and across the rotunda), the White House is another country, and actual foreign
  countries are unimaginable. The place remains insular, labyrinthine, and opaque—even physically. Senators commute
  thirty seconds between their offices and the chamber by electric subway cars that run along a tunnel under Constitution
  Avenue. Many signs are misleading or obsolete (the gilded lettering over the visitors' gallery says "Men's Gallery"), and
  the Capitol is filled with secret passageways and spare rooms, called hideaways, doled out according to seniority, where
  senators can read, drink, doze, and wait for the buzzer announcing an imminent vote. The most pervasive authority over
  the institution is not the Constitution or the Bible but, rather, an impenetrable sixteen-hundred-page tome, by Floyd M.
  Riddick, called "Senate Procedure: Precedents and Practices," which only the late Robert Byrd, of West Virginia, was
  known to have read in its entirety. The procedures are so abstruse that a parliamentarian must sit below the presiding
  officer and, essentially, tell him or her what to say.
  After half a century, the picture given by Preminger's "Advise and Consent" is still faintly visible. "The Senate, by its
  nature, is a place where consensus reigns and personal relationships are paramount," Lamar Alexander said. "And that's
  not changed." Which is exactly the problem: it's a self-governing body that depends on the reasonableness of its
  members to function. Sarah Binder, a congressional scholar at George Washington University, said, "To have a chamber
  that rules by unanimous consent—it's nutty! Especially when you've got Jim Bunning to please."
  In 2006 and 2008, sixteen Democrats entered the Senate, giving the Party its current majority of fifty-nine to forty-one
  (counting two independents). They include moderates, like Jon Tester, of Montana, and Mark Warner, of Virginia; liberals,
  like Sherrod Brown, of Ohio, and Sheldon Whitehouse, of Rhode Island; policy specialists, like Amy Klobuchar, of
  Minnesota, and Jeff Merkley; and iconoclasts, like Claire McCaskill. Their interest in legislating has won the admiration of
  senior senators. "If they can stay, I think they'll be terrific," Chris Dodd said. "My worry is they won't stay. Because it's not
  productive."
  The Democratic class of 2008 arrived with President Obama, expecting to usher in 6 dynamic new era. Instead, their
  young Senate careers have passed in a daily slog of threatened filibusters and "secret holds"—when a senator
  anonymously objects to bringing an appointment up for a vote, which requires unanimous consent. On April 20th, Claire
  McCaskill took the trouble to read off the names of fifty-six Obama nominees languishing in the limbo of secret holds, and
  Jon Kyl objected to every one of them. Just getting a bill to the floor for debate can require days of tactical gamesmanship
  between the party leaders. There were times when Warner wondered if anyone had ever quit in the first year. Michael
  Bennet said, "We find ourselves at a moment in our history when the questions are huge ones, not small ones, and where
  things have been put off for a really long period of time." He mentioned the national debt, energy policy, and the financial
  crisis. "Yet you have a Senate that's designed not to advance change but to slow it."
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015
  We were talking in his hideaway, a windowless room in the Capitol basement, which had a mini-fridge stocked with bottled
  water, black leatherette furniture circa 1962, and a TV tuned to C-SPAN2 on mute; Senator Kyl's mouth was moving.
  Bennet, the former superintendent of schools in Denver, was appointed to a vacant seat in 2009, and already has to
  defend it this year. He described the Senate with the dry bluntness of an outsider who hasn't allowed himself to grow too
  attached. Bennet repeated a story he had heard. about a new congressman giving his maiden speech: "And then some
  more veteran guy came over and said, 'Son, you're talking like this place is on the level. It's not on the level.' As the fifteen
  months or so have gone by that I've been here, the less on the level it seems."
  Earlier this year, the Senate's procedural absurdities became national news twice in one month. On February 4th,
  Con gressDaily reported that Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, was secretly blocking the confirmation of seventy
  Obama appointees over a dispute involving defense earmarks for his•state. (His tactics exposed, Shelby—whose office
  maintains that he was responsible for fewer than fifty holds—lifted all but three.) Later that month, Bunning spent several
  days and a late night on the Senate floor, filibustering to prevent benefits from being paid to millions of unemployed
  Americans. When Merkley tried to reason with him, Bunning responded, "Tough shit." (Eventually, Republicans persuaded
  Bunning to stop.)
  These incidents elicited a brief outcry, but the extent of the Senate's routine folly remains largely hidden. For example,
  Grassley and Ron Wyden, of Oregon, have been trying since 1997 to end the practice of secret holds, without success. In
  2007, the Senate passed a bill banning secret holds that last longer than six days. But to get around the ban two or more
  senators can pass the hold back and forth—it's called "rolling holds"—and their party leader facilitates the game by
  keeping their names secret.
  Many of the Senate's antique rules and precedents have been warped beyond recognition by the modern pressures of
  partisanship. The hold, for example, was a courtesy extended to senators in the days of horse travel, when they needed
  time to get back to Washington and read a bill or question an appointee before casting their vote. Sarah Binder, who co-
  authored a book on the filibuster, calls the procedure a historical accident: in 1806, the Senate got rid of a little-used rule
  that allowed the "previous question" to be called to a vote. Suddenly, there was no inherent limit on debate, and by the
  eighteen-thirties senators had begun taking advantage of this loophole, derailing the proceedings by getting up and talking
  until their voice, legs, or bladder gave out. (The word "filibuster' comes from vrijbuiter—old Dutch for "looter.")
  In 1917, Woodrow Wilson, with his wartime legislative agenda blocked by filibusters, forced the Senate to pass Rule XXII,
  which allowed a two-thirds majority to bring a floor debate to an end with a "cloture" vote. For decades, the rule was rarely
  used; between 1919 and 1971, there were only forty-nine cloture votes, fewer than one per year. In the seventies and
  eighties, the annual average rose to about a dozen. (Frustration with this increase led the Senate, in 1975, to lower the
  threshold for cloture to sixty votes.) In the nineties and early aughts, the average went up to twenty-five or thirty a year, as
  both parties escalated their use of the filibuster when they found themselves in the minority. After the Republicans lost
  their majority in 2006, filibusters became everyday events: there were a hundred and twelve cloture votes in 2007 and
  2008, and this session Republicans are on target to break their own filibuster record.
  The tally of cloture votes reflects only a small fraction of senatorial obstruction. Three hundred and forty-five bills passed
  by the House have been prevented from even coming up for debate in the Senate. "Why?" Steny Hoyer, the outraged
  Democratic Majority Leader of the House, asked me. "Because they do not do their business in a way that facilitates
  noncontroversial things. Thankfully, the House of Representatives is not becoming the Senate." Last week, six House
  Democrats expressed their displeasure with the upper chamber by staging a sit-in of sorts on the Senate floor.
  Seventy-six nominees for judgeships and executive posts have been approved by committees but, because of blocks,
  haven't come up for a vote in the full Senate, leaving courtrooms idle and jobs unfilled across the upper levels of the
  Obama Administration. (The Democrats also practiced the art of blocking nominees during the Bush Administration.)
  There's often no objection to the individual being blocked: after an eight-month hold, Martha Johnson, nominated to run
  the General Services Administration, was confirmed 96-0. On an issue like health-care reform, when the objection was
  substantive, Republicans ransacked Riddick's "Senate Procedure" for every conceivable way to delay a debate and vote.
  Judd Gregg even sent a memo on stalling tactics to his Republican colleagues. Tom Coburn demanded the reading aloud
  of an entire seven-hundred-and-sixty-seven-page amendment proposed by Bernie Sanders, the Vermont socialist; Senate
  clerks, working in half-hour shifts, were three hours into the chore when Sanders withdrew the amendment in frustration.
  Under McConnell, Republicans have consistently consumed as much of the Senate's calendar as possible with legislative
  maneuvering. The strategy is not to extend deliberation of the Senate's agenda but to prevent it. Tom Harkin, who first
  proposed reform of the filibuster in 1995, called his Republican colleagues "nihilists," who want to create chaos because it
  serves their ideology. "If there's chaos, things will tend toward simple solutions," Harkin said. "In chaos people don't listen
  to reason." McConnell did not respond to requests for an interview, but he has often argued that the Republican strategy
  reflects the views of a majority of Americans. In March, he told the Times, "To the extent that they"—the Democrats—
  "want to do things that we think are in the political center and would be helpful to the country, we'll be helpful. To the
  extent they are trying to turn us into a Western European country, we are not going to be helpful."
  One of the mysteries of the Senate is how Mitch McConnell has been able to keep his members in line, on vote after vote.
  Why do moderates with years of experience and their own power base back home—Richard Lugar, of Indiana; Susan
  Collins, of Maine; George Voinovich, of Ohio—keep siding with the more extreme members of their caucus? Alexander
  said that McConnell listens well to all his members, adding, "When you have your back against the wall and the gallows
  are hanging in front of you, it tends to unify. Operating with forty members—it concentrates the mind."
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015
  Lindsey Graham described to the Times how McConnell exhorted his caucus after the disastrous 2008 election: "He said
  if we didn't stick together on big things, we wouldn't be relevant." Last December, the Republicans decided to filibuster a
  military-spending bill in order to delay the looming vote on health care until as close to Christmas as possible. Thad
  Cochran, the Republican ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, promised Daniel Inouye, the chairman, that
  he wouldn't join the effort. But at the last minute Cochran, who has been in the Senate since 1979 and brings
  disproportionate amounts of defense money to Mississippi, told Reid that his leadership wouldn't allow him to vote with
  the Democrats and end the filibuster—even on a matter of national security. (The Democrats were able to impose cloture,
  and the vote on health care finally took place on Christmas Eve.)
  Republican defections have been rare. In early 2009, Collins and Olympia Snowe, also of Maine, voted for the stimulus
  bill, along with Arlen Specter (who promptly switched parties). Snowe also voted for the Finance Committee's health-care-
  reform bill last October, the only Republican to do so. But in December, at the pivotal moment, she voted against the
  version that went before the full Senate. "I wasn't interested in expanding this program beyond the Finance Committee
  version—it grew by a thousand pages," Snowe said. She wasn't included in the negotiations with White House officials
  that took place in an elegant conference room across from Reid's suite of offices, and said that the Democrats "did not
  accept any of my proposals. As I said to the President, it was all windup and no pitch." McConnell was able to exploit her
  alienation. A friend of Snowe cited another reason for her reversal: "She actually said to me once that she had never felt
  the pressure that she felt on health care, never before had that pressure been quite as evident to her or quite as real or
  troubling. Kyl and McConnell were saying things like 'You just can't let us down, we're all in this together. You're a senior
  Republican member of this caucus, and you just have to hang tough with us. We expect it and you're going to do it.' "
  Reid doesn't use such tough tactics; he has achieved his position, in spite of his public shortcomings, by being the senator
  who helped other Democrats, always answered their calls, and got them what they wanted through masterly
  maneuvering. This has made him enormously popular within the Democratic caucus, but it doesn't give him the leverage
  of McConnell, let alone of Lyndon Johnson.
  In the current Senate, it has become normal for a handful of senators, sometimes representing just ten or twenty per cent
  of the country's population, to hold everything up. And the status quo has become sufficiently frustrating that a few new
  senators have considered a radical option: mutiny.
  Tom Udall, who is sixty-two, is older than most freshman senators. He has the crow's-feet of a Westerner who has spent
  time in the sun, and a slow, good-natured voice. His father, Stewart, was an Arizona congressman and the Interior
  Secretary for Presidents Kennedy and Johnson; his uncle Mo was a legendary Arizona representative; his cousin Mark is
  a freshman senator from Colorado. Udall served five terms in the House before winning a Senate seat from New Mexico,
  in 2008. And yet he has the air of a political Candide—he is always earnest, capable of disappointment but not cynicism.
  "I ran on the idea that the Senate should not be a graveyard for good ideas," he said. "Then to be on the inside—the thing
  that strikes you is how one senator can hold up the whole show."
  In his first year in office, Udall decided to do something audacious: he would try to change the Senate's rules.
  Customarily, the rules continue session after session, and a provision in Rule XXII requires sixty-seven votes to amend
  them, making it extremely difficult. ("Rule XXII is a Catch-22," Ted Kennedy used to joke.) Udall embraced a different
  idea—the "constitutional option." Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that "each House may determine the Rules
  of its Proceedings" at the beginning of the new Congress. So, in theory, a senator could take the floor next January and
  propose debating its rules from scratch, including the filibuster. New rules could be passed with a simple majority. There's
  even a precedent for this: moves to revisit the rules by invoking the constitutional option have been made three times,
  most recently in 1975. Udall has spent much of the past year trying to build support for the idea.
  At the request of Udall and others, Schumer, who is the chairman of the Rules Committee, has held a series of hearings
  on the filibuster, calling witnesses such as Sarah Binder, the historian, and Walter Mondale, who was in the Senate when
  the constitutional option was invoked in 1975. Dick Durbin, the second-highest-ranking Democrat, has organized working
  groups among newer members on other internal reforms, such as ending secret holds and choosing committee chairs by
  caucus vote rather than by seniority. (Lamar Alexander wryly suggested to me that Schumer and Durbin were competing
  for the favor of newer members, in case Harry Reid loses his seat in the fall and they run against each other for Majority
  Leader.)
  For Republican institutionalists, such as Alexander and Gregg, the push for rules reform is folly. "If you want a
  parliamentary form of government, go over to the House," Gregg, who is about to retire, scoffed. "Why even run for the
  Senate?" Udall's plan for next January, he said, would be a "gigantic mistake."
  "They'll get over it," Alexander said of the Democrats' enthusiasm for rules reform. "And they'll get over it quicker if they're
  in the minority next January. Because they'll instantly see the value of slowing the Senate down to consider whatever they
  have to say." He added that the Senate "may be getting done about as much as the American people want done." The
  President's ambitious agenda, after all, has upset a lot of voters, across the political spectrum. None of the Republicans I
  spoke to agreed with the contention that the Senate is "broken." Alexander claimed that he and other Republicans were
  exercising the moderating, thoughtful influence on legislation that the founders wanted in the Senate. "The Senate wasn't
  created to be efficient," he argued. "It was created to be inefficient." At one of the filibuster hearings, in April, Alexander,
  sitting across the table from Udall, said that, for all the times the Democrats charge the Republicans with obstructing
  legislation, "we could say that's the number of times the majority has tried to cut off our right to debate, our right to offer
  amendments, which is the essence of the Senate."
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015
  Newcomers like Udall seem to think that the Senate has grown so absurd and extreme that some kind of reform is
  inevitable. Perhaps they need more time to plumb the depths of the institution's intransigence. According to Sarah Binder,
  a change in rules is extremely unlikely; Republicans would be implacably opposed to, say, weakening the filibuster, and
  so would some Democrats, especially long-serving ones. "I would oppose that," Chris Dodd said, adding of the freshmen,
  "These are people who have never been in the minority." For older Democrats, who have put in their years, grown adept
  at working the rules, and now chair powerful committees, the reform impulse could be a threat. (Among senior senators,
  the sole enthusiast for rules reform is Tom Harkin.) One senator spoke of the Senate as being divided not between
  whales and minnows but, rather, between bulls and calves. The older Democrats are too accustomed to the Senate's
  ways to share the frustrations of the newcomers; the handful of older moderate Republicans are too weak to challenge the
  newer radicals who now dominate the caucus.
  Even if the freshmen Democrats can somehow reform the filibuster next January, the Senate will remain a sclerotic,
  wasteful, unhappy body. The deepest source of its problems is not rules and precedents but, rather, its human beings,
  who have created a culture where Tocqueville's "lofty thoughts" and "generous impulses" have no place.
  A few days after passing health-care reform, the Senate struggled to its feet to take on a second large task. Financial
  regulatory reform should have been the easiest piece of major legislation of the Obama Presidency, the likeliest to win
  real bipartisan support. The financial crisis had been catastrophic for millions of Americans, and after the 2008 bailout
  Wall Street had become even more hated than the Senate was. In April, a lineup of bankers from Goldman Sachs
  appeared before Senator Levin's subcommittee on investigations, and managed to appear as arrogant, callous, and
  evasive as their reputations had suggested. The public demanded action. Some Republicans had a genuine desire to
  pass a bill. If health-care reform had been a war of attrition, financial reform was a promising liaison.
  The affair began with a Republican, Bob Corker, and a Democrat, Mark Warner—both multimillionaires serving their first
  term, both considered centrists. Corker is a small, dapper former construction magnate who became the mayor of
  Chattanooga; Warner is a tall, preppily dressed former telecommunications entrepreneur who became the governor of
  Virginia. Chris Dodd, the Banking Committee chairman, assigned them to work together on the section of the bill having to
  do with the liquidation of troubled firms—making sure that there would never be another taxpayer bailout. They worked
  through the winter, in Warner's office, in Corker's office, over dinner, sometimes without staff, as if they were members of
  a Senate from the past. They hosted a series of afternoon seminars, inviting guests such as Ben Bernanke, Alan
  Greenspan, and Sheila Bair. Corker and Warner were sometimes said to be the only Democrat and Republican still
  talking to each other. In January, Business Week called them the Senate's "Odd Couple." By February, they had finished
  their work.
  Meanwhile, discussions about the entire bill between Dodd and Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the committee,
  dragged on, repeatedly breaking down. Finally, on February 10th, Dodd called Corker, who, though he was one of the
  committee's junior members, agreed to be the chairman's Republican negotiating partner. When Corker informed
  McConnell and Shelby, they expressed surprise. "It was an odd place to be," Corker recalled. "And yet that night we
  began meeting." The junior Republican savored the rare experience of creating, rather than opposing, legislation. In
  response, Shelby's conservative staff tried to undermine Corker, spreading rumors among Republicans and their lobbyists
  that he was giving too much away. (A Shelby aide said that staff members were simply informing other Republicans of the
  Party's line on financial reform.)
  On March 10th, Dodd concluded that he had to move a bill to the floor. He called Corker and said, "You've been a great
  partner." He was ending their talks after only a month. "It's a little stunning, I've got to be honest," Corker told reporters
  afterward. Someone close to the negotiations compared Corker to Dickens's Miss Havisham, unable to get over the
  rebuff, forever awaiting the arrival of her groom, all her clocks stopped. Corker later said that Dodd had ended the talks
  under pressure from the White House and other Democrats. Dodd said that Corker had been unable to bring any other
  Republicans with him. "Baloney," Corker said. "If Dodd had reached an agreement with me, we'd've had at least twenty-
  five Republican votes."
  The bill that Dodd brought before the Senate, after a year of discussions with Democrats and Republicans alike,
  incorporated the bipartisan plan of Warner and Corker to prevent another bank bailout: setting up a fifty-billion-dollar fund,
  paid for by the banks, to insure orderly liquidation, and establishing a risk council to detect warning signs of another crisis.
  But in mid-April Mitch McConnell—who had just met with Wall Street executives in New York, and was now parroting
  talking points from a memo written by the Republican strategist Frank Luntz—called it a "partisan bill" that "will guarantee
  perpetual taxpayer bailout of Wall Street banks." McConnell presented a letter, signed by all forty-one Republicans,
  suggesting that they would filibuster the financial-reform bill.
  His remarks amounted to a repudiation of Corker's work as well as of Dodd's. The next day, April 15th, Corker pleaded
  with his colleagues, in his Tennessee twang, "Let's come to the floor and let's act like adults. Let's tone down the rhetoric.
  Let's don't exaggerate the pluses or minuses. Let's do what the Senate was created to do. . . . We were supposed to be
  the people that took some of the red-hot activities that sometimes come from the other body and sat down with cooler
  heads and resolved the issues like adults. We can do that. As a matter of fact, I would say, if we cannot do that on
  financial regulation, an issue that really doesn't have any real philosophical bearings to it . . ." Corker didn't allow the
  thought to ripen—he had already gone farther than almost any Republican would have dared.
  Dodd spoke later in the day and completed Corker's speech: "I know my friends on the other side of the aisle are faced
  with a difficult choice between supporting their party leadership and participating in this complicated, difficult debate. I am
  not naïve. I know that is a hard place to be. But if we can't act like U.S. senators for the sake of this issue . . . then why
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015
  are we even here?" He went on, "We work for an American public that is sick and tired of feeling like no one is looking out
  for their interests, like the political hacks and lobbyists hold all the cards in these discussions. The minority seems intent
  on proving them right. . . . I have been here a long time. I know this institution is better than that. I know there are friends
  of mine on the other side of the aisle who care about this bill, who want to be a part of the debate, who want to be part of
  the solution."
  In the same speech, Dodd joined the partisan fight, accusing McConnell of lying about the bill. Turning crimson-faced, he
  chopped the air with his hand as he shouted, "I have to ask myself, why did I go through this process over the last four or
  five months, agreeing to much of what they were offering, and there is not a single political vote to show for it. . . . I have
  to say to the younger members, the newer members coming along: be careful!"
  Corker, having heard that Dodd was speaking, returned to the chamber and asked to respond. "You and I went a long
  way," Corker told Dodd. "Then we stopped. On March 10th it ended. I understand that, look, you were losing Democrats
  on your committee."
  "And I was not gaining Republicans," Dodd replied.
  "You had one, and that is all you asked for when you started. I never said I could speak for anybody but myself. And I did
  not leave the table." Corker urged Dodd to keep talking to Republicans—their differences could be sorted out in a few
  days.
  But this was not McConnell's agenda. Instead, financial reform became a slightly more polite repeat of the health-care-
  reform brawl: the Republicans threatened filibusters, the Democrats threatened all-nighters, and thousands of lobbyists
  prowled the Capitol, charging their Wall Street clients more than a billion dollars. On April 28th, I was sitting in the ornate
  Reception Room with Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman. On the other side of the wall, there was the noise of furniture
  scraping across a tile floor. "Those are cots being set up in the L.B.J. Room," Manley said. "Very little happens around
  here without a deadline." The cots persuaded Republicans to allow the bill to move to the floor for debate. A few weeks
  later, on May 20th, yet another filibuster was defeated by yet another cloture motion, and financial reform finally came to a
  vote. It passed, 59-39. Only four Republicans had joined the majority. Corker wasn't among them. He had even voted for
  an amendment, offered by his Republican colleague Jeff Sessions, of Alabama, that would have scrapped Corker's work
  of many months with Warner.
