Yes. I am sure.

A nitpick, the "fully redacted email" you link to is actually a Word document titled 2010 Haiti Amcits memo.doc and not an email (notice the differences in the header and the fact it doesn't have a time stamp like an email. The author is Harold Koh, Legal Adviser of the State Department, not Cheryl Mills. This is not a nitpick, this is signficant.

Here's the Mills email. She copied the text into the email and attached the Word doc and forwarded it.

If you look on the document you wille see the reason for the redaction, "RELEASE IN PART B5." This is the same in both cases. B5 refers to the section of Freedom of Information Act that covers what should and should not be released.. If you look at what the B5 exemption is, you will see that attorney work product is always redacted.

Exemption 5 applies to interagency or internal memoranda or letters that would not be available by law to a private party in litigation ...... This incorporates civil discovery privileges, including deliberative process privilege, attorney–client privilege, and attorney work–product privilege.

So this is standard procedure. Harold Koh the Legal Adviser for the State Department gave a legal opinion and under the Freedom of Information Act, this will always be redacted. Basically government deliberations can be redacted but DECISIONS can not be. So the discussion leading up to a decision can be redacted, but the decision must be released. Meaning if anything actually came out of this, that would be in the emails.

Asking for legal options is not suspicious, it's respect for the rule of law. Redaction of legal opinions is standard in FOIA documents. Asking what the State Department can legally do is does NOT support the idea of special intercession for Silsby or a super secret mission by Bill Clinton. It supports the idea that State Department was going to what it could legally do on behalf of 10 AMCIT or American Citizens. It would have been same level of interaction you or I caused an international incident and got arrested in a foreign country.

After all, there's only so much the State Department can legally do: http://archive.is/DkCI6

Yes, thank you for posting this. This page basically blows up the idea that Clinton got involved because of some personal connection to Silsby. It's absolutely key to understanding what happened. The State Department became involved because it's what the State Department does and consular services are available to every American:

One of the highest priorities of the Department of State and U.S. embassies and consulates abroad is to provide assistance to U.S. citizens incarcerated abroad.

Also, you do understand the difference between a quick and easy Do's and Don'ts list on a website and full legal opinion from an expert right? Did you think the Secretary of State consults the FAQ when he/she wants information or does she ask her experts? Legal Adviser is an official position at the State Deparment.

I don't know what the email was about, but I can think of a few possibilities. There had been talk of having the Americans tried in the United States which would leave Haiti to deal the bigger issues of the earthquake which had taken the lives of several judges and lawyers and destroyed courthouses and the main prison in Haiti. A second possibility is there had been talk that week of most of the Baptists being released because they had left all the details and planning to Silsby and believed her when she it was taken care of. There could have been discussions about how to get them out Haiti if they were released fully or released on bail. Looking for previous emails involving Harold Koh and Haiti came up empty, so we are not able to say what the original request was.

And the Clintons certainly have interwoven themselves deeply into Haiti:

This is certainly true, but it's non sequitur. It tells us nothing about this case.

O, and Bill certainly made it a top priority when he arrived days after the arrest: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/clinton-brokers-deal-over-haiti-orphan-abductions-v63ld395r7b

I think this news report is just simply wrong and[ I go into all the reasons here.] (https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2255382/11157188)) Short version, this is the only news report that mentions this, no other media picked it up and confirmed it, the Times itself never followed up on its own story, they completely dropped it, the quotes it used from Clinton, who was there on behalf of the UN, were two days old and none of the other stories using those quotes said anything about a special misson for Bill, no Haitian media reported this and no evidence has come forward in all the years since. When Bill Clinton left Haiti they were still in jail.

At the time US lawyers for the Baptists and Baptist officials were pleading for the Obama adminstration to do more and the State Department said no.. They were being criticized and called feckless in the press.. This story is just a very slender, unsupported reed. I don't think it stands up against the mountain of evidence against it being true.

That zerohedge article is written by William Craddick who is liar. I completely debunked his lie that Hillary Clinton had a longstanding interesting in Laura Silsby here. And I call him a liar deliberately as opposed to being wrong, because there's no honest way to make the claim he did here:

Hillary has a LONG history of interest in Ms. Silsby. Wikileak emails dating back till at least 2001 have been found in her archives discussing Laura's NGO.

The evidence he cites for this is NOT an email. It's a word document that was attached to an email. Clinton wasn't even Secretary of State back in 2001. it's absurd. Furthermore the document he cites is talking about the Haitian Earthquake of 2010. Is time travel involved somehow? I also show exactly where the document he cites comes and when it retrieved. It was in 2010 after the Baptists were arrested and before Hillary Clinton knew who Laura Silsby was.