  "The idea of watching Bob Corker vote for the Sessions amendment!" Dodd said afterward, sitting in his red-curtained
  office, under a print of Holbein's portrait of Thomas More. "It's the Senate, I guess." McConnell's strategy of obstruction
  had once again come close to succeeding, Dodd said, but he knew that a "shrinking number" of Republicans were
  frustrated. The previous day, Dodd had said to Susan Collins, "God, I would have loved to have you as my ranking
  member on this." Collins responded, "We could have had such a great time on this bill."
  Warner, who said that he believed in bipartisanship because "the American people don't trust either political party enough
  to give them a blank check," was astonished that so few Republicans voted for financial reform. "There was zero
  substantive reason why this couldn't have been eighty votes," he said. I asked him why Bob Corker had voted no on the
  bill. Warner started to talk about the consumer-protection title, and then said, "If you want to vote against something, you
  can always find your reasons."
  But Corker hadn't seemed to want to vote against it. He had spent months trying to act like a U.S. senator, alienating
  himself from his own party and then the other party, and on the day of the vote he held the floor for the better part of thirty
  minutes, as if he were still reluctant to let the effort go. "I am obviously disappointed," he said. "I think I have spent as
  much time as any senator. . . on policy regarding our financial system. I think any bill—even this bill—has good things in
  it. There is no question. And I appreciate the thrust. But I think there is a lot of overreaching, and I think not enough time
  was spent on some of the core issues."
  As the senators cast their votes, I noticed Robert Kaiser, the author of "So Damn Much Money," in the press gallery. I later
  asked him if, with the passage of two big reform bills in three months, we were witnessing a possible renewal of the
  Senate. "If you can engage public opinion in a way politicians can understand, public opinion can still blow away money
  and interest groups," he said. "But over the past few decades the reflex has grown in the Senate that, all things
  considered, it's better to avoid than to take on big issues. This is the kind of thing that drives Michael Bennet nutty: here
  you've arrived in the United States Senate and you can't do fuck-all about the destruction of the planet."
  After the final vote on financial reform, the Republicans flew home, and the Democratic leaders held a press conference,
  smiling before the microphones outside the Senate chamber. Reid said, "For those who wanted to protect Wall Street, it
  didn't work." He then excused himself: he had to join Biden for a telephone fund-raiser with "some Nevadans."
  Durbin said, "I was stunned that only four Republicans would join us in passing this historic legislation. What does it take
  to bring the Republican Party into the conversation about the future of America?"
  Dodd, glowing with triumph, said, "I wanted to demonstrate that the Senate of the United States could conduct its
  business much as our founders intended. We did that."
  On July 21st, President Obama signed the completed bill. The two lasting achievements of this Senate, financial
  regulation and health care, required a year and a half of legislative warfare that nearly destroyed the body. They
  depended on a set of circumstances—a large majority of Democrats, a charismatic President with an electoral mandate,
  and a national crisis—that will not last long or be repeated anytime soon. Two days after financial reform became law,
  Harry Reid announced that the Senate would not take up comprehensive energy-reform legislation for the rest of the year.
  And so climate change joined immigration, job creation, food safety, pilot training, veterans' care, campaign finance,
  transportation security, labor law, mine safety, wildfire management, and scores of executive and judicial appointments on
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015
  the list of matters that the world's greatest deliberative body is incapable of addressing. Already, you can feel the Senate
  slipping back into stagnant waters.
  ILLUSTRATION: STEVE BRODNER
  • Print
  • E-Mail
  • Feeds
  Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • More
  To get more of The New Yorker's signature mix of politics, culture and the arts: Subscribe now
  Related Links
  Ask the Author: Join a live chat with George Packer about the Senate on Wednesday, August 4, at 3 P.M. E.T.
  Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/09/100809fa fact packer?printable=true#ixzz0vT1PYxi7
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770192 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770193
MetadataSubject: SHUTTLE
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Abedin, Huma
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-02T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770193/C05770193.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Re: Shuttle
ExtractedTo: H; 'ValmoroU@state.gov'
ExtractedFrom: Huma Abedin <Huma@clintonemail.com>
ExtractedDateSent: Monday, August 2, 2010 1:18 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770193
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN FULL
ExtractedBodyText: Yes they should have known.
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770193 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN FULL
  From: Huma Abedin <Huma@clintonemail.com>
  Sent: Monday, August 2, 2010 1:18 PM
  To: H; 'ValmoroU@state.gov'
  Subject: Re: Shuttle
  Yes they should have known.
  Original Message
  From: H
  To: Huma Abedin; IValmoroU@state.gov? <VaIrnoroU@state.gov>
  Sent: Mon Aug 02 13:17:23 2010
  Subject: Shuttle
  Did USSS know we're leaving at 3? They seemed surprised. Do they have tickets?
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770193 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770194
MetadataSubject: FYI
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: sbwhoeop
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-02T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770194/C05770194.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Re: fyi
ExtractedFrom: sbwhoeop
ExtractedDateSent: Monday, August 2, 2010 1:53 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770194
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  Long New Yorker article on dysfunction of Senate
  Sent via Cingular Xpress Mail with Blackberry

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART B6
  From: sbwhoeop
  Sent: Monday, August 2, 2010 1:53 PM
  To:
  Subject: Re: fyi
  Long New Yorker article on dysfunction of Senate
  Sent via Cingular Xpress Mail with Blackberry
  Original Message
  From: H <HDR22@clintonemail.com>
  Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 13:35:29
  To: 'sbwhoeop
  Subject: Re: fyi
  What is this?
  Original Message
  From: sbwhoeop
  To: H
  Sent: Mon Aug 02 12:37:28 2010
  Subject: fyi
  <http://w.ic.tynt.com/b/x/0?g=0vT1PYxi7&p=50&c=%20food%20safety%2C%2Opilot%20training%2C%2Oveterans%E2%
  80%99%20care%2C%20campaign%20finance%2C%20transportation%20security%2C%201abor%20Iaw%2C%20mine%20s
  afety%2C%20wildfire%20ma nage me nt%2C%20a nd%20scores%20of%20executive%20and%20judicial%20appointments
  %20on%20the%201ist%20of%20matters%20that%20the%20world%E2%80%99s%2Ogreatest%20deliberative%20body%2
  Ois%20inca pable%20of%20add ressi ng.%20Already%2C%20you%20ca n%20feel%20the%20Senate%20slipping%20back%
  20i nto%20stagna nt%20waters.%0D%0A%0D%0AILLUSTRATION%3A%2OSTEVE%20BRODNER%0D%0A%0D%0A%20%20%
  20%20*%20Print%0D%0A%20%20%20%20*%20E-
  M a il%0D%0A%20%20%20%20*%20Feeds%0D%0A%0D%0ASha re%3A%0D%0A%0D%0A%20%20%20%20*%20Face book
  %0D%0A%20%20%20%20*%20Twitter%0D%0A%20%20%20%20*%20Digg%0D%0A%20%20%20%20*%20More%0D%0A
  %0D%0ATo%20get%20more%20of%20The%20New%20Yorker%27s%20signature%20mix%200f%2Opolitics%2C%20cultu
  re%20and%20the%20arts%3A%20Subscribe%20now%0D%0ARelated%20Links%0D%0A%0D%0A%20%20%20%20Ask%2
  Othe%20Author%3A%20Join%20a%2Olive>
  Go Back <javascripthistory.go(-1)>
  Print this page <javascript:window.print();>
  The New Yorker <http://www.newyorker.comh
  Skip to content <http://www.newyorkercom/reporting/2010/08/09/100809fafact_packer?printable=true#content>
  Subscribe to The New Yorker
  <https://magazi ne. newyorke r.co m/ecom/su bscri be.jsp?opp Id=5400134&tgtqatg/registry/RepositoryTa rgete rs/NYR/NY
  R_global_headerCallout&placementld=5500001&logOppld=true&placementGroupld=>
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015
  Subscribe to The New Yorker
  <https://magazine.newyorker.corniecom/subscribejsp?oppld=5400134&tgtqatg/registry/RepositoryTargeters/NYR/NY
  R_global_header&placementld=5400006&logOppld=true&placementGroupld=>
  <http://www.newyorkercom/images/ecom/failsafe/NYR_global_headergif>
  The Political Scene
  The Empty Chamber
  Just how broken is the Senate?
  Seventy-six nominees for judgeships and executive posts have been approved by committees but, because of blocks,
  haven't come up for a vote in the full Senate, leaving courtrooms idle and jobs unfilled across the upper levels of the
  Obama Administration....
  The tally of cloture votes reflects only a small fraction of senatorial obstruction. Three hundred and forty-five bills
  passed by the House have been prevented from even coming up for debate in the Senate....
  by George Packer
  <http://www.newyorkercom/magazine/biosigeorge_packer/search?contributorName=george%20packer> August 9,
  2010
  Text Size:
  Small Text <http://www.newyorkercom/reporting/2010/08/09/100809fafact_packer?printable=true#>
  Medium Text <http://www.newyorkercom/reporting/2010/08/09/100809fafact_packer?printable=true#>
  Large Text <http://www.newyorkercom/reporting/2010/08/09/100809fafact_packer?printable=true#>
  Print <http://www.newyorkercom/reporting/2010/08/09/100809fafact_packer?printable=true> E-Mail
  <http://www.newyorkercom/contactiemailFriend?referringPage=http://www.newyorkercom/reporting/2010/08/09/1
  00809fa_fact_packer&title=Filibusters%20and%20arcane%20obstructions%20in%20the%20Senate> Feeds
  <http://www.newyorkercom/services/rssisummary?selectedFeeds=everything,%2Oreporting,%20content_reporting,%
  20topic_politics,topic_politics>
  <http://www.newyorkercom/images/2010/08/09/p465/100809 _r19885_p465.jpg>
  "Sit and watch us for seven days," one senator says of the deadlocked chamber. "You know what you'll see happening?
  Nothing."
  "This is just one of those days when you want to throw up your hands and say, 'What in the world are we doing?'"
  Senator Claire McCaskill, the Missouri Democrat, said.
  "It's unconscionable," Carl Levin, the senior Democratic senator from Michigan, said. "The obstructionism has become
  mindless."
  The Senators were in the Capitol, sunk into armchairs before the marble fireplace in the press lounge, which is directly
  behind the Senate chamber. It was four-thirty on a Wednesday afternoon. McCaskill, in a matching maroon jacket and
  top, looked exasperated; Levin glowered over his spectacles.
  "Also, it's a dumb rule in itself," McCaskill said. "It's time we started looking at some of these rules."
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015
  She was referring to Senate Rule XXVI, Paragraph 5, which requires unanimous consent for committees and
  subcommittees to hold hearings after two in the afternoon while the Senate is in session. Both Levin and McCaskill had
  scheduled hearings that day for two-thirty. Typically, it wouldn't be difficult to get colleagues to waive the rule; a general
  and an admiral had flown halfway around the world to appear before Levin's Armed Services Committee, and
  McCaskill's Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight of the Homeland Security Committee was investigating the training
  of Afghan police. But this was March 24th, the day after President Barack Obama signed the health-care-reform bill, in a
  victory ceremony at the White House; it was also the day that the Senate was to vote on a reconciliation bill for health-
  care reform, approved by the House three nights earlier, which would retroactively remove the new law's most
  embarrassing sweetheart deals and complete the yearlong process of passing universal health care. Republicans, who
  had fought the bill as a bloc, were in no mood to make things easy.
  So, four hours earlier, when Levin went to the Senate floor and asked for consent to hold his hearing, Senator Richard
  Burr, Republican of North Carolina, and a member of Levin's committee, had refused. "I have no personal objection to
  continuing," Burr said. But, he added, "there is objection on our side of the aisle. Therefore, I would have to object."
  Burr had to object on behalf of his party because he was the only Republican in the chamber when Levin spoke. In
  general, when senators give speeches on the floor, their colleagues aren't around, and the two or three who might be
  present aren't listening. They're joking with aides, or e-mailing Twitter ideas to their press secretaries, or getting their
  first look at a speech they're about to give before the eight unmanned cameras that provide a live feed to C-SPAN2. The
  presiding officer of the Senate—freshmen of the majority party take rotating, hour-long shifts intended to introduce
  them to the ways of the institution—sits in his chair on the dais, scanning his BlackBerry or reading a Times article about
  the Senate. Michael Bennet, a freshman Democrat from Colorado, said, "Sit and watch us for seven days—just watch the
  floor. You know what you'll see happening? Nothing. When I'm in the chair, I sit there thinking, I wonder what they're
  doing in China right now?"
  Between speeches, there are quorum calls, time killers in which a Senate clerk calls the roll at the rate of one name
  every few minutes. The press gallery, above the dais, is typically deserted, as journalists prefer to hunker down in the
  press lounge, surfing the Web for analysis of current Senate negotiations; television screens alert them if something of
  interest actually happens in the chamber. The only people who pay attention to a speech are the Senate stenographers.
  On this afternoon, two portly bald men in suits stood facing the speaker from a few feet away, tapping at the
  transcription machines, which resembled nineteenth-century cash registers, slung around their necks. The Senate
  chamber is an intimate room where men and women go to talk to themselves for the record.
  Like many other aspects of senatorial procedure, Rule XXVI, Paragraph 5 is a relic from the days when senators had to
  hover around their desks to know what was happening on the floor during the main afternoon debate. (The desks, some
  built as long ago as 1819, are mahogany, and their lids lift up, like those in an old schoolhouse; the desks of the Majority
  and Minority Leader are still equipped with brass spittoons.) In the press lounge, McCaskill said, with light sarcasm,
  "Somebody told me the rule is to make sure people pay attention to what's happening on the floor during debate and
  not be distracted by committee work. Clearly, it's an old rule."
  The Republicans had turned this old rule into a new means of obstruction. There would be no hearings that afternoon;
  the general and the admiral would have to come back another day. Like investment bankers on Wall Street, senators
  these days direct much of their creative energy toward the manipulation of arcane rules and loopholes, scoring short-
  term successes while magnifying their institution's broader dysfunction.
  Around five o'clock, the chamber began to fill, as the reconciliation bill came up for a vote; there were twenty-three
  amendments pending, all from Republicans, and perhaps many more to come. Ordinarily, debate and voting on an
  amendment might take two legislative days, but under the rules of the reconciliation bill the senators were to dispatch
  the amendments one after another, as in a hot-dog-eating contest, with a minute of debate for each side. The goal was
  to finish the bill by the end of the evening, so that senators wouldn't miss a day of their spring recess—apparently, the
  only thing worse than a government takeover of the health-care system. The usual longueurs of the Senate, where forty
  minutes can tick away on the antique clock above the rear double doors without a word's being spoken, were about to
  yield to a frenzy. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader, from Nevada, had predicted that the process, known as Vote-O-Rama,
  would go past two in the morning, and had warned senators to stay close to the chamber.
  Max Baucus, of Montana, the manager of the bill for the Democrats, rose and said, "This is the first time in recent
  memory that a reconciliation bill has all the amendments on one side only. These are clearly amendments designed to
  kill the reconciliation and, therefore, kill health-care reform. So I very much hope that all of these amendments are
  defeated."
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015
  Tall, gaunt Judd Gregg, of New Hampshire, the bill's Republican manager, took the floor. "The position on the other side
  of the aisle is: no amendments allowed, even if they are good," he said. Indignation rouged his cheeks, and his voice rose
  half an octave. "Obviously, they presume the Republican Party is an inconvenience. The democratic process is an
  inconvenience. It also appears, considering the opposition to this out in America, that the American people are an
  inconvenience."
  The Senate chamber is laid out in four concentric semicircles, with adjacent desks almost touching on the crowded
  Democratic side, and the desks of the much smaller Republican minority spaced loosely apart. The design is meant to
  emphasize the senators' unity. But Baucus and Gregg avoided eye contact across the six feet of aisle that now divides
  the chamber into two constantly warring factions. Senators are required, by custom, to speak of one another in the third
  person, directing their anger and sarcasm through whichever poor freshman happens to be the presiding officer at the
  moment. Rule XIX, Paragraphs 2 and 3—one of the original rules drawn from Thomas Jefferson's "Manual of
  Parliamentary Practice"—bars senators from imputing unworthy conduct or motives to another senator, and from
  insulting any senator's state. But there is no rule against finger-wagging, and Baucus wagged his at Gregg while shouting
  at Al Franken, of Minnesota, who had started a shift in the presiding officer's chair: "Mr. President, make no mistake, the
  intent of every single one of the amendments offered on the other side of the aisle is to kill health-care reform.... A
  senator on the other side of the aisle stood up and said that this is hopefully the President's Waterloo. They want to kill
  health-care reform!"
  The voice of Stuart Smalley filled the chamber: "The time of the senator has expired."
  For the next nine hours, the chamber became the stage of a theatrical whose ending, like almost everything that
  happens on the Senate floor, was known in advance to all. The Republican goal in Vote-O-Rama was to embarrass the
  Democrats while appearing to suggest useful changes; the Democratic goal was to prevent any change to the bill, so that
  it wouldn't have to return to the House, where it might be voted down. Several of the Republican amendments had
  been designed to make Democrats look hypocritical, by forcing them to vote against policies that the Party typically
  supports. One amendment, for example, declared that the health-care bill could not be linked to a tax hike on
  individuals making less than two hundred thousand dollars a year. Other amendments were more nakedly partisan, and
  outlandish. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, proposed an amendment that repealed the entire law. Senator Tom
  Coburn, a Republican obstetrician from Oklahoma, introduced an amendment to insure that veterans diagnosed with
  mental illness would not be denied the right to own firearms, and another to prevent "convicted child molesters, rapists,
  and sex offenders" from buying erectile-dysfunction drugs with taxpayer funds. Coburn got through the minute he was
  allotted to explain his Viagra amendment without cracking a smile. "This is not a game amendment," he insisted. "It
  actually saves money."
  So many senators snickered that the presiding officer banged his gavel for order.
  "The amendment offered by the senator from Oklahoma makes a mockery of this Senate," Baucus declared. "It is a crass
  political stunt aimed at making thirty-second commercials, not public policy." Baucus asked for the yeas and nays, and a
  clerk called the roll at a ragged pace. "Mr. Coburn, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins." Thirty-five-second pause. "Mr. Conrad, Mr.
  Corker." Ten seconds. "Mr. Cornyn." Senators pay no attention to the sound of their name; they cast votes when they're
  so inclined—wandering in late, shuffling down the chamber's gentle blue-carpeted steps to the swarm of colleagues
  milling about in the well, where the clerks sit at a table, and then holding a finger up or down. At one point, John
  McCain—now just one of a hundred senators and struggling to stay in office—spent half a minute waving stiff-armed,
  trying to catch the eye of a clerk so he could cast his vote. In the end, two Democrats—Evan Bayh, of Indiana, and Ben
  Nelson, of Nebraska—joined the Republicans in opposing Viagra for sex offenders. The amendment was defeated.
  The carpeting in the chamber absorbs voices, and during the long night one of the few that rose above the muffled
  drone was that of Charles Schumer, who said to Gregg, "Get to work! Stop screwing around with health care!"
  Sporadically, a sharp cackle emanated from Al Franken, who wandered the chamber, looking for Republicans he could
  charm into laughing. Observed from the press gallery, the senators in their confined space began to resemble zoo
  animals—Levin a shambling brown bear, John Thune a loping gazelle, Jim Bunning a maddened grizzly. Each one
  displayed a limited set of behaviors: in conversations, John Kerry planted himself a few inches away, loomed, and
  clamped his hands down on a colleague's shoulders. Joe Lieberman patted everyone on the back. It became clear which
  senators were loners (Russ Feingold, Daniel Akaka) and which were social (Blanche Lincoln, Lindsey Graham); which
  senators were important (Dick Durbin, Jon Kyl) and which were ignored (Bayh, Bunning).
  Past midnight, Durbin slumped at his desk, one hand over his face, yawning painfully. Susan Collins was going through
  her mail. Twenty-three amendments had been voted down, and the Republicans were proposing a fresh batch. "Can we
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015
  get some order?" Bunning growled, before he introduced a proposal to let senior citizens opt out of parts of Medicare. It
  was the only amendment that any Republicans joined the Democrats to defeat.
  Harry Reid controls the Senate's schedule, but Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, who is the Minority Leader, can object.
  Since nearly everything in the Senate depends on unanimous consent, the main business of the place is a continuous
  negotiation between these two supremely unsentimental men. That night, they played a game of chicken: McConnell,
  unsmiling, his eyes riveted ahead, held out the prospect of dozens more amendments; Reid, a former boxer, was
  hunched and mumbling, playing rope-a-dope, vowing to fend off amendments all night. The two leaders left the
  chamber to confer privately about how to proceed. Inside, the atmosphere of a slumber party set in. Debbie Stabenow,
  of Michigan, her hand across her heart, sang a sentimental duet with Robert Menendez, of New Jersey. Exhaustion
  momentarily eased the partisan divide. Claire McCaskill sat down beside Tom Coburn, held up an erect finger in his face,
  as if casting her Viagra vote, then let it go limp. Coburn could be heard to joke, "The longest it lasted was thirty
  seconds."
  At two-forty-five in the morning, Reid suddenly declared the Senate adjourned. The Senate parliamentarian had just
  found two small violations of the reconciliation rules, meaning that in the morning, despite the Democrats' efforts, the
  bill would go back to the House for another vote. At the bang of the gavel, the senators fled. In the parking lot, on the
  Capitol's northeast side, McCaskill climbed into her S.U.V. Levin, in a cramped sedan, was chauffeured off into the empty
  streets. On a marble ledge near the exit, Arlen Specter sat alone, a ghost in a brown suit, staring straight ahead, as if
  waiting for someone to take him away.
  The Senate reconvened at 9:45 A.M. Around two in the afternoon, the members gathered for the final vote, and the
  Democrats were giddy. Tom Harkin, of Iowa, and Christopher Dodd, of Connecticut, even exchanged a hug. "Everyone's
  tired," Reid declared before the final vote. "This legislative fight is one for the record books." He was so fatigued that he
  initially voted the wrong way. Lindsey Graham came in late, delaying the tally by ten minutes. "Way to go, Lindsey, way
  to stretch it out," Sam Brownback told him. A few Republicans lingered and took in the moment, like players on the
  losing team at the end of the World Series. After a year of work, health-care reform had passed, 56-43, and for a
  moment the chamber's Tweeting pygmies had become legislative giants.
  The Senate is often referred to as "the world's greatest deliberative body." Jeff Merkley, a freshman Democrat from
  Oregon, said, "That is a phrase that I wince each time I hear it, because the amount of real deliberation, in terms of
  exchange of ideas, is so limited." Merkley could remember witnessing only one moment of floor debate between a
  Republican and a Democrat. "The memory I took with me was: 'Wow, that's unusual—there's a conversation occurring
  in which they're making point and counterpoint and challenging each other.' And yet nobody else was in the chamber."
  Tom Udall, a freshman Democrat from New Mexico, could not recall seeing a senator change another senator's mind.
  "You would really need a good hour or two of extensive exchange among folks that really know the issue," he said.
  Instead, a senator typically gives "a prepared speech that's already been vetted through the staff. Then another guy gets
  up and gives a speech on a completely different subject." From time to time, senators of the same party carry on a
  colloquy—"I would be interested in the distinguished senator from Iowa's view of the other side's Medicare Advantage
  plan"—that has been scripted in advance by aides.
  While senators are in Washington, their days are scheduled in fifteen-minute intervals: staff meetings, interviews, visits
  from lobbyists and home-state groups, caucus lunches, committee hearings, briefing books, floor votes, fund-raisers.
  Each senator sits on three or four committees and even more subcommittees, most of which meet during the same
  morning hours, which helps explain why committee tables are often nearly empty, and why senators drifting into a
  hearing can barely sustain a coherent line of questioning. All this activity is crammed into a three-day week, for it's an
  unwritten rule of the modern Senate that votes are almost never scheduled for Mondays or Fridays, which allows
  senators to spend four days away from the capital. Senators now, unlike those of several decades ago, often keep their
  families in their home states, where they return most weekends, even if it's to Alaska or Idaho—a concession to endless
  fund-raising, and to the populist anti-Washington mood of recent years. (When Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the
  House, in 1995, he told new Republican members not to move their families to the capital.) Tom Daschle, the former
  Democratic leader, said, "When we scheduled votes, the only day where we could be absolutely certain we had all one
  hundred senators there was Wednesday afternoon."
  Nothing dominates the life of a senator more than raising money. Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat, said, "Of any free
  time you have, I would say fifty per cent, maybe even more," is spent on fund-raising. In addition to financing their own
  campaigns, senators participate at least once a week in the Power Hour, during which they make obligatory calls on
  behalf of the Party (in the Democrats' case, from a three-story town house across Constitution Avenue from the Senate
  office buildings, since they're barred from using their own offices to raise money). Lamar Alexander, the Tennessee
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015
  Republican, insisted that the donations are never sufficient to actually buy a vote, but he added, "It sucks up time that a
  senator ought to be spending getting to know other senators, working on issues."
  In June, 2009, top aides to Max Baucus, whose Finance Committee was negotiating the health-care-reform bill, took
  time to meet with two health-care lobbyists, who themselves were former Baucus aides. (Baucus received more than a
  million dollars from the industry for his 2008 reelection campaign.) That month, according to Common Cause, industry
  groups were spending $1.4 million.a day to lobby members of Congress. Udall, speaking of the corrosive effect of fund-
  raising and lobbying, said, "People know it in their heart—they know this place is dominated by special interests. The
  over-all bills are not nearly as bold because of the influence of money."
  Daschle sketched a portrait of the contemporary senator who is too busy to think: "Sometimes, you're dialling for
  dollars, you get the call, you've got to get over to vote, you've got fifteen minutes. You don't have a clue what's on the
  floor, your staff is whispering in your ears, you're running onto the floor, then you check with your leader—you double
  check—but, just to make triple sure, there's a little sheet of paper on the clerk's table: The leader recommends an aye
  vote, or a no vote. So you've got all these checks just to make sure you don't screw up, but even then you screw up
  sometimes. But, if you're ever pressed, 'Why did you vote that way?'—you just walk out thinking, Oh, my God, I hope
  nobody asks, because I don't have a clue."
  Aides, at the elbows of senators as they shuttle between their offices and the Capitol, have proliferated over the past
  few decades, and they play a crucial role. Lamar Alexander, who has an office of fifty people, pointed out that staff
  members, who are younger and often more ideological than their bosses, and less dependent on institutional
  relationships, tend to push senators toward extremes. Often, aides are the main actors behind proposed legislation—
  writing bills, negotiating the details—while the senator is relegated to repeating talking points on Fox or MSNBC.
  One day in his office, Udall picked up some tabloids from his coffee table and waved them at me. "You know about all
  these rags that cover the Hill, right?" he said, smiling. There are five dailies—Politico, The Hill, Roll Call, CongressDaily,
  and CO Today—all of which emphasize insider conflict. The senators, who like to complain about the trivializing effect of
  the "24/7 media," provide no end of fodder for it. The news of the day was what Udall called a "dust-up" between Scott
  Brown, the freshman Massachusetts Republican, and a staffer for Jim DeMint, the arch-conservative from South
  Carolina; the staffer had Tweeted that Brown was voting too often with the Democrats, leading Brown to confront
  DeMint on the Senate floor over this supposed breach of protocol. Bloggers carry so much influence that many senators
  have a young press aide dedicated to the care and feeding of online media. News about, by, and for a tiny kingdom of
  political obsessives dominates the attention of senators and staff, while stories that might affect their constituents go
  unreported because their home-state papers can no longer afford to have bureaus in Washington. Dodd, who came to
  the Senate in 1981 and will leave next January, told me, "I used to have eleven Connecticut newspaper reporters who
  covered me on a daily basis. I don't have one today, and haven't had one in a number of years. Instead, D.C. publications
  only see me through the prism of conflict." Lamar Alexander described the effect as "this instant radicalizing of positions
  to the left and the right."
  Both Alexander and Gregg said that the Senate had been further polarized by the rising number of senators—now nearly
  fifty—who come from the House, rather than from governorships or other positions where bipartisan cooperation is still
  permissible. "A lot of senators don't understand the history or tradition of the institution," Gregg said. "Substantive,
  thoughtful, moderate discussion is pushed aside."
  Encumbered with aides, prodded by hourly jolts from electronic media, racing from the hearing room to the caucus
  lunch to the Power Hour to the airport, senators no longer have the time, or perhaps the inclination, to get to know one
  another—least of all, members of the other party. Friendships across party lines are more likely among the few spouses
  who live in Washington. After Udall joined the Senate, last year, he was invited to dinner by Alexander, because Jill
  Cooper Udall and Honey Alexander had become friends through a women's social club. It remains the only time Udall
  has set foot in the house of a Republican senator. (Vice-President Joe Biden, in his autobiography, recalls that, in the
  seventies, a bipartisan group of senators and their wives hosted a monthly dinner: "In those days Democrats and
  Republicans actually enjoyed each other's company.") When I asked Chris Dodd how well he knew, for example, Jim
  DeMint, Dodd said, "Not at all. Whereas Jesse Helms and I knew each other pretty well." He repeated something that
  Jon Kyl, the Republican whip, from Arizona, had recently said to him: "There's no trust." Dodd, whose father was a
  senator, went on, "That's really all there is—this place really operates on that. I don't think anyone would argue with
  that conclusion. And if that's missing ... "
  There remains a veneer—badly chipped—of comity. On the floor, senators still refer to members of the opposing party
  as "friends." Gregg described Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, as "one of my best friends in the Senate,"
  and both Gregg and Alexander ticked off examples of little-known legislation that they are currently working on with
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015
  Democrats; Alexander and Ben Cardin, of Maryland, have introduced a bill to ban mountaintop-removal coal mining.
  Udall noted that he had become friendly with John McCain when they went on a congressional tour of Iraq. But
  opportunities to bond are rare. On the first floor of the Capitol, there is a private dining room for senators, the "inner
  sanctum," where Republicans and Democrats used to have lunch (at separate tables, but in the same room). In the
  seventies, old bulls such as James Eastland, Hubert Humphrey, and Jacob Javits held court there; later, Daniel Patrick
  Moynihan did. "You learned, and also you found out what was going on," Dodd said, adding, "It's awfully difficult to say
  crappy things about someone that you just had lunch with." These days, the inner sanctum is nearly always empty.
  Senators eat lunch in their respective caucus rooms with members of their party, or else "downtown," which means
  asking donors for money over steak and potatoes at the Monocle or Charlie Palmer. The tradition of the "caucus lunch"
  was instituted by Republicans in the fifties, when they lost their majority; Democrats, after losing theirs in 1980,
  followed suit. Caucus lunches work members on both sides into a state of pep-rally fervor. During one recent Republican
  lunch, Jim Bunning referred to Harry Reid as an idiot. "At least he had the courtesy to do it behind closed doors,"
  Alexander joked, adding, "We spend most of our time in team meetings deciding what we're going to do to each other."
  In 2007, Alexander and Lieberman started a series of bipartisan Tuesday breakfasts. "They kind of dwindled off during
  the health-care debate," Alexander said. Udall has tried to revive the Wednesday inner-sanctum lunch. For the first few
  months, only Democrats attended. Then, one Wednesday in May, Susan Collins, the Maine Republican, showed up,
  joking nervously about being a turncoat; to protect her reputation, her presence was kept secret.
  These efforts at resurrecting dead customs are as self-conscious and, probably, as doomed as the get-togethers of lovers
  who try to stay friends after a breakup. Ira Shapiro, a Washington lawyer and a former aide to Senator Gaylord Nelson,
  of Wisconsin, put it this way: "Why would they want to have lunch together when they hate each other?"
  The upper chamber of Congress was a constitutional compromise between popular sovereignty and state sovereignty.
  The Senate was designed, as part of the separation of powers, to check the impulses of the House and the popular will.
  For some Federalists, it also had an aristocratic purpose: to collect knowledge and experience, and to guard against a
  levelling spirit that might overtake the majority. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the Senate, in 1832, he was deeply
  impressed by the quality of its members: "They represent only the lofty thoughts [of the nation] and the generous
  instincts animating it, not the petty passions." But he also recognized that "a minority of the nation dominating the
  Senate could completely paralyze the will of the majority represented in the other house, and that is contrary to the
  spirit of constitutional government." As long as the Senate continued to be composed of America's most talented
  statesmen, Tocqueville implied, it would restrain its own anti-democratic potential.
  Robert A. Caro, in "Master of the Senate," the third volume of his life of Lyndon Johnson, argues that after the Civil War
  the Senate was captured by wealthy and sectional interests, ending a more high-minded age when Daniel Webster,
  Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun engaged in brilliant debate. Aside from spasms of legislation at the start of the
  Presidencies of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, Caro writes, the Senate remained controlled by an alliance of
  Southern racists and Republican corporate shills, and was "the dam against which the waves of social reform dashed
  themselves in vain—the chief obstructive force in the federal government." By the fifties, the Senate had become far
  more conservative than the public. And not just conservative: William S. White, in his 1956 book "Citadel," called the
  Senate "to a most peculiar degree, a Southern Institution ... growing at the heart of this ostensibly national assembly"
  and "the only place in the country where the South did not lose the war."
  By mid-century, it had become a journalistic cliché to call the Senate broken. Otto Preminger's 1962 film "Advise and
  Consent," based on the novel by Allen Drury, is about the Senate of that period, and it presents Democrats and
  Republicans as equally amoral, calculating, and power-hungry. But the institution, as depicted by Preminger, still works,
  in its way: though the deals stink, they get cut. The senators know their colleagues and the rules; they back-stab one
  another in the lunchroom, then drink cocktails and play cards on Saturday nights. There are no lobbyists, no fund-
  raisers, no media, no constituents—only senators' intricate relations with one another. The Senate is its own world.
  In a memoir, Johnson's longtime aide Harry McPherson recalls learning that the Senate's "famous 'club' atmosphere is
  based on the members' mutual acceptance of responsibility and concentration on the tasks at hand.... They thrust
  hard at one another in debate over serious matters," but, he writes, "understanding and accommodation in the ordinary
  course of the Senate day was essential to sanity." Johnson, the most powerful Majority Leader in history, bent the
  Senate to his will and forced it to become more efficient. He saw his colleagues as either "whales"—the heavyweight
  chairmen who negotiated legislation—or "minnows," the followers who went along with the brokered deals. And when,
  in 1958, a formidable new class of liberal Democrats entered the Senate—including Edmund Muskie, Eugene McCarthy,
  and Philip Hart—the legislative machinery began to produce reform. Michael Janeway, the author of "The Fall of the
  House of Roosevelt," worked as a summer staff member between 1958 and 1962. "They used to talk to each other—
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015
  that's my most vivid recollection," he said. "If Wayne Morse talked of constitutional law on the floor, the Southerners
  would come in to hear him. The same with Hubert Humphrey on farm policy. My strongest impression was of it being a
  deliberative body, drawing each other out—sometimes pedantically." Senators who ran for office in order to work on
  foreign policy, social welfare, or urbanization had to win credibility with the whales. "But if you wanted to do something
  there was a mechanism by which you could do it," Janeway said.
  In the sixties and seventies, Southern-conservative control was broken by a coalition of left-of-center Democrats and
  moderate Republicans. Donald Ritchie, the Senate historian, who started working there in 1976, described the Senate of
  those decades as "a bipartisan liberal institution." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written largely out of the office of the
  Republican Minority Leader, Everett Dirksen. Every major initiative—voting rights, open housing, environmental law,
  campaign reform—enjoyed bipartisan support. In the rare event of a filibuster, the motion to end debate was often filed
  jointly by leaders of both parties. When Medicare—that government takeover of health care for the elderly—was
  passed, in 1965, it won 70-24.
  The Senate's momentum nurtured superb talent: William Fulbright, Everett Dirksen, Henry Jackson, Frank Church,
  Howard Baker. In 1969, George McGovern chaired a select committee on hunger that actually held bipartisan "field
  hearings" in poor regions, calling witnesses in migrant labor camps, and then, with Bob Dole's indispensable support,
  greatly expanded the food-stamp program. The intensity of senatorial purpose in those years must strike today's
  legislators as profoundly humbling. After Joe Biden came to the Senate, in 1973, Hubert Humphrey took him aside and
  said, "You have to pick an issue that becomes yours. That's how you attract your colleagues to follow you, Joe. That's
  how you demonstrate your bona fides. Don't be a gadfly." Humphrey's career advice: "You should become Mr. Housing.
  Housing is the future."
  The Senate's modern decline began in 1978, with the election of a new wave of anti-government conservatives, and
  accelerated as Republicans became the majority in 1981. "The Quayle generation came in, and there were a number of
  people just like Dan—same generation, same hair style, same beliefs," Gary Hart, the Colorado Democrat, recalled.
  "They were harder-line. They weren't there to get along with Democrats. But they look accommodationist compared to
  Republicans in the Senate today." Church, McGovern, Javits, and Birch Bayh were gone. Ira Shapiro, the former aide,
  who is writing a book about the Senate of the sixties and seventies, said, "It was a huge loss of the most experienced,
  accomplished senators being replaced by neophytes. All of a sudden, in 1981, more than half the Senate had been there
  less than six years." He added, "The shattering of the great Senate has long-term effects that keep showing up. It gets
  worse over time, but it just never gets restored. There was a phrase I heard from Helms and the younger ones: 'Others
  didn't want to make waves; I wanted to drain the swamp.'"
  After C-SPAN went on the air, in 1979, the cozy atmosphere that encouraged both deliberation and back-room deals
  began to yield to transparency and, with it, posturing. "So Damn Much Money," a recent book by the Washington Post
  reporter Robert G. Kaiser, traces the spectacular rise of Washington lobbying to the same period. Liberal Republicans
  began to disappear, and as Southern Democrats died out they were replaced by conservative Republicans. Bipartisan
  coalitions on both wings of the Senate vanished. The institutionalist gave way to the free agent, who controlled his own
  fund-raising apparatus and media presence, and whose electoral base was a patchwork of single-issue groups. Members
  of both parties—Howard Metzenbaum, the Ohio Democrat; Jesse Helms, the North Carolina Republican—took to
  regularly using the Senate's rules to tie up business for narrowly ideological reasons. The number of filibusters shot up in
  the eighties and continued to rise in the following decades, as the parties kept alternating control of the Senate and
  escalating a procedural arms race, routinely blocking the confirmation of executive and judicial appointees. Democrats
  filibustered Republican nominees to the bench; then Republicans threatened to ban the filibuster in such cases—the so-
  called "nuclear option." Older members were perturbed when, in 2004, the Republican Majority Leader, Bill Frist, went
  to South Dakota to campaign against the Democratic Minority Leader, Tom Daschle (who went on to lose). A few years
  earlier, such an action would have been unthinkable.
  The weakened institution could no longer withstand pressures from outside its walls; as money and cameras rushed in,
  independent minds fell more and more in line with the partisans. Rough parity between the two parties meant that
  every election had the potential to make or break a majority, crushing the incentive to cooperate across the aisle. The
  Senate, no longer a fount of ideas, became a backwater of the U.S. government. During the Clinton years, the main
  action was between the White House and the Gingrich House of Representatives; during the Bush years, the Republican
  Senate majority abdicated the oversight role that could have placed a vital check on executive power.
  Norman Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said that the Senate has increasingly
  become populated by "ideologues and charlatans." He went on, "When we do get good people who come in, they very
  quickly get ground up by the dynamic and the culture of the parties. And once you get there, look at what it takes to stay
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015
  there." He spoke of Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican, who, nearing the end of his career, spent much of last year
  working closely with his friend Max Baucus on the health-care bill. Then, in August, Grassley went home and, faced with
  angry Republican voters and the prospect of a primary challenge from the right, started warning about "pulling the plug
  on Grandma." Ornstein added that similar pressures had led John McCain to begin "altering his behavior and
  abandoning every issue, including campaign-finance reform."
  One morning in April, I visited Harry McPherson, the former L.B.J. aide, at the offices of the legal and lobbying firm D. L.
  A. Piper, in downtown Washington. McPherson, who is eighty, had on his desk the firm's spiral-bound directory for the
  111th Congress. I asked him who, in Johnsonian terms, were the whales of the current Senate. McPherson ran his finger
  down the list of senators. He did it again. "I'm trying here, looking for a remote descendant. Judas Priest, look at this."
  He was stumped. "Well, I see some good people, I see some people who are going to get coalitions together over time."
  He put the directory aside. "I'm just having the damnedest time."
  Down the hall from McPherson's office was that of Mel Martinez, a former Republican senator from Florida; he was
  hired last year, two weeks after resigning his Senate seat without completing his first term. (He has since moved on to
  JPMorgan Chase.) William Cohen, the former Maine senator and Secretary of Defense, has an office downstairs. Tom
  Daschle works at D. L. A. Piper; his predecessor as Democratic leader, George Mitchell, was the firm's chairman, until
  President Obama appointed him to be his Middle East envoy. One feature of the diminished U.S. senator is the ease with
  which he moves from legislating to lobbying. Between 1998 and 2004, half the senators who left office became
  lobbyists. In 2007, Trent Lott, a Republican leader in the Senate less than a year into his fourth term, abruptly resigned
  and formed a lobbying firm with former Senator John Breaux, just a few weeks before a new law took effect requiring a
  two-year waiting period between serving and lobbying.
  When you spend your days at the Senate, it's easy to forget about everything else. The House of Representatives seems
  miles away (it's just down a corridor and across the rotunda), the White House is another country, and actual foreign
  countries are unimaginable. The place remains insular, labyrinthine, and opaque—even physically. Senators commute
  thirty seconds between their offices and the chamber by electric subway cars that run along a tunnel under Constitution
  Avenue. Many signs are misleading or obsolete (the gilded lettering over the visitors' gallery says "Men's Gallery"), and
  the Capitol is filled with secret passageways and spare rooms, called hideaways, doled out according to seniority, where
  senators can read, drink, doze, and wait for the buzzer announcing an imminent vote. The most pervasive authority over
  the institution is not the Constitution or the Bible but, rather, an impenetrable sixteen-hundred-page tome, by Floyd M.
  Riddick, called "Senate Procedure: Precedents and Practices," which only the late Robert Byrd, of West Virginia, was
  known to have read in its entirety. The procedures are so abstruse that a parliamentarian must sit below the presiding
  officer and, essentially, tell him or her what to say.
  After half a century, the picture given by Preminger's "Advise and Consent" is still faintly visible. "The Senate, by its
  nature, is a place where consensus reigns and personal relationships are paramount," Lamar Alexander said. "And that's
  not changed." Which is exactly the problem: it's a self-governing body that depends on the reasonableness of its
  members to function. Sarah Binder, a congressional scholar at George Washington University, said, "To have a chamber
  that rules by unanimous consent—it's nutty! Especially when you've got Jim Bunning to please."
  In 2006 and 2008, sixteen Democrats entered the Senate, giving the Party its current majority of fifty-nine to forty-one
  (counting two independents). They include moderates, like Jon Tester, of Montana, and Mark Warner, of Virginia;
  liberals, like Sherrod Brown, of Ohio, and Sheldon Whitehouse, of Rhode Island; policy specialists, like Amy Klobuchar, of
  Minnesota, and Jeff Merkley; and iconoclasts, like Claire McCaskill. Their interest in legislating has won the admiration of
  senior senators. "If they can stay, I think they'll be terrific," Chris Dodd said. "My worry is they won't stay. Because it's
  not productive."
  The Democratic class of 2008 arrived with President Obama, expecting to usher in a dynamic new era. Instead, their
  young Senate careers have passed in a daily slog of threatened filibusters and "secret holds"—when a senator
  anonymously objects to bringing an appointment up for a vote, which requires unanimous consent. On April 20th, Claire
  McCaskill took the trouble to read off the names of fifty-six Obama nominees languishing in the limbo of secret holds,
  and Jon Kyl objected to every one of them. Just getting a bill to the floor for debate can require days of tactical
  gamesmanship between the party leaders. There were times when Warner wondered if anyone had ever quit in the first
  year. Michael Bennet said, "We find ourselves at a moment in our history when the questions are huge ones, not small
  ones, and where things have been put off for a really long period of time." He mentioned the national debt, energy
  policy, and the financial crisis. "Yet you have a Senate that's designed not to advance change but to slow it."
  We were talking in his hideaway, a windowless room in the Capitol basement, which had a mini-fridge stocked with
  bottled water, black leatherette furniture circa 1962, and a TV tuned to C-SPAN2 on mute; Senator Kyl's mouth was
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015
  moving. Bennet, the former superintendent of schools in Denver, was appointed to a vacant seat in 2009, and already
  has to defend it this year. He described the Senate with the dry bluntness of an outsider who hasn't allowed himself to
  grow too attached. Bennet repeated a story he had heard about a new congressman giving his maiden speech: "And
  then some more veteran guy came over and said, 'Son, you're talking like this place is on the level. It's not on the level.'
  As the fifteen months or so have gone by that I've been here, the less on the level it seems."
  Earlier this year, the Senate's procedural absurdities became national news twice in one month. On February 4th,
  CongressDaily reported that Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, was secretly blocking the confirmation of seventy
  Obama appointees over a dispute involving defense earmarks for his state. (His tactics exposed, Shelby—whose office
  maintains that he was responsible for fewer than fifty holds—lifted all but three.) Later that month, Bunning spent
  several days and a late night on the Senate floor, filibustering to prevent benefits from being paid to millions of
  unemployed Americans. When Merkley tried to reason with him, Bunning responded, "Tough shit." (Eventually,
  Republicans persuaded Bunning to stop.)
  These incidents elicited a brief outcry, but the extent of the Senate's routine folly remains largely hidden. For example,
  Grassley and Ron Wyden, of Oregon, have been trying since 1997 to end the practice of secret holds, without success. In
  2007, the Senate passed a bill banning secret holds that last longer than six days. But to get around the ban two or more
  senators can pass the hold back and forth—it's called "rolling holds"—and their party leader facilitates the game by
  keeping their names secret.
  Many of the Senate's antique rules and precedents have been warped beyond recognition by the modern pressures of
  partisanship. The hold, for example, was a courtesy extended to senators in the days of horse travel, when they needed
  time to get back to Washington and read a bill or question an appointee before casting their vote. Sarah Binder, who co-
  authored a book on the filibuster, calls the procedure a historical accident: in 1806, the Senate got rid of a little-used
  rule that allowed the "previous question" to be called to a vote. Suddenly, there was no inherent limit on debate, and by
  the eighteen-thirties senators had begun taking advantage of this loophole, derailing the proceedings by getting up and
  talking until their voice, legs, or bladder gave out. (The word "filibuster" comes from vrijbuiter—old Dutch for "looter.")
  In 1917, Woodrow Wilson, with his wartime legislative agenda blocked by filibusters, forced the Senate to pass Rule XXII,
  which allowed a two-thirds majority to bring a floor debate to an end with a "cloture" vote. For decades, the rule was
  rarely used; between 1919 and 1971, there were only forty-nine cloture votes, fewer than one per year. In the seventies
  and eighties, the annual average rose to about a dozen. (Frustration with this increase led the Senate, in 1975, to lower
  the threshold for cloture to sixty votes.) In the nineties and early aughts, the average went up to twenty-five or thirty a
  year, as both parties escalated their use of the filibuster when they found themselves in the minority. After the
  Republicans lost their majority in 2006, filibusters became everyday events: there were a hundred and twelve cloture
  votes in 2007 and 2008, and this session Republicans are on target to break their own filibuster record.
  The tally of cloture votes reflects only a small fraction of senatorial obstruction. Three hundred and forty-five bills
  passed by the House have been prevented from even coming up for debate in the Senate. "Why?" Steny Hoyer, the
  outraged Democratic Majority Leader of the House, asked me. "Because they do not do their business in a way that
  facilitates noncontroversial things. Thankfully, the House of Representatives is not becoming the Senate." Last week, six
  House Democrats expressed their displeasure with the upper chamber by staging a sit-in of sorts on the Senate floor.
  Seventy-six nominees for judgeships and executive posts have been approved by committees but, because of blocks,
  haven't come up for a vote in the full Senate, leaving courtrooms idle and jobs unfilled across the upper levels of the
  Obama Administration. (The Democrats also practiced the art of blocking nominees during the Bush Administration.)
  There's often no objection to the individual being blocked: after an eight-month hold, Martha Johnson, nominated to
  run the General Services Administration, was confirmed 96-0. On an issue like health-care reform, when the objection
  was substantive, Republicans ransacked Riddick's "Senate Procedure" for every conceivable way to delay a debate and
  vote. Judd Gregg even sent a memo on stalling tactics to his Republican colleagues. Tom Coburn demanded the reading
  aloud of an entire seven-hundred-and-sixty-seven-page amendment proposed by Bernie Sanders, the Vermont socialist;
  Senate clerks, working in half-hour shifts, were three hours into the chore when Sanders withdrew the amendment in
  frustration.
  Under McConnell, Republicans have consistently consumed as much of the Senate's calendar as possible with legislative
  maneuvering. The strategy is not to extend deliberation of the Senate's agenda but to prevent it. Tom Harkin, who first
  proposed reform of the filibuster in 1995, called his Republican colleagues "nihilists," who want to create chaos because
  it serves their ideology. "If there's chaos, things will tend toward simple solutions," Harkin said. "In chaos people don't
  listen to reason." McConnell did not respond to requests for an interview, but he has often argued that the Republican
  strategy reflects the views of a majority of Americans. In March, he told the Times, "To the extent that they"—the
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015
  Democrats—"want to do things that we think are in the political center and would be helpful to the country, we'll be
  helpful. To the extent they are trying to turn us into a Western European country, we are not going to be helpful."
  One of the mysteries of the Senate is how Mitch McConnell has been able to keep his members in line, on vote after
  vote. Why do moderates with years of experience and their own power base back home—Richard Lugar, of Indiana;
  Susan Collins, of Maine; George Voinovich, of Ohio—keep siding with the more extreme members of their caucus?
  Alexander said that McConnell listens well to all his members, adding, "When you have your back against the wall and
  the gallows are hanging in front of you, it tends to unify. Operating with forty members—it concentrates the mind."
  Lindsey Graham described to the Times how McConnell exhorted his caucus after the disastrous 2008 election: "He said
  if we didn't stick together on big things, we wouldn't be relevant." Last December, the Republicans decided to filibuster
  a military-spending bill in order to delay the looming vote on health care until as close to Christmas as possible. Thad
  Cochran, the Republican ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, promised Daniel Inouye, the chairman, that
  he wouldn't join the effort. But at the last minute Cochran, who has been in the Senate since 1979 and brings
  disproportionate amounts of defense money to Mississippi, told Reid that his leadership wouldn't allow him to vote with
  the Democrats and end the filibuster—even on a matter of national security. (The Democrats were able to impose
  cloture, and the vote on health care finally took place on Christmas Eve.)
  Republican defections have been rare. In early 2009, Collins and Olympia Snowe, also of Maine, voted for the stimulus
  bill, along with Arlen Specter (who promptly switched parties). Snowe also voted for the Finance Committee's health-
  care-reform bill last October, the only Republican to do so. But in December, at the pivotal moment, she voted against
  the version that went before the full Senate. "I wasn't interested in expanding this program beyond the Finance
  Committee version—it grew by a thousand pages," Snowe said. She wasn't included in the negotiations with White
  House officials that took place in an elegant conference room across from Reid's suite of offices, and said that the
  Democrats "did not accept any of my proposals. As I said to the President, it was all windup and no pitch." McConnell
  was able to exploit her alienation. A friend of Snowe cited another reason for her reversal: "She actually said to me once
  that she had never felt the pressure that she felt on health care, never before had that pressure been quite as evident to
  her or quite as real or troubling. Kyl and McConnell were saying things like 'You just can't let us down, we're all in this
  together. You're a senior Republican member of this caucus, and you just have to hang tough with us. We expect it and
  you're going to do it.'"
  Reid doesn't use such tough tactics; he has achieved his position, in spite of his public shortcomings, by being the
  senator who helped other Democrats, always answered their calls, and got them what they wanted through masterly
  maneuvering. This has made him enormously popular within the Democratic caucus, but it doesn't give him the leverage
  of McConnell, let alone of Lyndon Johnson.
  In the current Senate, it has become normal for a handful of senators, sometimes representing just ten or twenty per
  cent of the country's population, to hold everything up. And the status quo has become sufficiently frustrating that a
  few new senators have considered a radical option: mutiny.
  Tom Udall, who is sixty-two, is older than most freshman senators. He has the crow's-feet of a Westerner who has spent
  time in the sun, and a slow, good-natured voice. His father, Stewart, was an Arizona congressman and the Interior
  Secretary for Presidents Kennedy and Johnson; his uncle Mo was a legendary Arizona representative; his cousin Mark is
  a freshman senator from Colorado. Udall served five terms in the House before winning a Senate seat from New Mexico,
  in 2008. And yet he has the air of a political Candide—he is always earnest, capable of disappointment but not cynicism.
  "I ran on the idea that the Senate should not be a graveyard for good ideas," he said. "Then to be on the inside—the
  thing that strikes you is how one senator can hold up the whole show."
  In his first year in office, Udall decided to do something audacious: he would try to change the Senate's rules.
  Customarily, the rules continue session after session, and a provision in Rule XXII requires sixty-seven votes to amend
  them, making it extremely difficult. ("Rule XXII is a Catch-22," Ted Kennedy used to joke.) Udall embraced a different
  idea—the "constitutional option." Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that "each House may determine the
  Rules of its Proceedings" at the beginning of the new Congress. So, in theory, a senator could take the floor next January
  and propose debating its rules from scratch, including the filibuster. New rules could be passed with a simple majority.
  There's even a precedent for this: moves to revisit the rules by invoking the constitutional option have been made three
  times, most recently in 1975. Udall has spent much of the past year trying to build support for the idea.
  At the request of Udall and others, Schumer, who is the chairman of the Rules Committee, has held a series of hearings
  on the filibuster, calling witnesses such as Sarah Binder, the historian, and Walter Mondale, who was in the Senate when
  the constitutional option was invoked in 1975. Dick Durbin, the second-highest-ranking Democrat, has organized
  working groups among newer members on other internal reforms, such as ending secret holds and choosing committee
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015
  chairs by caucus vote rather than by seniority. (Lamar Alexander wryly suggested to me that Schumer and Durbin were
  competing for the favor of newer members, in case Harry Reid loses his seat in the fall and they run against each other
  for Majority Leader.)
  For Republican institutionalists, such as Alexander and Gregg, the push for rules reform is folly. "If you want a
  parliamentary form of government, go over to the House," Gregg, who is about to retire, scoffed. "Why even run for the
  Senate?" Udall's plan for next January, he said, would be a "gigantic mistake."
  "They'll get over it," Alexander said of the Democrats' enthusiasm for rules reform. "And they'll get over it quicker if
  they're in the minority next January. Because they'll instantly see the value of slowing the Senate down to consider
  whatever they have to say." He added that the Senate "may be getting done about as much as the American people
  want done." The President's ambitious agenda, after all, has upset a lot of voters, across the political spectrum. None of
  the Republicans I spoke to agreed with the contention that the Senate is "broken." Alexander claimed that he and other
  Republicans were exercising the moderating, thoughtful influence on legislation that the founders wanted in the Senate.
  "The Senate wasn't created to be efficient," he argued. "It was created to be inefficient." At one of the filibuster
  hearings, in April, Alexander, sitting across the table from Udall, said that, for all the times the Democrats charge the
  Republicans with obstructing legislation, "we could say that's the number of times the majority has tried to cut off our
  right to debate, our right to offer amendments, which is the essence of the Senate."
  Newcomers like Udall seem to think that the Senate has grown so absurd and extreme that some kind of reform is
  inevitable. Perhaps they need more time to plumb the depths of the institution's intransigence. According to Sarah
  Binder, a change in rules is extremely unlikely; Republicans would be implacably opposed to, say, weakening the
  filibuster, and so would some Democrats, especially long-serving ones. "I would oppose that," Chris Dodd said, adding of
  the freshmen, "These are people who have never been in the minority." For older Democrats, who have put in their
  years, grown adept at working the rules, and now chair powerful committees, the reform impulse could be a threat.
  (Among senior senators, the sole enthusiast for rules reform is Tom Harkin.) One senator spoke of the Senate as being
  divided not between whales and minnows but, rather, between bulls and calves. The older Democrats are too
  accustomed to the Senate's ways to share the frustrations of the newcomers; the handful of older moderate
  Republicans are too weak to challenge the newer radicals who now dominate the caucus.
  Even if the freshmen Democrats can somehow reform the filibuster next January, the Senate will remain a sclerotic,
  wasteful, unhappy body. The deepest source of its problems is not rules and precedents but, rather, its human beings,
  who have created a culture where Tocqueville's "lofty thoughts" and "generous impulses" have no place.
  A few days after passing health-care reform, the Senate struggled to its feet to take on a second large task. Financial
  regulatory reform should have been the easiest piece of major legislation of the Obama Presidency, the likeliest to win
  real bipartisan support. The financial crisis had been catastrophic for millions of Americans, and after the 2008 bailout
  Wall Street had become even more hated than the Senate was. In April, a lineup of bankers from Goldman Sachs
  appeared before Senator Levin's subcommittee on investigations, and managed to appear as arrogant, callous, and
  evasive as their reputations had suggested. The public demanded action. Some Republicans had a genuine desire to pass
  a bill. If health-care reform had been a war of attrition, financial reform was a promising liaison.
  The affair began with a Republican, Bob Corker, and a Democrat, Mark Warner—both multimillionaires serving their first
  term, both considered centrists. Corker is a small, dapper former construction magnate who became the mayor of
  Chattanooga; Warner is a tall, preppily dressed former telecommunications entrepreneur who became the governor of
  Virginia. Chris Dodd, the Banking Committee chairman, assigned them to work together on the section of the bill having
  to do with the liquidation of troubled firms—making sure that there would never be another taxpayer bailout. They
  worked through the winter, in Warner's office, in Corker's office, over dinner, sometimes without staff, as if they were
  members of a Senate from the past. They hosted a series of afternoon seminars, inviting guests such as Ben Bernanke,
  Alan Greenspan, and Sheila Bair. Corker and Warner were sometimes said to be the only Democrat and Republican still
  talking to each other. In January, Business Week called them the Senate's "Odd Couple." By February, they had finished
  their work.
  Meanwhile, discussions about the entire bill between Dodd and Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the committee,
  dragged on, repeatedly breaking down. Finally, on February 10th, Dodd called Corker, who, though he was one of the
  committee's junior members, agreed to be the chairman's Republican negotiating partner. When Corker informed
  McConnell and Shelby, they expressed surprise. "It was an odd place to be," Corker recalled. "And yet that night we
  began meeting." The junior Republican savored the rare experience of creating, rather than opposing, legislation. In
  response, Shelby's conservative staff tried to undermine Corker, spreading rumors among Republicans and their
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015
  lobbyists that he was giving too much away. (A Shelby aide said that staff members were simply informing other
  Republicans of the Party's line on financial reform.)
  On March 10th, Dodd concluded that he had to move a bill to the floor. He called Corker and said, "You've been a great
  partner." He was ending their talks after only a month. "It's a little stunning, I've got to be honest," Corker told reporters
  afterward. Someone close to the negotiations compared Corker to Dickens's Miss Havisham, unable to get over the
  rebuff, forever awaiting the arrival of her groom, all her clocks stopped. Corker later said that Dodd had ended the talks
  under pressure from the White House and other Democrats. Dodd said that Corker had been unable to bring any other
  Republicans with him. "Baloney," Corker said. "If Dodd had reached an agreement with me, we'd've had at least twenty-
  five Republican votes."
  The bill that Dodd brought before the Senate, after a year of discussions with Democrats and Republicans alike,
  incorporated the bipartisan plan of Warner and Corker to prevent another bank bailout: setting up a fifty-billion-dollar
  fund, paid for by the banks, to insure orderly liquidation, and establishing a risk council to detect warning signs of
  another crisis. But in mid-April Mitch McConnell—who had just met with Wall Street executives in New York, and was
  now parroting talking points from a memo written by the Republican strategist Frank Luntz—called it a "partisan bill"
  that "will guarantee perpetual taxpayer bailout of Wall Street banks." McConnell presented a letter, signed by all forty-
  one Republicans, suggesting that they would filibuster the financial-reform bill.
  His remarks amounted to a repudiation of Corker's work as well as of Dodd's. The next day, April 15th, Corker pleaded
  with his colleagues, in his Tennessee twang, "Let's come to the floor and let's act like adults. Let's tone down the
  rhetoric. Let's don't exaggerate the pluses or minuses. Let's do what the Senate was created to do.... We were
  supposed to be the people that took some of the red-hot activities that sometimes come from the other body and sat
  down with cooler heads and resolved the issues like adults. We can do that. As a matter of fact, I would say, if we cannot
  do that on financial regulation, an issue that really doesn't have any real philosophical bearings to it ..." Corker didn't
  allow the thought to ripen—he had already gone farther than almost any Republican would have dared.
  Dodd spoke later in the day and completed Corker's speech: "I know my friends on the other side of the aisle are faced
  with a difficult choice between supporting their party leadership and participating in this complicated, difficult debate. I
  am not naïve. I know that is a hard place to be. But if we can't act like U.S. senators for the sake of this issue ... then
  why are we even here?" He went on, "We work for an American public that is sick and tired of feeling like no one is
  looking out for their interests, like the political hacks and lobbyists hold all the cards in these discussions. The minority
  seems intent on proving them right.... I have been here a long time. I know this institution is better than that. I know
  there are friends of mine on the other side of the aisle who care about this bill, who want to be a part of the debate,
  who want to be part of the solution."
  In the same speech, Dodd joined the partisan fight, accusing McConnell of lying about the bill. Turning crimson-faced, he
  chopped the air with his hand as he shouted, "I have to ask myself, why did I go through this process over the last four
  or five months, agreeing to much of what they were offering, and there is not a single political vote to show for it.... I
  have to say to the younger members, the newer members coming along: be careful!"
  Corker, having heard that Dodd was speaking, returned to the chamber and asked to respond. "You and I went a long
  way," Corker told Dodd. "Then we stopped. On March 10th it ended. I understand that, look, you were losing Democrats
  on your committee."
  "And I was not gaining Republicans," Dodd replied.
  "You had one, and that is all you asked for when you started. I never said I could speak for anybody but myself. And I did
  not leave the table." Corker urged Dodd to keep talking to Republicans—their differences could be sorted out in a few
  days.
  But this was not McConnell's agenda. Instead, financial reform became a slightly more polite repeat of the health-care-
  reform brawl: the Republicans threatened filibusters, the Democrats threatened all-nighters, and thousands of lobbyists
  prowled the Capitol, charging their Wall Street clients more than a billion dollars. On April 28th, I was sitting in the
  ornate Reception Room with Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman. On the other side of the wall, there was the noise of
  furniture scraping across a tile floor. "Those are cots being set up in the L.B.J. Room," Manley said. "Very little happens
  around here without a deadline." The cots persuaded Republicans to allow the bill to move to the floor for debate. A
  few weeks later, on May 20th, yet another filibuster was defeated by yet another cloture motion, and financial reform
  finally came to a vote. It passed, 59-39. Only four Republicans had joined the majority. Corker wasn't among them. He
  had even voted for an amendment, offered by his Republican colleague Jeff Sessions, of Alabama, that would have
  scrapped Corker's work of many months with Warner.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015
  "The idea of watching Bob Corker vote for the Sessions amendment!" Dodd said afterward, sitting in his red-curtained
  office, under a print of Holbein's portrait of Thomas More. "It's the Senate, I guess." McConnell's strategy of obstruction
  had once again come close to succeeding, Dodd said, but he knew that a "shrinking number" of Republicans were
  frustrated. The previous day, Dodd had said to Susan Collins, "God, I would have loved to have you as my ranking
  member on this." Collins responded, "We could have had such a great time on this bill."
  Warner, who said that he believed in bipartisanship because "the American people don't trust either political party
  enough to give them a blank check," was astonished that so few Republicans voted for financial reform. "There was zero
  substantive reason why this couldn't have been eighty votes," he said. I asked him why Bob Corker had voted no on the
  bill. Warner started to talk about the consumer-protection title, and then said, "If you want to vote against something,
  you can always find your reasons."
  But Corker hadn't seemed to want to vote against it. He had spent months trying to act like a U.S. senator, alienating
  himself from his own party and then the other party, and on the day of the vote he held the floor for the better part of
  thirty minutes, as if he were still reluctant to let the effort go. "I am obviously disappointed," he said. "I think I have
  spent as much time as any senator.
  ... on policy regarding our financial system. I think any bill—even this bill—has good
  things in it. There is no question. And I appreciate the thrust. But I think there is a lot of overreaching, and I think not
  enough time was spent on some of the core issues."
  As the senators cast their votes, I noticed Robert Kaiser, the author of "So Damn Much Money," in the press gallery. I
  later asked him if, with the passage of two big reform bills in three months, we were witnessing a possible renewal of
  the Senate. "If you can engage public opinion in a way politicians can understand, public opinion can still blow away
  money and interest groups," he said. "But over the past few decades the reflex has grown in the Senate that, all things
  considered, it's better to avoid than to take on big issues. This is the kind of thing that drives Michael Bennet nutty: here
  you've arrived in the United States Senate and you can't do fuck-all about the destruction of the planet."
  After the final vote on financial reform, the Republicans flew home, and the Democratic leaders held a press conference,
  smiling before the microphones outside the Senate chamber. Reid said, "For those who wanted to protect Wall Street, it
  didn't work." He then excused himself: he had to join Biden for a telephone fund-raiser with "some Nevadans."
  Durbin said, "I was stunned that only four Republicans would join us in passing this historic legislation. What does it take
  to bring the Republican Party into the conversation about the future of America?"
  Dodd, glowing with triumph, said, "I wanted to demonstrate that the Senate of the United States could conduct its
  business much as our founders intended. We did that."
  On July 21st, President Obama signed the completed bill. The two lasting achievements of this Senate, financial
  regulation and health care, required a year and a half of legislative warfare that nearly destroyed the body. They
  depended on a set of circumstances—a large majority of Democrats, a charismatic President with an electoral mandate,
  and a national crisis—that will not last long or be repeated anytime soon. Two days after financial reform became law,
  Harry Reid announced that the Senate would not take up comprehensive energy-reform legislation for the rest of the
  year. And so climate change joined immigration, job creation, food safety, pilot training, veterans' care, campaign
  finance, transportation security, labor law, mine safety, wildfire management, and scores of executive and judicial
  appointments on the list of matters that the world's greatest deliberative body is incapable of addressing. Already, you
  can feel the Senate slipping back into stagnant waters.
  ILLUSTRATION: STEVE BRODNER
  * Print <http://www.newyo rker.com/repo rti ng/2010/08/09/100809fafact_packer?printa ble=true&printable=true>
  •
  E-Mail
  <http://www.newyorkercom/contact/emailFriend?referringPage=http://www.newyorker.com%2Freporting%2F2010%
  2F08%2F09%2F100809fa_fact_packer%3Fprintable%3Dtrue&title=>
  * Feeds <http://www.newyorker.com/services/rss/summary>
  Share:
  * Facebook
  <http://www.facebook.com/sha re.ph p?u=http://www.newyorke r.com%2 Freporting%2 F2010%2F08%2F09%2 F100809fa
  fact_packer%3Fprintable%3Dtrue&t=>
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015
  * Twitter
  <http://www.twittercom?status=http://www.newyorkercom/reporting/2010/08/09/100809fafact_packer?printable=
  true>
  * Digg
  <http://www.d igg.com/subm it?phase=2&u rl=http://www. newyorker.com%2 Freporting%2 F2010%2 F08%2F09%2 F10080
  9fa_fact_packer%3Fprintable%3Dtrue&title=>
  * More
  <http://www.addthis.com/bookma rk.php?pub=newyorker&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.newyorker.com%2freporting%2f2
  010%2f08%2f09%2f100809fa_fact_packer&title= Fili buste rs+a nd+a rca ne+obstructions+in+the+Se nate%3a+newyorkerc
  OM>
  To get more of The New Yorker's signature mix of politics, culture and the arts: Subscribe now
  <https://magazine. newyorke r.co m/ecom/subscribe.jsp?opp Id=5400134&tgtqatg/registry/Reposito ryTa rgeters/NYR/NY
  R_contentPage_textOffer&placementld=5400007&logOppld=true&placementGroupld=>
  Related Links
  Ask the Author: Join a live chat with George Packer about the Senate on Wednesday, August 4, at 3 P.M. ET.
  <http://www.newyorkercom/online/blogs/ask/2010/08/george-packer-senate.html>
  <http://event.newyorker.com/images/event.gif?e0_sc=NYR&e0_ec=most_viewed&e0_env=PROD&e0_id=100809fa_fac
  t_packe r&e0_ct=Article&e0_u r1=%2 Freporti ng%2 F2010%2 F08%2 F09%2F100809fa_fact_packer&e0_tit=Filibusters%20a
  nd%20a rca ne%20obstructions%20in%20the%20Senate&rnd=3854251392360948>
  <http://www.omniture.com>
  Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/09/100809fa_fact_packer?printable=true#ixzzOvT1PYxi7
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770194 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770195
MetadataSubject: CALL LIST
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Jiloty, Lauren C
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-02T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770195/C05770195.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: RE: Call list
ExtractedTo: H
ExtractedFrom: Jiloty, Lauren C <JilotyLC@state.gov>
ExtractedCc: Huma Abedin
ExtractedDateSent: Monday, August 2, 2010 2:11 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770195
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN FULL
ExtractedBodyText: ok
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770195 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN FULL
  From: Jiloty, Lauren C <JilotyLC@state.gov>
  Sent: Monday, August 2, 2010 2:11 PM
  To: H
  Subject: RE: Call list
  ok
  Original Message--
  From: H [mailto:HDR22@clintonemail.com]
  Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 2:11 PM
  To: Jiloty, Lauren C
  Cc: Huma Abedin
  Subject: Call list
  Pis add Oscar de LR to my call list. If he's still in the hospital, add that # too.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770195 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770196
MetadataSubject: CALL LIST
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Abedin, Huma
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-02T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770196/C05770196.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: RE: Call list
ExtractedTo: H; 'JilotyLC@state.gov'
ExtractedFrom: Huma Abedin <Huma@clintonemail.com>
ExtractedCc: Huma Abed in
ExtractedDateSent: Monday, August 2, 2010 4:48 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770196
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  hes back at home at nyc apartment
  apparently doing well
  lauren will have on call list
  B6

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770196 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN
  PART B6
  From: Huma Abedin <Huma@clintonemail.com>
  Sent: Monday, August 2, 2010 4:48 PM
  To: H; 'JilotyLC@state.gov'
  Subject: RE: Call list
  hes back at home at nyc apartment
  apparently doing well
  lauren will have on call list
  B6
  From: H
  Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 2:10 PM
  To: lilotyLC@state.gove
  Cc: Huma Abed in
  Subject: Call list
  Pls add Oscar de LR to my call list. If he's still in the hospital, add that # too.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770196 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770198
MetadataSubject: PAK
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: PIR
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-03T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770198/C05770198.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Pak
ExtractedTo: H
ExtractedFrom: PIR <
ExtractedCc: Huma Abedin; Lona Valmoro; Jake Sullivan
ExtractedDateSent: Tuesday, August 3, 2010 7:17 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770198
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  MS -
  We're hoping you'll be ok with taking one of the videos you were going to record tomorrow - the one for the Pakistani
  audience - and instead deliver the remarks live in the Treaty Room, one of those things where you just pop out the side
  door, make a statement, vamanose back through the doors
  You have the time in the morning, we'd be dropping a video, and it will have ten times the impact. And to sweeten the
  deal...
  We can scrub BOTH flood related videos and merge their remarks into one live Treaty Room Statement
  Please let us know so we can make the necessary changes and preparations.
  PIR

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770198 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART B6
  From: PIR <
  Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2010 7:17 PM
  To: H
  Cc: Huma Abedin; Lona Valmoro; Jake Sullivan
  Subject: Pak
  MS -
  We're hoping you'll be ok with taking one of the videos you were going to record tomorrow - the one for the Pakistani
  audience - and instead deliver the remarks live in the Treaty Room, one of those things where you just pop out the side
  door, make a statement, vamanose back through the doors
  You have the time in the morning, we'd be dropping a video, and it will have ten times the impact. And to sweeten the
  deal...
  We can scrub BOTH flood related videos and merge their remarks into one live Treaty Room Statement
  Please let us know so we can make the necessary changes and preparations.
  PIR
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770198 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770201
MetadataSubject: US STATEMENT ON UN FLOTILLA INVESTIGATION
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Sullivan, Jacob J
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-02T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770201/C05770201.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: FW: US statement on UN flotilla investigation
ExtractedFrom: Sullivan, Jacob J <SullivanJJ@state.gov>
ExtractedCc: S_Specia lAssistants
ExtractedDateSent: . Monday, August 2, 2010 7:51 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770201
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN FULL
ExtractedBodyText:
  Below is the actual Rice statement
  USUN PRESS RELEASE #157 August
  2, 2010
  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
  Statement by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on Secretary
  General Ban's Panel Concerning the May 31 Flotilla Incident
  The United States welcomes today's announcement by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of the
  establishment of a Panel regarding the incident of May 31st- We thank both governments for the constructive
  and cooperative spirit they have shown and the Secretary General for his leadership and determination. The
  Panel, which has the support of both Israel and Turkey, will receive and review the reports of each
  government's national investigation into the incident and make recommendations as to how to avoid such
  incidents in the future. This Panel is not a substitute for those national investigations. It complements them,
  affording Israel and Turkey the opportunity to present the conclusions of their investigations to the international
  community. The focus of the Panel is appropriately on the future and on preventing such incidents from
  recurring. The United States also hopes that the Panel can serve as a vehicle to enable Israel and Turkey to
  move beyond the recent strains in their relationship and repair their strong historic ties.
  The United States expects that the Panel will operate in a transparent and credible manner and that its work will
  be the primary method for the international community to review the incident, obviating the need for any
  overlapping international inquiries. The United States welcomes the naming of the former Prime Minister of
  New Zealand, Geoffrey Palmer, as Chair and the outgoing President of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, as Vice-Chair.
  We look forward to the announcement of the two additional members from Israel and Turkey.
  ###
  This email is UNCLASSIFIED.
  This email is UNCLASSIFIED.

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770201 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN FULL
  From: Sullivan, Jacob J <SullivanJJ@state.gov>
  Sent: . Monday, August 2, 2010 7:51 PM
  To:
  Subject: FW: US statement on UN flotilla investigation
  Below is the actual Rice statement
  USUN PRESS RELEASE #157 August
  2, 2010
  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
  Statement by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on Secretary
  General Ban's Panel Concerning the May 31 Flotilla Incident
  The United States welcomes today's announcement by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of the
  establishment of a Panel regarding the incident of May 31st- We thank both governments for the constructive
  and cooperative spirit they have shown and the Secretary General for his leadership and determination. The
  Panel, which has the support of both Israel and Turkey, will receive and review the reports of each
  government's national investigation into the incident and make recommendations as to how to avoid such
  incidents in the future. This Panel is not a substitute for those national investigations. It complements them,
  affording Israel and Turkey the opportunity to present the conclusions of their investigations to the international
  community. The focus of the Panel is appropriately on the future and on preventing such incidents from
  recurring. The United States also hopes that the Panel can serve as a vehicle to enable Israel and Turkey to
  move beyond the recent strains in their relationship and repair their strong historic ties.
  The United States expects that the Panel will operate in a transparent and credible manner and that its work will
  be the primary method for the international community to review the incident, obviating the need for any
  overlapping international inquiries. The United States welcomes the naming of the former Prime Minister of
  New Zealand, Geoffrey Palmer, as Chair and the outgoing President of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, as Vice-Chair.
  We look forward to the announcement of the two additional members from Israel and Turkey.
  ###
  This email is UNCLASSIFIED.
  This email is UNCLASSIFIED.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770201 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770201 Date: 08/31/2015
  From: Lucas, Laura D
  Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 5:54 PM
  To: Barks-Ruggles, Erica 3
  Cc: S_Specia lAssistants
  Subject: US statement on UN flotilla investigation
  Hi Erica,
  Could you please pass us a copy of Ambassador Rice's most recent statement on the UN flotilla investigation?
  Thank you,
  Laura Lucas
  Special Assistant
  Office of the Secretary
  (202) 647-9573
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770201 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770202
MetadataSubject: SECDEF APPROVES EXECSEC/PAKISTAN RELIEF PACKAGE
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Sullivan, Jacob J
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-02T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770202/C05770202.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: FW: (SBU) SECDEF Approves ExecSec/Pakistan Relief Package
ExtractedFrom: Sullivan, Jacob J <SullivanJJ@state.gov>
ExtractedCc: S_SpecialAssistants
ExtractedDateSent: Monday, August 2, 2010 8:49 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770202
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN FULL
ExtractedBodyText: Fyi
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770202 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN FULL
  From: Sullivan, Jacob J <SullivanJJ@state.gov>
  Sent: Monday, August 2, 2010 8:49 PM
  To:
  Subject Fw: (SBU) SECDEF Approves ExecSec/Pakistan Relief Package
  Fyi
  From: Lucas, Laura D
  To: Sullivan, Jacob J
  Cc: S_SpecialAssistants
  Sent: Mon Aug 02 20:33:47 2010
  Subject: FW: (SBU) SECDEF Approves ExecSec/Pakistan Relief Package
  FYI
  From: Slattery, Phillip T
  Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 8:07 PM
  To: SES_DutyDeputies; D(S); D(L); P; M_Staff; S_SpecialAssistants; SCA-Staff-Assistants-DL; SSRAP_StaffAssistants
  Cc: Ruggiero, Frank J; Butte-Dahl, Jennifer X; Lenderking, Timothy A; SES-O_SWO; SES-O_Shift-III; SES-O_Shift-I
  Subject: (SBU) SECDEF Approves ExecSec/Pakistan Relief Package
  Colleagues -
  For your situational awareness, I wanted to inform you that the SECDEF has approved the OSD package responding to
  the State ExecSec memo regarding Pakistan flood relief.
  The package approves the transport of personnel and humanitarian assistance/supplies (including non-DOD relief
  supplies), activation of assessment teams, and intel/recon support. The package includes the use of up to six helos.
  Best Regards,
  Phillip T. Slattery
  Senior Watch Officer
  State Department Operations Center
  slatteryp@state.gov
  tel: 202-647-1512
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770202 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770206
MetadataSubject: PA GERMANY RESTRUCTURING
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: McHale, Judith A
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-03T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770206/C05770206.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: PA Germany Restructuring
ExtractedTo: H; Lew, Jacob J; Mills, Cheryl D; Sullivan, Jacob 1
ExtractedFrom: McHale, Judith A <McHaleJA@state.gov>
ExtractedCc: DiMartino, Kitty
ExtractedDateSent: Tuesday, August 3, 2010 10:52 AM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770206
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN FULL
ExtractedBodyText:
  During the past year we have discussed the size of the Germany PD budget and the fact that it did not reflect current
  priorities. EUR reviewed the budget and made the decision to cut the German PD budget by 30% and reallocate the
  funding to other areas, primarily Eastern Europe. As you will see from the email below and the attached memo, Mission
  Germany responded by reviewing all their PD operations and developing an entirely new approach based on the PD
  strategic framework we rolled out earlier this year. I think they did an excellent job and we will be using this as a model
  for other Missions as we go forward.
  Let me know what you think.
  jm

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770206 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN FULL
  From: McHale, Judith A <McHaleJA@state.gov>
  Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2010 10:52 AM
  To: H; Lew, Jacob J; Mills, Cheryl D; Sullivan, Jacob 1
  Cc: DiMartino, Kitty
  Subject FW: PA Germany Restructuring
  Attachments: PA Germany Strategy Doc.doc; StateSeal.gif
  During the past year we have discussed the size of the Germany PD budget and the fact that it did not reflect current
  priorities. EUR reviewed the budget and made the decision to cut the German PD budget by 30% and reallocate the
  funding to other areas, primarily Eastern Europe. As you will see from the email below and the attached memo, Mission
  Germany responded by reviewing all their PD operations and developing an entirely new approach based on the PD
  strategic framework we rolled out earlier this year. I think they did an excellent job and we will be using this as a model
  for other Missions as we go forward.
  Let me know what you think.
  jm
  From: SMART Core [mailto:svcSMARTBTSRctSPrec@state.gov]
  Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 10:08 AM
  To: Ackerman, Steven G
  Cc: Mellott, Joseph; McHale, Judith A; Gordon, Philip H; Quanrud, Pamela G; Boyer, Spencer P; McKay, Maria E; Jamison,
  Jeffrey M; BERLIN-SMARTS
  Subject: PA Germany Restructuring
  UNCLASSIFIED
  MRN:
  Date/DTG:
  From:
  Action:
  E.O.:
  TAGS:
  Pass Line:
  Subject:
  10 BERLIN 1052
  Aug 03, 2010 / 031406Z AUG 10
  AMEMBASSY BERLIN
  WASHDC, SECSTATE IMMEDIATE
  13526
  AMGT, KCOM, KPAO, GM
  STATE FOR R - U/S MCHALE
  EUR - A/S GORDON
  PA Germany Restructuring
  As you know, PA Germany has taken a huge budget hit. We have lost one-third of our PD funding and, as a
  result, PD LES staffing has been reduced by almost one-third. Dealing with a cut of this magnitude is never
  easy — it was particularly tough last month when we handed out the RIF notices — but we are not wasting time
  feeling sorry for ourselves. We are viewing this as an opportunity, a chance to redefine and restructure our
  entire PD operation.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770206 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770206 Date: 08/31/2015
  I want to give you a brief update on the progress we have made.
  • We have developed a strategic plan (attached) which we have conveyed to Washington. Rather than
  just slicing off pieces of our PD operation, we have focused on our key goals and on how to focus our
  resources to get maximum impact in the areas that are most important.
  • We are well advanced in creating a new organizational structure for PA Germany in line with our
  strategic plan.
  • We are significantly reducing and reshaping our PD LES staffing. We began the process with close to
  60 PD LES throughout Germany. We will end up with 41.
  • Now we are looking carefully at all the positions that remain and, wherever necessary, redefining them
  in line with the principles laid out in the strategic plan. Our objectives include: emphasis on new
  media, elimination of stove piping among the traditional PD elements (e.g. Press, Culture, Information
  Resource work), and creating the capacity to form issue-focused "campaign teams." These teams will
  closely integrate all areas of activity (Press, Culture, Information Services) and link staff resources
  Mission-wide.
  Our goal is to create a 21st century PD operation that is lean, quick and flexible. We are well on our way to
  achieving that goal. Assuming our new funding level remains stable, I am convinced that we will come out of
  this stronger than ever.
  Signature: Murphy
  Drafted By:
  Cleared By:
  Approved By:
  Released By:
  Info:
  Attachments:
  BERLIN:Armstrong, Bruce W.
  EXEC:Delawie, Greg T
  POL:Glass, George A
  PA:Finn, Helena K
  PA:Armstrong, Bruce W
  EXEC:Murphy, Philip D
  BERLIN:Ackerman, Steven G
  Mellott, Joseph ROUTINE; McHale, Judith A ROUTINE; Gordon, Philip H ROUTINE; Quanrud,
  Pamela G ROUTINE; Boyer, Spencer P ROUTINE; McKay, Maria E ROUTINE; Jamison,
  Jeffrey M ROUTINE
  PA Germany Strategy Doc.doc, Metadata.dat
  Action Post:
  Dissemination Rule: Released Copy
  UNCLASSIFIED
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770206 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770207
MetadataSubject: MISSION GERMANY PUBLIC DIPLOMACY STRATEGY FOR THE FUTURE
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770207/C05770207.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770207
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN FULL
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770207 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN FULL
  MISSION GERMANY
  PUBLIC DIPLOMACY STRATEGY FOR THE FUTURE
  PA Germany is losing one-third of its budget and almost one-third of its LES staff.
  That's tough — especially last month when we handed out the RIF notices — but it is also a
  tremendous opportunity. It has given us a chance to rethink, redefine and restructure our
  entire operation.
  In moving ahead, we are not taking a "same as before but less" approach. Rather than
  taking off slices here and there, we are fundamentally reshaping PA Germany. At the
  heart of this process there are three basic questions: What are our goals? What are the
  audiences we need to connect with to achieve those goals? Which PD tools are most
  effective in reaching those audiences? The answers to those questions tell us what we
  need to be doing and how we should deploy our money and staff. And we are deploying
  accordingly, determined to make ourselves even stronger than we were before in the
  activity sectors that are crucial.
  Our goals are clearly defined in Mission Germany's MSRP. At a June 2-3 offsite in
  Hamburg chaired by the DCM, a Mission Germany PD team that included the Consuls
  General focused intensively on identifying the key audiences we need to reach in order to
  achieve those goals and the PD tools that have the greatest impact on those audiences.
  Yes, that is something that all Public Affairs sections around the world do on an ongoing
  basis, but — knowing that our resources are shrinking by a third — our analysis of what is
  essential and what is not is particularly hard-edged and rigorous.
  A central aspect of this process is identifying the activities that need to be pared down or
  eliminated. Justifications such as "we've always done that" or "audiences like it" are not
  sufficient. It's not about what we have always done, it's about what we need to be doing
  now and in the coming years. And, while it is always nice when people respond
  positively to our efforts, the reality is this: if it is not an audience that is closely linked to
  one of our goals, there is no justification for the expenditure of staff time and money.
  As we go about reinventing PA Germany, we need to strike the right balance between our
  highly focused work in support of specific U.S. policy goals and our longer term efforts
  to strengthen understanding for U.S. culture and values, recognizing that those two areas
  of emphasis often flow into each other (the get-together with high school students that
  turns into a discussion of Afghanistan; the key staffer who is accessible to us because she
  is a Fulbright alumna, etc.).
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770207 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770207 Date: 08/31/2015
  It is essential that we get this right because Germany matters for the U.S. Germany is
  one of our strongest, most capable partners and is crucial to achieving successful
  outcomes on the most significant foreign policy issues our country faces. Afghanistan,
  Iran, Middle East peace, financial regulation, economic growth, climate change, non-
  proliferation, counterterrorism — with each one of these issues, positive German
  engagement is vitally important. And, in addition to its value as a bilateral partner,
  Germany is the engine that drives core institutions of European policy, not only in the
  traditional councils of Brussels, NATO, and the UN, but also now in the newly
  empowered European Parliament. It is the indispensable power behind European
  economic, security, and political affairs. Germany's relationship with the United States
  sets the tone and outlines the scope for how the United States interacts with Europe.
  The restructuring of PA Germany is all about prioritization and the tough choices that it
  involves. In thinking about our priorities, it is clear that engaging youth is very high on
  the list. That is true worldwide, but there are specific circumstances in Germany that
  make it essential that we connect with young people and help them see that a close
  relationship between the U.S. and Germany has relevance for their lives. In the 20 years
  since the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Wall and against the background of eight
  years during which the image of America was severely tarnished, millions of young
  Germans have drifted away from us. We have a chance now to reverse that trend and we
  must make the most of it, but we can only do that if we systematically focus our efforts.
  Key subsets of the German youth audience are immigrant youth and youth in eastern
  Germany. It is essential that we reach both those subgroups; if we fail to engage
  successfully with them it is very likely that as they enter adulthood negative attitudes
  toward the U.S. will harden into unchangeable convictions. (Among immigrant youth,
  which in Germany is largely synonymous with Muslim youth: the belief that the U.S. is
  hostile toward Islam; among young eastern Germans: the distorted image of America that
  they have inherited from their parents who grew up in a communist environment.)
  As we work to focus our efforts for maximum impact, a central challenge is how much
  time to devote to fundamentally friendly audiences with which we have a long-
  established relationship, audiences that often tend to be older, non-immigrant and
  predominately male. We would be foolish to cut our ties to those people, many of whom
  are influential and have been with us for a long time. We cannot rebuff old friends, but
  neither can we overinvest in preaching to the choir. Youth, immigrants, women, eastern
  Germans — audiences that often greet us with deep skepticism — need to occupy a central
  place in our work.
  The restructuring plan that we are implementing aims to:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770207 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770207 Date: 08/31/2015
  • Eliminate stove piping. We are getting rid of the organizational and mental walls
  that separate (a) the three PD areas of activity (Press, Culture, Information
  Services) and (b) the six PD platforms in Germany (Embassy, five Consulates).
  • Create the capacity to form issue-focused "campaign teams" closely integrating
  all areas of activity (Press, Culture, Information Services) and linking staff
  resources Mission-wide.
  • Make optimum use of Social Media, recognizing that it has tremendous potential
  as a program enhancer and as a bridge to youth audiences, but it is not a silver
  bullet that can accomplish everything. Make sure American and local staff get
  substantial training in using Social Media.
  • Identify thematic areas and/or support functions in which individual Consulates
  can play a lead role, leveraging the specific profiles of their districts and the
  specific talents of their staff Learn from what the Mission's Management section
  has accomplished in this area.
  • Eliminate duplication of effort and create efficient mechanisms for sharing
  information and products. Our Mission-wide SharePoint site will play a key role
  in this.
  • Identify products/activities that can be outsourced. Just because something is
  definitely worth doing does not mean it has to be done in-house.
  • Bring the Information Resource function into the 21' century. Connect it to
  today's key audiences and institutions; focus it on cutting-edge technology and
  media.
  • Look for opportunities to build a LES team that reflects the diversity and youth of
  the audiences with whom we are engaging.
  • Make the most of the ten German American Institutes (GAIs). With significantly
  less discretionary funding, we will have to make tough funding choices, but we
  need to keep supporting the GAIs and find low-cost (in terms of time and money)
  ways to maximize their impact.
  We are well into the process of transforming ourselves. What is the endpoint we are
  heading toward? On one level, there is no endpoint. The environment in which we
  operate and the tools at our disposal are evolving rapidly and therefore the act of
  redefining and restructuring ourselves needs to be ongoing and open-ended. If we do not
  make continual revitalization of how we do business a key part of doing business, we will
  always be playing a hopeless game of catch-up.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770207 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770207 Date: 08/31/2015
  What we do have now is a clear sense of (a) the focal points we will have for the
  foreseeable future and (b) the country-wide structure that will enable us to concentrate
  our resources on those focal points and achieve maximum impact. That structure,
  presented in the attached diagram, is based on the organizational goals and principles
  listed above. Above all, it embodies our commitment to prioritizing our efforts
  rigorously and working as a single unified team unencumbered by rigid organizational
  walls. We want to be quick, flexible and focused exclusively on what is most important.
  A few notes about the diagram and the strategy it embodies:
  • As indicated by the center element of the diagram, our strategy includes a robust
  capacity to participate in global or regional campaigns focused on specific issues.
  • The general public, while not explicitly highlighted by the diagram, is an
  important audience and one which we reach with many of our PD tools such as
  media interviews and our website.
  • As emphasized above, two important subsets of the youth audience are immigrant
  youth (which in Germany is primarily Muslim) and youth in eastern Germany.
  • "Outreach to Schools, etc." on the "Engage Youth" side of the diagram is
  shorthand for "Outreach to Schools and Other Institutions (including Libraries)."
  The specific importance attached to libraries as partner institutions ranges from
  high (Leipzig) to minimal (Munich) — one specific example of the significant
  regional differences in the PD landscape in Germany.
  • "Content Development," listed under "Research," is shorthand for the
  conceptualizing, researching and drafting of material delivered to our key
  audiences in a variety of ways, above all via our website and various new media
  (Embassy Facebook page, blogs, webchats, videos posted on YouTube).
  • "Professional relationships, the building and maintaining of contacts that are
  essential for PD work, is listed under "Influence Key Thinkers," but in fact that
  activity also benefits our efforts to engage youth.
  The diagram divides the totality of the work we do into 31 tasks. The PD LES staffing
  we will devote to each of those tasks is listed on the attached document (that information
  is also built into the electronic version of the diagram). Also attached is a document
  showing how our LES staff will be distributed (a) among the goals and functions listed
  on the diagram, and (b) among Mission Germany's six public diplomacy platforms
  (Berlin and the five Consulates).
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770207 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770207 Date: 08/31/2015
  Attachments:
  • Diagram: Mission Germany Public Diplomacy Strategy
  • Mission Germany PD LES staffing: task-by-task
  • Mission Germany PD LES staffing: by goal and geographically
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770207 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770208
MetadataSubject: NEW POLL: APPROVAL RATINGS FOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS DROP ACROSS THE BOARD
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Mills, Cheryl D
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-03T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770208/C05770208.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: FW: New Poll: Approval Ratings for Administration Officials Drop Across the Board
ExtractedFrom: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov>
ExtractedDateSent: Tuesday, August 3, 2010 5:38 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770208
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770208 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov>
  Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2010 5:38 PM
  To:
  Subject: FW: New Poll: Approval Ratings for Administration Officials Drop Across the Board
  From: John Podesta [mailto:
  Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 4:22 PM
  To: Neera Tanden; Mills, Cheryl D
  Subject: FW: New Poll: Approval Ratings for Administration Officials Drop Across the Board
  Break out the kevlar vests.
  From: Clarus Research Group, Ron Faucheux [mailto:Clarus_Research_Group_Ron_Fauche
  Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 4:17 PM
  To: John Podesta
  Subject: New Poll: Approval Ratings for Administration Officials Drop Across the Board
  Augus'
  PROVAL RATINGS FOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS DROP ACROSS THE BOARD
  3Poll of "news watchers" — a nationwide survey of registered voters who say they follow the news "closely" or "very closely" — finds that the job
  ratings of President Obama, his top aides and Cabinet officials have fallen considerably during the past seven months.
  The July 2010 Clams Poll shows that only two members of the Obama team, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton (64 percent) and Defense Secretar}
  Robert Gates (56 percent), were surveyed to have job approval ratings of more than 50 percent.
  Clinton, Obama's opponent in the 2008 Democratic primaries, received the highest job rating in the "news watchers" survey, but her 64 percent ra
  the July 2010 poll is down 11 points since the December 2009 Clams Inner Circle poll.
  Gates, who is second with a 56 percent approval rating, suffered the biggest drop —down 13 points since December.
  President Obama, who scored a 45 percent job approval rating in the July 2010 poll, is down 6 points from where he was seven months ago.
  nine officials tested, six have higher disapproval than approval ratings — Obama, Timothy Geithner, Janet Napolitano, Ken Salazar, Rahm Emanuel
  .xelrod," said Ron Faucheux, president of Clams. "President Obama's advisers suffered steeper declines over the past seven months than did the pn
  B6
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770208 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770208 Date: 08/31/2015
  T Circle Poll was conducted July 26-27, 2010 by the non-parisan Clams Research Group, a Washington, D.C. based polling and research firm. The
  /as not sponsored or paid for by any client, candidate or political party.
  Clinton and Gates owe their higher ratings to stronger bipartisan appeal. Clinton received 45 percent approval from Republicans and 57 percent fn
  independents. Gates scored 45 percent from both Republicans and independents.
  Both Obama and Clinton posted 90 percent approval scores among Democrats. Gates, who was first appointed to his current job by GOP President
  George W. Bush, received a 76 percent approval rating from Democratic news watchers.
  Obama's ratings were more politically polarized: The president received a 35 percent job approval from independents and a dismal 14 percent frot
  Republicans. Obama won the 2008 election by drawing 52 percent of independent voters.
  In addition to Clinton and Gates, the only other administration official to have higher approval than disapproval ratings is Press Secretary Robert C
  (43 percent to 34 percent).
  Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, who has been on the hot seat because of the Gulf oil spill, scored the lowest job rating (22 percent) of all tho
  tested.
  er 2009 vs. July 2010 Inner Circle ratings:
  lent Barack Obama
  Lary of Defense Robert
  tary of State Hillary Clinton
  Gary of the Interior Ken
  December 2009 July 2010
  Approve Disapprove Approve Disapprove Change
  51% 45% 45% 52% Down 6
  69 20 56 29 Down 13
  75 21 64 32 Down 11
  22 39
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770208 Date: 08/31/2015

  Research Group is a full-service polling and research firm that offers public opinion surveys, focus groups, dial se:seions,
  studies, membership surveys, message testing and development, and micro-targeting for grass roots programs.
  esgarch Group 1201 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 600, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036 202.683.3146 www.ClarusRG.co
  AC, P•
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770208 Date: 08/31/2015
  * * 39 48
  44 45 33 46 Down 11
  40 40 32 44 Down 8
  50 33 43 34 Down 7
  38 36 32 36 Down 6
  ary of Homeland Security
  Napolitano
  .ary of the Treasury Tim
  aer
  Iential Chief of Staff Rabin
  uel
  lential Press Secretary
  -t Gibbs
  tential Advisor David
  ad
  cluded in December 2009 poll
  1ETHODOLOGY: Clarus Inner Circle survey interviews were conducted live via telephone calls based on a sample of 636 U.S. registered voters
  ide who said they "closely" or "very closely" follow news and world events. Those who said they follow news and world events "fairly closely" or
  ft all" were screened out. The margin of error for the sample is +/- 3.9 percent. The survey was conducted only among news watchers because som
  (ration insiders who were tested are not well known to the general public. The following question was asked of respondents: "Jam now going to re
  zames of a number of public officials. For each one, please tell me whether you approve or disapprove of the job they are doing... " (EACH NAME
  'LE WAS THEN READ)
  ,cheux, Ph.D., Clarus president and chief analyst, is the author and editor of seven books on politics and teaches at the Georgetown University Pub
  tstitute. For more information or for an interview, he can be reached at rfaucheuxAClarusRG.com. For more information on Clarus, go to
  vusRG.com.
  Dr. Ron Faucheux
  President
  Clarus Research Group
  For more information about the poll, contact Ron Faucheux (rfaucheux(äCIarusRG.com).
  For more information about Clarus Research Group, go to www.ClarusRG.com.
  If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please simply click on the following link: Unsubscribe
  Clams Research Group
  1201 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 600
  Washington, DC 20036
  US
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770208 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770208 Date: 08/31/2015
  Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770208 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770209
MetadataSubject: KEEP GETTING YOUR HOME VOX - ON CELL IN AIRPORT
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Mills, Cheryl D
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-03T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770209/C05770209.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedTo: H
ExtractedFrom: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov>
ExtractedDateSent: Tuesday, August 3, 2010 7:05 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770209
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN FULL
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770209 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN FULL
  From: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov>
  Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2010 7:05 PM
  To: H
  Subject Keep getting your home vox - on cell in airport
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770209 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770211
MetadataSubject: PAK
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: PIR
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-03T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770211/C05770211.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Pak
ExtractedFrom: PIR <
ExtractedCc: Huma Abedin; Lona Valmoro; Jake Sullivan
ExtractedDateSent: Tuesday, August 3, 2010 7:17 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770211
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  MS -
  We're hoping you'll be ok with taking one of the videos you were going to record tomorrow - the one for the Pakistani
  audience - and instead deliver the remarks live in the Treaty Room, one of those things where you just pop out the side
  door, make a statement, vamanose back through the doors
  You have the time in the morning, we'd be dropping a video, and it will have ten times the impact. And to sweeten the
  deal...
  We can scrub BOTH flood related videos and merge their remarks into one live Treaty Room Statement
  Please let us know so we can make the necessary changes and preparations.
  PIR

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770211 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: PIR <
  Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2010 7:17 PM
  To:
  Cc: Huma Abedin; Lona Valmoro; Jake Sullivan
  Subject: Pak
  MS -
  We're hoping you'll be ok with taking one of the videos you were going to record tomorrow - the one for the Pakistani
  audience - and instead deliver the remarks live in the Treaty Room, one of those things where you just pop out the side
  door, make a statement, vamanose back through the doors
  You have the time in the morning, we'd be dropping a video, and it will have ten times the impact. And to sweeten the
  deal...
  We can scrub BOTH flood related videos and merge their remarks into one live Treaty Room Statement
  Please let us know so we can make the necessary changes and preparations.
  PIR
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770211 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770212
MetadataSubject: PAK
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: PIR
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-03T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770212/C05770212.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Re: Pak
ExtractedTo: H
ExtractedFrom: PIR <
ExtractedCc: Huma Abedin; Lona Valmoro <ValmoroU@state.gov>; Jake Sullivan <
ExtractedDateSent: Tuesday, August 3, 2010 8:00 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770212
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText: Ever since you've become a Mother-in-Law you've been very funny
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770212 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: PIR <
  Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2010 8:00 PM
  To: H
  Subject: Re: Pak
  Ever since you've become a Mother-in-Law you've been very funny
  Original Message
  From: Evergreen
  To: PIR
  Subject: Re: Pak
  Sent: Aug 3, 2010 7:51 PM
  Oh, you sweet-talking guy,„ok.
  Original Message
  From: PIR <
  To: H
  Cc: Huma Abedin; Lona Valmoro <ValmoroU@state.gov>; Jake Sullivan <
  Sent: Tue Aug 03 19:16:57 2010
  Subject: Pak
  MS -
  We're hoping you'll be ok with taking one of the videos you were going to record tomorrow - the one for the Pakistani
  audience - and instead deliver the remarks live in the Treaty Room, one of those things where you just pop out the side
  door, make a statement, vamanose back through the doors
  You have the time in the morning, we'd be dropping a video, and it will have ten times the impact. And to sweeten the
  deal...
  We can scrub BOTH flood related videos and merge their remarks into one live Treaty Room Statement
  Please let us know so we can make the necessary changes and preparations.
  PIR
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770212 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770218
MetadataSubject: RETA JO
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Mills, Cheryl D
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-07T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770218/C05770218.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Fw: Reta Jo
ExtractedFrom: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov>
ExtractedDateSent: Friday, May 7, 2010 9:17 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770218
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770218 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov>
  Sent: Friday, May 7, 2010 9:17 PM
  To:
  Subject: Fw: Reta Jo
  From: PHays
  To: Mills, Cheryl D
  Sent: Fri May 07 21:02:49 2010
  Subject: Reta Jo
  Cheryl: Thanks to you and Hillary, Madam Secretary, for a great day for local government. If I had script authority for
  today, I couldn't have done any better. Please pass on to the Secretary; that on behalf of local government, we'll hold
  up our part of the partnership. We have a lot to do, but I am very excited that we covered some significant mileage
  today. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance, you'll let me know. Thanks again....
  ps. Local Government, WORLDWIDE, was a big winner with Reta Jo today, and didn't even realize it, thanks.
  pss. But a few of us did!!!!
  ATTENTION: This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or
  entity to whom they are addressed. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
  the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
  The views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
  those of the City of North Little Rock. You are warned to check this email and any attachments for the presence
  of viruses. The City of North Little Rock accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by
  this email.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770218 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770223
MetadataSubject: MINI SCHEDULE 8/4/10 WEDNESDAY
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: JilotyLC@state.gov
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-04T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770223/C05770223.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Mini Schedule 8/4/10 Wednesday
ExtractedFrom: Jiloty, Lauren C <JilotyLC@state.gov>
ExtractedCc: Abedin, Huma
ExtractedDateSent: Wednesday, August 4, 2010 8:17 AM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770223
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN FULL
ExtractedBodyText:
  8:15 am DEPART Private Residence
  En route State Department
  8:25 am ARRIVE State Department
  8:25 am PRESIDENTIAL DAILY BRIEFING
  8:30 am Secretary's Office
  8:30 am DAILY SMALL STAFF MEETING
  8:45 am Secretary's Office
  8:45 am DAILY SENIOR STAFF MEETING
  9:15 am Secretary's Conference Room
  9:15 am "MONDAY" MEETING w/ASSISTANT SECRETARIES
  10:00 am Principals Conference Room 7516
  10:00am STATEMENT ON PAKISTANI FLOOD RELIEF
  10:15am Treaty Room
  10:15 am VIDEOS (7)
  10:25 am George Marshall Room, 7th Floor
  10:30 am OFFICE TIME
  11:00 am Secretary's Office
  11:00 am MEETING w/SENATOR JOHN KERRY
  11:30 am Secretary's Office
  11:30 am OFFICE TIME
  2:15 pm Secretary's Office
  2:15 pm COURTESY VISIT w/GENERAL JAMES 1VIATTIS
  3:00 pm Secretary's Office
  3:00 pm MEETING w/JUDITH McHALE
  3:30 pm Secretary's Office
  3:30 pm OFFICE TIME
  6:00 pm Secretary's Office
  6:00 pm DEPART State Department
  En route Private Residence
  6:10 pm ARRIVE Private Residence
  ###

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770223 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN FULL
  From: Jiloty, Lauren C <JilotyLC@state.gov>
  Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2010 8:17 AM
  To:
  Cc: Abedin, Huma
  Subject: Mini Schedule 8/4/10 Wednesday
  8:15 am DEPART Private Residence
  En route State Department
  8:25 am ARRIVE State Department
  8:25 am PRESIDENTIAL DAILY BRIEFING
  8:30 am Secretary's Office
  8:30 am DAILY SMALL STAFF MEETING
  8:45 am Secretary's Office
  8:45 am DAILY SENIOR STAFF MEETING
  9:15 am Secretary's Conference Room
  9:15 am "MONDAY" MEETING w/ASSISTANT SECRETARIES
  10:00 am Principals Conference Room 7516
  10:00am STATEMENT ON PAKISTANI FLOOD RELIEF
  10:15am Treaty Room
  10:15 am VIDEOS (7)
  10:25 am George Marshall Room, 7th Floor
  10:30 am OFFICE TIME
  11:00 am Secretary's Office
  11:00 am MEETING w/SENATOR JOHN KERRY
  11:30 am Secretary's Office
  11:30 am OFFICE TIME
  2:15 pm Secretary's Office
  2:15 pm COURTESY VISIT w/GENERAL JAMES 1VIATTIS
  3:00 pm Secretary's Office
  3:00 pm MEETING w/JUDITH McHALE
  3:30 pm Secretary's Office
  3:30 pm OFFICE TIME
  6:00 pm Secretary's Office
  6:00 pm DEPART State Department
  En route Private Residence
  6:10 pm ARRIVE Private Residence
  ###
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770223 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770224
MetadataSubject: TRIP
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Sullivan, Jacob J
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-04T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770224/C05770224.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: FW: Trip
ExtractedTo: H
ExtractedFrom: Sullivan, Jacob J <SullivanJJ@state.gov>
ExtractedDateSent: Wednesday, August 4, 2010 9:31 AM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770224
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText: FYI. Will keep you posted.
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770224 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART B6
  From: Sullivan, Jacob J <SullivanJJ@state.gov>
  Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2010 9:31 AM
  To: H
  Subject: FW: Trip
  FYI. Will keep you posted.
  Original Message
  From: Burns, William J
  Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 8:15 AM
  To: Sullivan, Jacob J
  Subject: Fw: Trip
  Fyi.
  Original Message
  From: Pickering, Thomas R
  To: Burns, William J
  Sent: Wed Aug 0407:39:18 2010
  Subject: Trip
  Bill: Other side has just asked to postpone trip this weekend inferring unhelpful leaks at their end. Supposed to know
  more shortly and you will have seen latest news which might be relevant given my contacts role. All best wishes for your
  vacation! Tom.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770224 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770225
MetadataSubject: KENYA UPDATE AUGUST 4 2010.DOCX
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: McHale, Judith A
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-04T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770225/C05770225.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Kenya Update August 4 2010.dooc
ExtractedFrom: McHale, Judith A <McHaleJA©state.goy>
ExtractedCc: Yamamoto, Donald Y
ExtractedDateSent: Wednesday, August 4, 2010 5:06 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770225
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN FULL
ExtractedBodyText: fyi
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770225 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN FULL
  From: McHale, Judith A <McHaleJA©state.goy>
  Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2010 5:06 PM
  To:
  Subject FW: Kenya Update August 4 2010.docx
  Attachments: Kenya Update August 4 2010.docx
  fyi
  From: Wharton, David B
  Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 4:58 PM
  To: McHale, Judith A; DiMartino, Kitty; Castillo, Raymond A; Scott, Marianne C; McClanahan, Julie A; Kemp, Edward;
  Roche, Lynn W; Page, Susan D
  Cc: Yamamoto, Donald Y
  Subject: Kenya Update August 4 2010.dooc
  Upbeat report from NDI on Kenyan referendum.
  SBU
  This email is UNCLASSIFIED.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770225 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770226
MetadataSubject: NDI KENYA REFERENDUM UPDATE
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-04T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770226/C05770226.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770226
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN FULL
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770226 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN FULL
  NDI Kenya Referendum Update August 4, 2010
  Current Political Situation
  • Referendum day enthusiasm: was very high as evidenced by the high voter
  turnout. Some Kenyans came out at 3:00am to participate — polls opened at
  6:00am. There has not been a single reported incidence of violence.
  • Security: There has been a marked increase in security as compared with the
  2007 elections. There are more military personnel in the polling stations and
  more police presence. There is a particularly high military/police presence in
  potential trouble areas like the Rift Valley.
  • Political good will: Media coverage (both state-run and private) indicates that
  most Kenyans have been impressed by the IIEC's transparency, regular updates
  to the public, and have applauded their efforts to address challenges as they have
  occurred.
  Citizen Participation
  • Voter Turnout: Voter turn-out appears high (some polling stations had
  reported that more than 50% of registered voters had voted by mid-day). The
  IIEC has said that turnout was 60% at 3pm with two hours of voting still to go.
  • The Church Mobilization: The "No" vote was largely mobilized by religious
  organizations and churches. Thousands of voters turned-out in areas that are
  thought to be supportive of the NO campaign. The final public statement issued
  by the NO campaign going into the referendum encouraged Kenyans to vote and
  called for peaceful polls. However, there were troubling signs contained within
  the statement as well. For instance, the statement read in part: "We are aware
  that the government has put an elaborate strategy together to rig the
  referendum... We will reject the results of the referendum if we find that
  government has operationalized its rigging plans." The NO campaign statement
  further stated that "Americans are using Kenya as an experiment of their new
  method of destabilizing and manipulating African nations. If we as Kenyans allow
  Americans to influence us and manipulate our new constitution, we shall have set
  the way for other African nations to similarly be manipulated." It does not
  appear that some elements are prepared for a loss at the polls. This does not
  mean that the religious leadership or its supporters will result to violence. This
  ii Page
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770226 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770226 Date: 08/31/2015
  may not be true of some politically motivated elements with the NO campaign
  structure. However, William Ruto has now delivered a statement stating that he
  will accept the results. This may be driven by the strong messages of support for
  the IIEC from Kenyan citizens which have been aired by the media all day which
  make it more difficult for anyone choosing to undermine their results.
  IIEC Performance
  Voter Registry Problems: There have been some incidences of
  misspelled names on the register — with proper identification most citizens were
  still allowed to vote at most polling stations despite minor spelling errors.
  However, these problems do not appear to be on a scale that could undermine the
  credibility of the process overall.
  • Materials Distribution Challenges: Throughout the country, most of
  the polling stations received their ballot materials. Most of the polling stations
  opened on time (06:00 am) or shortly thereafter. Ballot materials in Tana River
  were lost once the IIEC's canoes leaked but no one was hurt and the commission
  stated they would get materials to the center later in the day. There have been a
  few complaints by the "no" camp that ballot papers were inappropriately colored
  at some stations (they were orange) — the IIEC responded by stating they would
  attempt to replace the papers in the affected areas.
  • Commissioners' Optimism. NDI held a brief "off the record" meeting
  with the Chair of the IIEC and later with most of the IIEC Commissioners. In
  both meetings there was acknowledgement of the challenges that the commission
  had faced during the first half of the election-day but there was also a visible level
  of optimism among the Commissioners that the process was generally being seen
  as an open, transparent and participatory one. The Commission has issued two
  statements thus far. Both are attached to this update.
  • Announcement of Results. Officially IIEC has 48 hours from the close
  of polls (17:00 today) to release results (pushing the deadline to 17:00 Friday,
  Kenya team). However, the IIEC is releasing interim results by polling station
  and the team thinks the picture will be clear as early as tomorrow morning. If the
  process proceeds smoothly, it is likely that the PVT results will be announced
  after the IIEC's interim results but before the official results.
  Wage
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770226 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770226 Date: 08/31/2015
  Election Observers
  • Domestic Observers. The IIEC says that it certified 41 domestic election
  observation groups totaling close to 30,000 observers. NDI's partner, the
  Election Observation Group (ELOG) is fielding more than 10,000 observers. 702
  of the ELOG observers are dedicated to the PVT exercise. ELOG issued two
  statements today (both are attached).
  • International Observers. There are at least three international observer
  missions in Kenya for the referendum. The missions are from the
  Commonwealth (3 observers) that were not deployed outside of Nairobi; the East
  Africa Community (EAC) delegation is also a small one (8 observers) and is
  headed by EALA member, Hon. Leonce Ndarubagiye from Burundi; and the
  European Union has an "informal presence" in Nairobi. Last week the EU
  released a statement praising the IIEC's preparations for the referendum. The
  African Union has also sent an observation mission. Finally, a number of
  Embassies deployed staff "observers" throughout the country.
  • "Yes" and "No" Polling Station Agents. Observers from the both
  campaigns were out in force. According to the ELOG (PVT) observers YES and
  NO observers were present in close to 68% of the polling centers visited. They are
  allowed 1 per committee per polling station. With 8 committees the maximum
  could be as much as 240,000 agents. NDI trained the constituency chief agents
  for all 8 committees and the PVT qualitative results show that only 7% of polling
  stations did not have agents present at the opening. Some No observers have
  raised concerns about inappropriately colored ballot papers (they were orange).
  Otherwise, there have been no serious complaints reported by either side. Some
  have also made claims that they were prevented from operating but claims of this
  type have been sporadic, rather than systematic. There have also been claims
  from the No side that the heavy police presence in the Rift Valley is designed to
  intimidate their voters but this has not been backed by feedback from the public
  at large as aired by the media.
  • Regional Liaison Observers: There are 20 regional liaison observers
  throughout the country - all of their reports have been positive and indicate that
  the process was smooth and there has been no violence. There have been a few
  minor problems on the register. At present they are observing the tallying
  process.
  3 1Page
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770226 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770226 Date: 08/31/2015
  The ELOG PVT Exercise
  ELOGs PVT operation faced some challenges early in the day because observers were
  either prevented from entering the polling station or had their phones confiscated. This
  was the result of poor internal communication within the IIEC which prevented helpful
  decisions made by the Commission filtering down to Presiding Officers on the ground.
  The IIEC has been helpful during the day in resolving at least some of these problems.
  By 7pm text messages had been received from all but a few PVT observers (96% of the
  first message and 94% of the second message). ELOG have been able to use reports from
  their observers in a representative sample of polling stations to draw conclusions about
  the overall process across the country.
  On opening, they reported that:
  - 99% of polling stations were set up for secret voting
  - l00% of polling stations had ballot boxes which were empty prior to being sealed
  - 96% of polling stations had no key materials missing
  - 98% of polling stations were open by 7.15am
  On the voting process they reported:
  - 99% of polling stations reported no attempts to disrupt the voting process
  - 98% of polling stations had no cases of voters not being inked
  - 84% of polling stations had no cases of voters being allowed to vote without an ID
  or without their name on the register
  - 42% had no cases of voters not being permitted to vote (because they were not
  registered), 55% had a few cases (1-14) and 3% had some cases (15-49)
  - The only issue observed which is difficult to interpret without additional
  information is the incidence of assisted voting. 5% reported no cases; 27%
  reported a few cases; 47% reported some cases and 22% reported many cases (50
  or more).
  Overall, ELOG has received 162 critical incident reports from its entire 10,000+
  cadre of observers. Of these, 111 were observers not being permitted to observe.
  NDI Mapping Update: NDI has provided maps to visualize critical incidence to
  Elections Observation Group (ELOG). NDI also provided routing maps that pinpointed
  polling stations to IIEC who used them to assist the foreign media and their own staff
  and to observers from the US and several European embassies.
  Wage
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770226 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770226 Date: 08/31/2015
  Challenges Ahead
  • Release of the results: The IIEC's wish to show the results from all
  27,000 polling stations in real time has proved to be over ambitious. However,
  the counting is going well and there should not be significant delays in the overall
  reporting process.
  • Acceptance of the results: Perhaps the biggest fear is that the "No"
  camp is not going to accept the results and this will spark post-electoral violence
  (especially in the Rift Valley). So far there is no evidence that this will occur.
  However, the point of greatest danger is after the announcement of the results,
  not before. So far as the political leader of the No side, William Ruto, is
  concerned, the results in Rift Valley are at least as important as the national total.
  If the No side has performed as well as expected there, he may not have an
  interest in seeking to undermine the credibility of the tallying and reporting
  process.
  5 'Page
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770226 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770227
MetadataSubject: THE POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE GREEK/EUROPEAN DEBT CRISIS
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Slaughter, Anne-Marie
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-08T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770227/C05770227.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Re: The political ramifications of the Greek/European debt crisis
ExtractedFrom: Slaughter, Anne-Marie <SlaughterA@state.gov>
ExtractedCc: Sullivan, Jacob J <SullivanJJ@state.gov>
ExtractedDateSent: Saturday, May 8, 2010 7:50 AM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770227
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770227 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B5
  From: Slaughter, Anne-Marie <SlaughterA@state.gov>
  Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2010 7:50 AM
  To:
  Subject: Re: The political ramifications of the Greek/European debt crisis
  Original Message ---
  From: H <HDR22@clintonemail.com>
  To: Slaughter, Anne-Marie
  Sent: Sat May 08 06:57:27 2010
  Subject: Re: The political ramifications of the Greek/European debt crisis
  Pis share w me whatever S/P prepares.
  Thx.
  Original Message ---
  From: Slaughter, Anne-Marie <SlaughterA@state.gov>
  To: H
  Cc: Sullivan, Jacob J <SullivanJJ@state.gov>
  Sent: Thu May 06 19:18:12 2010
  Subject: The political ramifications of the Greek/European debt crisis
  As you know, the EU-IMF-USG consensus hope motivating the Greek bailout is that it will buy time for Spain, Portugal,
  etc. From widening credit spreads to falling stock prices, most relevant market indicators are responding with doubt.
  Former IMF Chief Economist and NYT Columnist (and influential blogger for bond traders) Simon Johnson has an
  important reioinder to this consensus hope in today's NYT, full text pasted below.
  As the EU has no playbook for most of the pressing questions it faces, my staff is working to
  brainstorm as to the least bad of what are only sobering options.
  This is long but worth it.
  May 6, 2010, 6:11 amIt's Not About Greece AnymoreBy PETER BOONE AND SIMON JOHNSONLouisa Gouliamaki/Agence
  France-Presse — Getty Images Protesters waved flags from the Acropolis archaeological site behind banners in English
  and Greek hung in front of the Parthenon temple in Athens.Peter Boone is chairman of the charity Effective Intervention
  and a research associate at the Center for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics. He is also a
  principal in Salute Capital Management Ltd. Simon Johnson, the former chief economist at the International Monetary
  Fund, is the co-author of "13 Bankers."The Greek "rescue" package announced last weekend is dramatic, unprecedented
  and far from enough to stabilize the euro zone.The Greek government and the European Union leadership, prodded by
  the International Monetary Fund, are finally becoming realistic about the dire economic situation in Greece. They have
  abandoned previous rounds of optimistic forecasts and have now admitted to a profoundly worse situation. This new
  program calls for "fiscal adjustments" — cuts to the fiscal deficit, mostly through spending cuts — totaling 11 percent of
  gross domestic product in 2010, 4.3 percent in 2011, and 2 percent in 2012 and 2013. The total debt-to-G.D.P. ratio
  peaks at 149 percent in 2012-13 before starting a gentle glide path back down to sanity.This new program is honest
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770227 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770227 Date: 08/31/2015
  enough to show why it is unlikely to succeed.Daniel Gros, an eminent economist on euro zone issues based in Brussels,
  has argued that for each 1 percent of G.D.P. decline in Greek government spending, total demand in the country falls by
  2.5 percent of G.D.P. If the government reduces spending by 15 percent of G.D.P. — the initial shock to demand could
  be well over 30 percent of G.D.P.Obviously this simple rule does not work with such large numbers, but it illustrates that
  Greece is likely to experience a very sharp recession — and there is substantial uncertainty around how bad the
  economy will get. The program announced last weekend assumes Greek G.D.P. falls by 4 percent this year, then by
  another 2.6 percent in 2011, before recovering to positive growth in 2012 and beyond.Such figures seem extremely
  optimistic, particularly in the face of the civil unrest now sweeping Greece and the deep hostility expressed toward
  Greece in some northern European policy circles.The pattern of growth is critical because, under this program, Greece
  needs to grow out of its debt problem soon. Greece's debt-to-G.D.P. ratio will be a debilitating 145 percent at the end
  of 2011.Now consider putting more realistic growth figures into the I.M.F. forecast for Greece's economy — e.g., with
  G.D.P. declining 12 percent in 2011, then the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio may reach 155 percent. At these levels, with a 5
  percent real interest rate and no growth, the country needs a primary surplus at 8 percent of G.D.P. to keep the debt-to-
  G.D.P. ratio stable. It will be nowhere near that level. The I.M.F. program has Greece running a primary budget deficit
  of around 1 percent of G.D.P. in that year, and that assumes a path for Greek growth that can be regarded only as an
  "upside scenario."The politics of these implied budget surpluses remains brutal. Since most Greek debt is held abroad,
  roughly 80 percent of the budget savings the Greek government makes go straight to Germans, French and other foreign
  debt holders (mostly banks). If growth turns out poorly, will the Greeks be prepared for ever-tougher austerity to pay
  the Germans? Even if everything goes well, Greek citizens seem unlikely to welcome this version of their "new normal."
  Last week the European leadership panicked — very late in the day — when it realized that the euro zone itself was at
  risk of a meltdown. If the euro zone proves unwilling to protect a member like Greece from default, then bond investors
  will run from Portugal and Spain also — if you doubt this, study carefully the interlocking debt picture published
  recently in The New York Times. Higher yields on government debt would have caused concerns about potential bank
  runs in these nations, and then spread to more nations in Europe.When there is such a "run," it is not clear where it
  stops. In the hazy distance, Belgium, France, Austria and many others were potentially at risk.
  Even the Germans cannot afford to bail out those nations.Slapped in the face by this ugly scenario, the Europeans
  decided to throw everything they and the I.M.F. had at bailing out Greece. The program as announced has only a small
  chance of preventing eventual Greek bankruptcy, but it may still slow or avert a dangerous spiral downward — and
  enormous collateral damage — in the rest of Europe.The I.M.F. floated in some fashion an alternative scenario with a
  debt restructuring, but this was rejected by both the European Union and the Greek authorities. This is not a surprise;
  leading European policy makers are completely unprepared for broader problems that would follow a Greek
  "restructuring," because markets would immediately mark down the debt (i.e., increase the yields) for Portugal, Spain,
  Ireland and even Italy.The fear and panic in the face of this would be unparalleled in modern times: When the Greeks
  pay only 50 percent on the face value of their debt, what should investors expect from the Portuguese and Spanish? It
  all becomes arbitrary, including which countries are dragged down.Someone has to decide who should be defended and
  at what cost, and the European structures are completely unsuited to this kind of tough decision-making under
  pressure.ln the extreme downside scenario, Germany is the only obvious safe haven within the euro zone, so its
  government bond yields would collapse while other governments face sharply rising yields. The euro zone would likely
  not hold together.There is still a narrow escape path, without immediate debt default and the chaos that that would
  produce:-
  Talk down the euro — moving toward parity with the American dollar would help lift growth across the euroz one.-
  As the euro falls, bond yields will rise on the euro zone periphery. This will create episodes of panic. Enough short-term
  financing must be in place to support the rollover of government debt.-
  Once the euro has fallen a great deal, announce the European Central Bank will support the euro at those levels (i.e.,
  prevent appreciation, with G-20 tacit agreement), and also support the peripheral euro zone nations viewed as solvent
  by buying their bonds whenever markets are chaotic.-
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770227 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770227 Date: 08/31/2015
  At that stage, but not before, the euro zone leadership needs to push weaker governments to restructure. That will
  include Greece and perhaps also Portugal. Hopefully, in this scenario Spain can muddle through.•
  European banks should be recapitalized as necessary and have most of their management replaced. This is a massive
  failure of euro groupthink — including most notably at the political level — but there is no question that bank executives
  have not behaved responsibly in a long while and should be replaced en masse.To the extent possible, some of the
  ensuing losses should be shared with bank creditors. But be careful what you wish for. The bankers are powerful for a
  reason; they have built vital yet fragile structures at the heart of our economies. Dismantle with care.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770227 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770232
MetadataSubject: MEPP
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Sullivan, Jacob J
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-08T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770232/C05770232.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedFrom: Sullivan, Jacob J <SullivanJJ@state.gov>
ExtractedDateSent: Saturday, May 8, 2010 4:09 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770232
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN FULL
ExtractedBodyText:
  Sen Mitchell proposes putting out the following statement tomorrow. We would respond on specific commitments on
  Ramat Shlomo if asked.
  Special Envoy Mitchell left the Middle East on Sunday, where he completed the first round of proximity talks with Israeli
  and Palestinian leaders. The talks were serious and wide-ranging.
  Special Envoy Mitchell emphasized the importance of making progress in the proximity talks and of moving to direct
  negotiations as soon as possible. We have received commitments from both sides, and we have made assurances to
  both sides, that are enabling us to move forward. The full scope of these discussions will remain private.
  As both parties know, if either side takes significant actions during the proximity talks that we judge would seriously
  undermine trust, we will respond to hold them accountable and ensure that negotiations continue.
  Special Envoy Mitchell will return to the region next week to continue indirect negotiations with the parties.

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770232 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN FULL
  From: Sullivan, Jacob J <SullivanJJ@state.gov>
  Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2010 4:09 PM
  To:
  Subject MEPP
  Sen Mitchell proposes putting out the following statement tomorrow. We would respond on specific commitments on
  Ramat Shlomo if asked.
  Special Envoy Mitchell left the Middle East on Sunday, where he completed the first round of proximity talks with Israeli
  and Palestinian leaders. The talks were serious and wide-ranging.
  Special Envoy Mitchell emphasized the importance of making progress in the proximity talks and of moving to direct
  negotiations as soon as possible. We have received commitments from both sides, and we have made assurances to
  both sides, that are enabling us to move forward. The full scope of these discussions will remain private.
  As both parties know, if either side takes significant actions during the proximity talks that we judge would seriously
  undermine trust, we will respond to hold them accountable and ensure that negotiations continue.
  Special Envoy Mitchell will return to the region next week to continue indirect negotiations with the parties.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770232 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770233
MetadataSubject: MEPP
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Sullivan, Jacob J
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-08T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770233/C05770233.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Re: MEPP
ExtractedFrom: Sullivan, Jacob J <SullivanJJ@state.gov>
ExtractedDateSent: Saturday, May 8, 2010 4:17 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770233
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN FULL
ExtractedBodyText: I think this is about right too.
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770233 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN FULL
  From: Sullivan, Jacob J <SullivanJJ@state.gov>
  Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2010 4:17 PM
  To:
  Subject: Re: MEPP
  I think this is about right too.
  Original Message ---
  From: H <HDR22@clintonemail.com>
  To: Sullivan, Jacob
  Sent: Sat May 08 16:16:36 2010
  Subject: Re: MEPP
  Sounds right to me.
  Original Message
  From: Sullivan, Jacob J <SullivanJJ@state.gov>
  To: H
  Sent: Sat May 08 16:09:19 2010
  Subject: MEPP
  Sen Mitchell proposes putting out the following statement tomorrow. We would respond on specific commitments on
  Ramat Shlomo if asked.
  Special Envoy Mitchell left the Middle East on Sunday, where he completed the first round of proximity talks with Israeli
  and Palestinian leaders. The talks were serious and wide-ranging.
  Special Envoy Mitchell emphasized the importance of making progress in the proximity talks and of moving to direct
  negotiations as soon as possible. We have received commitments from both sides, and we have made assurances to
  both sides, that are enabling us to move forward. The full scope of these discussions will remain private.
  As both parties know, if either side takes significant actions during the proximity talks that we judge would seriously
  undermine trust, we will respond to hold them accountable and ensure that negotiations continue.
  Special Envoy Mitchell will return to the region next week to continue indirect negotiations with the parties.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770233 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770237
MetadataSubject: MITCHELL STATEMENT
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Sullivan, Jacob J
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-08T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770237/C05770237.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedFrom: Sullivan, Jacob J <SullivanJJ@state.gov>
ExtractedDateSent: Saturday, May 8, 2010 5:52 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770237
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN FULL
ExtractedBodyText:
  After further back and forth, we've come up with a way to mention Ramat Shlomo and incitement to violence that
  should be acceptable to both sides. The additional paragraph would read:
  We have urged the parties to help create an atmosphere that is conducive to successful talks, and they are responding,
  including President Abbas' statement that he will work against incitement of any sort and Prime Minister Netanyahu's
  statement that there will be no construction at the Ramat Shlomo project for two years. They are both trying to move
  forward in difficult circumstances and we commend them for that.

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770237 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN FULL
  From: Sullivan, Jacob J <SullivanJJ@state.gov>
  Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2010 5:52 PM
  To:
  Subject Mitchell statement
  After further back and forth, we've come up with a way to mention Ramat Shlomo and incitement to violence that
  should be acceptable to both sides. The additional paragraph would read:
  We have urged the parties to help create an atmosphere that is conducive to successful talks, and they are responding,
  including President Abbas' statement that he will work against incitement of any sort and Prime Minister Netanyahu's
  statement that there will be no construction at the Ramat Shlomo project for two years. They are both trying to move
  forward in difficult circumstances and we commend them for that.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770237 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770238
MetadataSubject: MITCHELL STATEMENT
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Sullivan, Jacob J
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-08T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770238/C05770238.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Mitchell statement
ExtractedFrom: Sullivan, Jacob J <SullivanJJ@state.gov>
ExtractedDateSent: Saturday, May 8, 2010 5:53 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770238
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN FULL
ExtractedBodyText: I should add that this is still going back and forth.
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770238 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN FULL
  From: Sullivan, Jacob J <SullivanJJ@state.gov>
  Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2010 5:53 PM
  To:
  Subject Re: Mitchell statement
  I should add that this is still going back and forth.
  Original Message
  From: Sullivan, Jacob J
  To: 'hdr22@clintonemail.com' <hdr22@clintonemail.com>
  Sent: Sat May 08 17:52:28 2010
  Subject: Mitchell statement
  After further back and forth, we've come up with a way to mention Ramat Shlomo and incitement to violence that
  should be acceptable to both sides. The additional paragraph would read:
  We have urged the parties to help create an atmosphere that is conducive to successful talks, and they are responding,
  including President Abbas' statement that he will work against incitement of any sort and Prime Minister Netanyahu's
  statement that there will be no construction at the Ramat Shlomo project for two years. They are both trying to move
  forward in difficult circumstances and we commend them for that.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770238 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770240
MetadataSubject: SHUTTLE
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Valmoro, Lona J
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-08T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770240/C05770240.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Re: Shuttle
ExtractedTo: H; Huma Abedin
ExtractedFrom: Valmoro, Lona 1 <ValmoroU@state.gov>
ExtractedDateSent: Saturday, May 8, 2010 10:27 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770240
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  You are all set, seats 3A and 3C on the 8:00pm.
  Lona Valmoro
  Special Assistant to the Secretary of State

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770240 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: Valmoro, Lona 1 <ValmoroU@state.gov>
  Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2010 10:27 PM
  To: H; Huma Abedin
  Subject: Re: Shuttle
  You are all set, seats 3A and 3C on the 8:00pm.
  Lona Valmoro
  Special Assistant to the Secretary of State
  Original Message
  From: H <HDR22@clintonemail.com>
  To: Valmoro, Lona .1; Huma Abedin
  Sent: Sat May 08 21:42:55 2010
  Subject: Shuttle
  I need to take the 8 since Bill is not going to DC tomorrow.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770240 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770241
MetadataSubject: GOOD NEWS
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Mikulski, BAM (Mikulski)
MetadataDateSent: 2010-08-04T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0090/DOC_0C05770241/C05770241.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770241
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN FULL
ExtractedBodyText:
  Mikulski, BAM (Mikulski) <BAM@Mikulski.senate.gov>
  Wednesday, August 4, 2010 9:32 PM
  Good news
  Shortly after we talked. Got word that. Pres. Bill was coming to do an event for me. In oct. This the $$$ and juice we
  need. Will thank him myself but if you see him first --- give him a bug 4 me H!! Great getting caught up
  Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770241 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN FULL
  From:
  Sent:
  To:
  Subject:
  Mikulski, BAM (Mikulski) <BAM@Mikulski.senate.gov>
  Wednesday, August 4, 2010 9:32 PM
  Good news
  Shortly after we talked. Got word that. Pres. Bill was coming to do an event for me. In oct. This the $$$ and juice we
  need. Will thank him myself but if you see him first --- give him a bug 4 me H!! Great getting caught up
  Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770241 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770242
MetadataSubject: FW:
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: Sullivan, Jacob J
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-08T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770242/C05770242.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: Fw:
ExtractedFrom: Sullivan, Jacob J <Sullivann@state.gov>
ExtractedDateSent: Saturday, May 8, 2010 10:38 PM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770242
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText: Fyi
RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770242 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: Sullivan, Jacob J <Sullivann@state.gov>
  Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2010 10:38 PM
  To:
  Subject: Fw:
  Fyi
  From: Holbrooke, Richard
  To: Sullivan, Jacob J
  Sent: Sat May 08 22:36:56 2010
  Subject: Fw:
  B6
  From: Ashley Bommer
  To: Pauli, Rosemarie; Holbrooke, Richard
  Sent: Sat May 08 21:58:34 2010
  Subject:
  Tensions between Eikenberry, McChrystal will be focus of their
  Washington visit
  By Joshua Partlow
  Sunday, May 9,2010; A01
  They are both decorated generals, West Point graduates who studied at Harvard University and earnest
  taskmasters who would rather work than sleep.
  The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl W. Eikenberry, and the top U.S. military commander there, Gen.
  Stanley A. McChrystal, assumed their posts amid lofty expectations that they could re-create the hand-in-glove
  partnership that Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker had while leading the war effort in
  Iraq.
  But the Eikenberry-and-McChrystal team that returns to Washington this week, alongside Afghan President
  Hamid Karzai, has a much different dynamic.
  Both men said in interviews that they enjoy a productive relationship and have built stronger bonds between
  troops and civilians across Afghanistan. Still, they have had significant disagreements over the course of the
  Afghanistan war and have struggled to align their visions for how to work with Karzai's government, according
  to interviews with U.S., NATO and Afghan officials.
  Few critics suggest that those differences have harmed U.S. interests in Afghanistan. People who have worked
  with both men said, however, that clear tensions exist at the top of the Obama administration's most important
  military and foreign policy endeavor.
  At times their differences over strategy have been public, particularly after two of Eikenberry's cables to
  Washington last year were leaked to the news media. The cables warned that McChrystal's request for new
  troops might be counterproductive as Karzai was "not an adequate strategic partner." McChrystal's staff
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770242 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770242 Date: 08/31/2015
  members were particularly upset that they weren't made aware of Eikenberry's position before he sent the cables
  to Washington, they said in interviews.
  Eikenberry has resisted some of McChrystal's wartime experiments. The ambassador refused to release funds to
  expand a military effort to turn villagers into armed guards. He opposed one Army brigade's plan to form an
  anti-Taliban alliance with a Pashtun tribe and funnel it development money. He criticized the military's proposal
  to buy generators and diesel fuel for the energy-starved city of Kandahar and supported a longer-term
  hydroelectric dam project.
  Their views have diverged despite shared experience: Eikenberry served 18 months as the NATO commander
  in Afghanistan, the job McChrystal now holds, before retiring from the military and returning as ambassador.
  As McChrystal has overhauled the war strategy, some of the legacy he is undoing is Eikenberry's.
  Eikenberry wanted to become NATO's senior civilian representative, in addition to his job as ambassador, but
  McChrystal recommended against it, according to diplomats in Kabul. A British diplomat, Mark Sedwill, got
  the job.
  "You have two generals of similar rank who don't agree on the policy, who apparently don't like each other. It
  makes for a difficult relationship," said Peter W. Galbraith, who served as the top U.S. official in the United
  Nations' mission to Afghanistan during last year's contested presidential election.
  Both men have tried to dispel notions that they disagree on strategy and don't get along.
  "The best metaphor I can give you is of an athletic team," Eikenberry said. "We play different positions. We
  have different but complementary roles. Of course, sometimes we're going to disagree on what's the best play to
  call, but we're absolutely committed as teammates to see the president's strategy is well-executed."
  McChrystal said that he and Eikenberry cooperate effectively and that their relationship should not be measured
  against the Petraeus-Crocker pairing in Iraq.
  "We've known each other for many years. We talk through all the things we deal with," McChrystal said. "Some
  people are looking for an Iraq model. But Iraq wasn't a 46-nation coalition."
  Civil-military integration
  The two generals first crossed professional paths in 2002, when McChrystal, who had worked as chief of staff
  under Gen. Dan K. McNeill, then coalition commander, helped prepare Eikenberry for a job in Kabul building
  the fledgling Afghan National Army. Later, McChrystal ran the Joint Special Operations Command when
  Eikenberry held the top military job in Afghanistan.
  They now work more independently because their roles aren't perfectly aligned, they said, with McChrystal in
  charge of the 130,000-strong NATO coalition, not just the American contingent.
  Some disagreements between the men may reflect growing pains, as the military makes room for what has
  become the second-largest U.S. embassy in the world, after the one in Iraq. When-President °barna took office
  last year, there were 360 American civilians in Afghanistan. Now there are more than 1,000 and counting, the
  most rapid growth of a U.S. civilian mission since the Vietnam War.
  Military field commanders who once may have had political advisers now share authority with co-equal civilian
  representatives backed by growing staffs. The result is a more forceful civilian voice in decision-making.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770242 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770242 Date: 08/31/2015
  When Eikenberry has resisted a military proposal, the rationale is often that he does not want to undermine the
  Afghan government and the development of its security forces. He says that he must take into account factors
  beyond short-term stability and that programs without Afghan government ownership won't be sustainable.
  "I think that both of us are very proud of the degree of civil-military integration we've been able to achieve in
  the year that we've been here together," Eikenberry said. "So, of course, there's going to be different
  perspectives, there's going to be robust debates, and you really want that. You've got to encourage that."
  Divided over Karzai
  Perhaps the most visible difference in approach is how the men work with Karzai.
  McChrystal has adopted a role akin to chief diplomat, building a close partnership with Karzai. In monthly
  White House review sessions, McChrystal has argued that U.S. officials should show more public deference to
  Karzai, who he frequently reminds others is "the elected leader of a sovereign country," administration officials
  said.
  In the interview, McChrystal called Karzai a "great partner" who has been "absolutely straightforward with me
  and been reliable."
  Some officials said he has built his relationship with Karzai at the expense of candor. In some instances, he has
  chosen a less politically controversial path, U.S. officials said, citing his decision to work with Ahmed Wali
  Karzai, the president's half brother, rather than stress his alleged criminal activity.
  "If I don't have credibility with President Karzai, then I think I can't be an effective commander here,"
  McChrystal said. "And it doesn't mean just getting along with him and telling him what he wants to hear. It's
  convincing him that I'm being a reliable and honest interlocutor with him."
  Eikenberry, meanwhile, has had to deliver tougher messages about corruption and governance that often upset
  Karzai, and his rapport with the mercurial president has seemed to suffer.
  During a lengthy policy review in the fall, Eikenberry argued against sending additional U.S. troops to
  Afghanistan. And U.S. officials said he continues to think that the United States should find other Afghan
  figures, including provincial leaders, to work with rather than rely so heavily on Karzai. Eikenberry's position
  infuriated Karzai, who often views U.S. support for "sub-national governments" in Afghanistan as a threat to his
  authority.
  Karzai is a cunning politician who has tried to play Eikenberry and McChrYstal off each other and exploit any
  political differences, U.S. officials said. In recent months, when Karzai has come under U.S. pressure to reform
  his corrupt government, he has often lashed out publicly.
  Since McChrystal took command in June, he has met Karzai more than 45 times, mostly one-on-one, including
  a regular Sunday morning chat in the presidential palace. In an effort to present Karzai as commander in chief,
  McChrystal has flown him across the country on five "battlefield circulations."
  McChrystal has done more than his predecessors, including Eikenberry, to minimize civilian casualties, such as
  restricting the use of air power and night raids. He has regularly apologized to Karzai for civilian deaths and
  shown him video and slide presentations to explain how such mistakes occur.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770242 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770242 Date: 08/31/2015
  "He was the first military man to really show that he respected and would respond to Karzai's agenda, civilian
  casualties, of course, being the biggest issue," one senior NATO official said. "In a sense, Karzai said, 'Here's a
  soldier that finally I can deal with.'"
  Crocker, the former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, said he and Petraeus rarely differed over policy or approach
  and carefully calibrated their relationship with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouni al-Maliki, another, complicated
  leader. The two almost always saw Maliki together. When meeting him alone, they would brief each other
  before and after.
  Of McChrystal and Eikenberry, Crocker said: "They need to resolve any differences among themselves or take
  it back to Washington because the stakes in Afghanistan are too great not to have a unified effort."
  Partlow reported from Kabul. Staff writers Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Scott Wilson in Washington contributed
  to this report.
  Text "Swat" to 20222 to provide $5 to UNHCR for life-saving relief to two million refugees.
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770242 Date: 08/31/2015



DocNumber: C05770243
MetadataSubject: H: IMPORTANT, MEMO ON UK ELECTION, AM IN LONDON, SID
MetadataTo: H
MetadataFrom: sbwhoeop
MetadataDateSent: 2010-05-09T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataDateReleased: 2015-08-31T04:00:00+00:00
MetadataPdfLink: DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0078/DOC_0C05770243/C05770243.pdf
MetadataCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
MetadataDocumentClass: Clinton_Email_August_Release
ExtractedSubject: H: Sunday am report UK. I return later today to DC. Sid
ExtractedFrom: sbwhoeop
ExtractedDateSent: Sunday, May 9, 2010 3:08 AM
ExtractedCaseNumber: F-2014-20439
ExtractedDocNumber: C05770243
ExtractedDateReleased: 08/31/2015
ExtractedReleaseInPartOrFull: RELEASE IN PART
ExtractedBodyText:
  May 9, 2010
  For: Hillary

RawText:
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770243 Date: 08/31/2015
  RELEASE IN PART
  B6
  From: sbwhoeop
  Sent: Sunday, May 9, 2010 3:08 AM
  To:
  Subject: H: Sunday am report UK. I return later today to DC. Sid
  Attachments: hrc memo uk state of play 050910.docx
  CONFIDENTIAL
  May 9, 2010
  For: Hillary
  From: Sid
  Re: Sunday, State of Play
  Clegg is still in talks with Cameron. About 1,500 Liberal Democrats spontaneously protested at Lib-Dem
  headquarters against a deal with the Tories given their policies, especially on Europe. But Clegg remains in
  negotiations. He seems quite intent on working it out with Cameron, it appears. His inner Tory magnetically
  draws him to his heritage. Clegg has also misplayed almost every turn, presented with big chances and blowing
  them through a combination of inexperience (derived partly from heading a party out of power for nearly 100
  years) and inbred arrogance (from no less a privileged background than Cameron, though seeming less snobbish
  because he went to Westminster instead of Eton and has a less pronounced upper-class accent, more neutral,
  because of his more cosmopolitan roots through his family).
  What about Labour? Shaun and a couple of others have rounded up about 29 votes from other parties (Scottish
  National Party, NI parties, Welsh party) that could be part of a grand progressive once-in-a-lifetime coalition
  that required the LDs. Gordon has said he will allow Clegg-Cameron discussions to play out and a general offer
  to Clegg is on the table, its terms giving far more on a referendum and policy than the Tories. Behind the
  scenes, Labour is putting whatever harsh pressure it can on LD leaders. Peter is playing a cynical double game.
  He is a sectarian in a sect of one. Yet Gordon for strange psychological reasons rooted in his triangle with Tony
  and Peter relies on Peter. Peter, according to Shaun, has wrung a pledge from Borwn that if Brown emerges
  from this crisis he, Peter, will replace David as Foreign Secretary. Meanwhile, Peter has advised David to
  sideline himself David has done so instead of being forward as a strong party man behind Brown in dire straits.
  Standing back only makes David look ambitious, waiting for Brown to lose and aiming to a leadership contest
  afterward, when Peter, as he has promised, would guide David to the prize. The plot thickens: Ed Miliband,
  David's younger brother, the environment secretary, will runfor leader against his brother if Brown loses. Ed
  has more of a common touch. The outcome of that contest would be more than uncertain. But before that
  eventuality Gordon's team reaches out to the LDs in private. Yet Shaun's attitude, as I read it, leans toward
  pessmism. A London Times polls just out says 62 percent want Gordon out. Where were the fickle voters in the
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770243 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770243 Date: 08/31/2015
  election? The poll shows more than discontent with Gordon, but also how people are being whipped by the
  Murdoch media.
  What about the Tories? A secret memo from William Hague to Cameron written before the election was leaked
  this morning to The Observer (the Sunday paper of The Guardian), proposes an anti-Europe line of the new
  government. (I've enclosed the article below.) The atmosphere inside the Conservatives is acrid and anxious.
  But Lord Ashcroft, the Tory moneyman, who spent five million pounds alone in marginal districts, is furious
  that Cameron failed to win outright, failed in his campaign, made a foolish decision to include Clegg in the
  debates, etc. Many agree with the evil Ashcroft. But the finger pointing won't matter if a deal works with
  Clegg. The Conservative strategy would be to coopt Clegg now, do whatever deal can be done, maintain a more
  or less center-right but moderated government for about a year, call a new election, win outright on the
  momentum of the recovery engineered by Brown but claimed by Tories as proof that the change was
  responsible, jettison Clegg and the LDs, and govern from the radical right as the children of Thatcher for five
  years. The Tories would then move on their electoral reforms: cutting the number of seats in Parliament,
  redistricting in Conservative favor, and trying to outlaw union contributions to the Labour Party.
  What about the LDs? Clegg's deal with the Tories would of course thwart any Lib-Lab coalition, probably the
  only chance for a grand progressive alliance that would keep the Tories out of power forever. Clegg's personal
  instincts obviously lean toward the Tories, having little to do with policy. The party's leaders may be opposed,
  but they are also likely to be feckless and weak as they always have been.
  So, whatever the case, I would doubt you'll see David again as Foreign Secretary. Prepare for hauge, who is
  deeply anti-European and will be disingenuous with you. Tory budget cuts in NI, already announced, would
  cause havoc with peace and economic recovery. I'd send a private message asap on that score the second a new
  government is announced, if it is. Tilt publicly to Merkel on Europe for this reason among others.
  Article below:
  Tory-Lib Dem coalition threatened by secret
  hardline memo on Europe
  •Draft letter by William Hague sets out tough stance on EU
  •Leak follows leaders"constructive, amicable' meeting
  Toby Helm and Anushka Asthana
  • The Observer, Sunday 9 May 2010
  David Cameron's hopes of forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats were dramatically undermined last
  night by the leaking of a top-secret letter outlining the hardline Eurosceptic stance he and William Hague
  planned to adopt in government.
  The document, obtained by the Observer, is headed "draft letter from Foreign Secretary to Prime Minister" and
  was written last week. It assumed an outright Tory victory and spelt out how Hague intended to adopt a tough
  approach to Europe at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels tomorrow.
  In the letter, compiled by civil servants but written in the first person, Hague tells Cameron how his message
  would be that "the British relationship with the EU has changed with our election" to one firmly against any
  further integration.
  Exposing the massive gulf between Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and the Conservative leadership on
  Europe, Hague says he would demand the right to repatriate powers over criminal justice as well as social and
  employment policy during the first term of a Tory government — demands many EU leaders say they would
  resist.
  Hague planned to tell his EU counterparts: "Rest assured that we seek engagement, not confrontation. But our
  aim is to achieve these commitments during this parliament." He would also tell his first foreign ministers'
  meeting "we will never join the euro" and conclude: "You will find us firm but fair, playing a leading role,
  fighting our corner, practical and straight-talking."
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770243 Date: 08/31/2015

  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770243 Date: 08/31/2015
  Last night the Tories said they had no knowledge of the letter. But the Observer understands it was drawn up on
  the basis of detailed briefings between senior civil servants and Hague. The document came to light as Clegg, a
  strong pro-European, yesterday met his MPs and senior party figures to discuss a possible coalition with the
  Tories, who emerged from Thursday's general election with the largest number of seats but short of an overall
  majority.
  Cameron and Clegg held face-to-face talks late yesterday as they continued their attempts to thrash out a power-
  sharing deal. A senior Conservative party spokeswoman said the talks were "constructive and amicable". The
  70-minute meeting took place at Admiralty House in Whitehall. A Lib Dem spokesman also described the
  discussions as "constructive and amicable".
  Tory and Lib Dem sources said last night that discussions would not conclude until the beginning of the coming
  week at the earliest. An emergency meeting of the 1922 committee of Tory backbenchers will be held tomorrow
  to discuss the possible coalition. Today, Hague, Oliver Letwin and George Osborne will resume talks with the
  Lib Dems' Vince Cable, Chris Huhne and David Laws.
  But the stark language used in the letter is bound to alarm Clegg, who has been savage in his criticism of the
  Conservatives' attitude to Europe which he believes is rooted in the past and will limit Britain's ability to fight
  cross-border crime and meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century.
  The document will also be seen by Lib Dem MPs and the party's rank and file as evidence that their pro-
  Europeanism would be compromised by linking up with the Tories. A Lib Dem spokesman said the party was
  strongly pro-European, but would not be drawn on the document.
  Yesterday Cameron came under pressure from senior figures in his own party not to give in to Clegg's demands
  by watering down Conservative manifesto commitments. Shadow defence secretary Liam, Fox warned that a
  Tory government could not be "held to ransom" by Lib Dems demanding proportional representation.
  Clegg may also face opposition from within his party to any attempt to form a coalition with the Tories,
  particularly on economic issues.
  Yesterday the Social Liberal Forum, which represents left-leaning Lib Dems and includes a third of the party's
  MPs, issued a set of "red lines" which it said the party must not cross, including any measure that would
  increase the gap between the rich and poor — ruling out supporting the Tory pledge to cut inheritance tax. Three
  other red lines were any suggestion of cuts to frontline services in the current financial year, any worsening
  treatment of asylum seekers and any watering-down of the human rights act.
  Meanwhile, Gordon Brown and his closest advisers were working on how to expand their counter-offer to the
  Lib Dems, including a referendum on changes to the voting system. Senior officials said Labour was planning
  to draw up a formal "coalition contract" — as happens in Germany — that would bind the Lib Dems and other
  smaller parties into a deal if the Tory discussions with the Lib Dems were to fail.
  Most Labour ministers now believe Brown would have to step down before Clegg would consider a pact,
  though senior government insiders insisted this was not being discussed as an option.
  One re-elected Labour MP, John Mann, of Bassetlaw, called on Brown to step down as Labour leader, claiming
  that the party would have influence on the outcome of the current negotiations only if Brown agreed to give up
  the leadership.
  "Brown should not lead Labour into any future election and he should stand down before the next Labour party
  conference," he said. "Gordon Brown's continuation as leader rules out the credibility of a Lib-Lab pact that has
  to prioritise the modernisation and reform of the antiquated UK political systems."
  UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05770243 Date: 08/31/2015



