Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Elena's Inbox - A project of the Sunlight Foundation (when she was in Clinton Admin)
Sunlight Foundation ^ | unk

Posted on 07/03/2010 11:44:41 AM PDT by STARWISE

This # site parses the emails sent and received by Elena Kagan during her time in the Clinton administration and presents them in a more familiar interface.

# You may find that some records are garbled or incomplete, or that conversations are fractured. Please bear with us: the source documents are extremely messy.

We're working to improve the quality of the documents hosted here.

# Due to the programmatic nature of the tools used to build this site, we recommend checking any research effort against the source files released by the Clinton Library.

ELENA'S INBOX


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: clinton; elenakagan; emails; sunlightfoundation
Pages and pages of emails .. worth perusing. Shows the backroom lib politicking we've known, but in black and white. Couple of examples:

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Forwarded by Robert J. Pellicci/OMB/EOP on 06/14/99

05:24 PM ---------------------------

Robert J. Pellicci
06/14/99 04:52:35 PM
Record Type: Record

To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message

cc: Sandra Yamin/OMB/EOP@EOP, James J. Jukes/OMB/EOP@EOP, Janet R.

Forsgren/OMB/EOP@EOP

Subject: Justice letter on Child Custody Bill

You will shortly receive via fax Justice's proposed letter for tomorrow

morning's markup of HR 1218, the Child Custody Protection Act. This legislation would make it illegal to transport minors across state lines to obtain an abortion in order to circumvent parental consent laws.

The Justice letter opposes the legislation and attaches its letter from last year on HR 3682, an almost identical bill from 105th Congress.

Comments are due at 5:30 p.m.

Message Sent To:

_________________________________________________________

KAGAN E@Al@CD@LNGTWY
Sylvia M. Mathews/OMB/EOP@EOP
Adrienne C. Erbach/OMB/EOP@EOP
Daniel N. Mendelson/OMB/EOP@EOP
Sarah Wilson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Jennifer M. Luray/WHO/EOP@EOP
Nicole R. Rabner/WHO/EOP@EOP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re-write of proposed Brady Letter, as edited by Bruce
11:44 AM 11 Jun 1999
from: Jose Cerda III

to: Broderick, Bruce N. Reed, Elena Kagan, Jane T., Leanne A. Shimabukuro

cc: Cathy R. Mays, Courtney O. Gregoire

Esteemed Colleagues:

Here's a re-write of the Brady letter. Bruce is going to shop it with higher ups in the West Wing, and try and get a final decision. We may or may not do it today, but we'll let you know as soon as we get a decision.

Janet/Broderick: Are you comfortable w/your Brady supporter list? Do we need to re-check?

jc3

*snip*

June 11, 1999

Dear [Brady Bill Supporter]:

Six years ago, you showed extraordinary political courage by standing up to the gun lobby and voting for the Brady bill. That law has helped to make America a safer place.

Next week, you will have the opportunity to vote on one of the most important pieces of gun legislation since the Brady bill. I urge you to stand up to the gun lobby once again, and support common sense measures to close the gun show and other loopholes.

Opponents of meaningful gun legislation are still making the same false arguments you heard six years ago, that criminals don't buy guns from gun dealers or at gun shows, and that any new gun law is just a plot to take away gun owners' rights.

Of course, all Americans now know the truth: since 1993, the Brady Law has blocked well over a quarter of a million illegal handgun sales to felons, fugitives, stalker, and other prohibited persons -- and no law-abiding citizen has been stopped from buying a gun for sport or self-protection. In fact, the Brady Law has proven to be one of the most effective law enforcement tools ever.

Under pressure from the gun lobby, some in the House have proposed gun show legislation that is riddled with new and dangerous loopholes similar to those that were defeated in the Senate. I urge you to reject that approach, and support the common sense measures enacted by the Senate.

Your vote on these important details can make the difference in whether or not we close the gun show loophole once and for all. For instance, if the current House proposal to put a 72-hour time limit on background checks at gun shows applied to our National Instant Check System (NICS), the Justice Department estimates that 22 percent of the fugitives and felons that have been denied guns -- or more than 9,300 since the start of this year -- would have them today.

But that is not all. The House bill would also allow hundreds of guns to be sold at flea markets without any background check, and it would prevent law enforcement from tracing many of guns that are sold at gun shows and later used in crimes.

As a supporter of the Brady bill, you have a record of putting the interests of the American people over the clout of the gun lobby. In the that same spirit, I ask you again to vote your convictions -- and vote once again to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I want to see her SENT emails.

1 posted on 07/03/2010 11:44:47 AM PDT by STARWISE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: onyx; penelopesire; seekthetruth; television is just wrong; jcsjcm; BP2; Pablo Mac; ...

~~Ping!


2 posted on 07/03/2010 11:46:08 AM PDT by STARWISE ( The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

http://elenasinbox.com/sent/

looking at it now


3 posted on 07/03/2010 11:50:11 AM PDT by smokingfrog ( - Eccl. 10:18 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

She’s clearly pro-Brady/anti-gun (like we didn’t know).

http://elenasinbox.com/thread/weekly-report-20/


4 posted on 07/03/2010 11:58:43 AM PDT by smokingfrog ( - Eccl. 10:18 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog; maggief; onyx; penelopesire; SE Mom; hoosiermama; nutmeg; Just A Nobody; Liz; piasa; ..

WOW! I didn’t see her “SENT” emails were available. Thank you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Timely excerpt:

Re: Racial Profiling and Immigration Enforcement
6:58 PM 25 Mar 1999
from: Elena Kagan
to: Bruce N. Reed

——————————— Forwarded by ElenaKagan/OPD/EOP on 03/25/99 07:01
PM -—————————————

“Christopher F. Edley, Jr.”
03/25/99 06:43:22 PM
Record Type: Record

To: Maria Echaveste/WHO/EOP
cc: Elena Kagan/OPD/EOP, Clara J. Shin/WHO/EOP
Subject: Re: Racial Profiling and Immigration Enforcement

Below from Bob Bach. The problem is getting them to say what their policy is. It is hard and unpleasant in either direction, so they want to avoid letting people know what their policy is. I’m against this on principle.

It is a hard issue. But it is an important issue to a lot of us, especially the Hispanic advocacy community. I think the President needs to face it.

I’m glad Bach and DOJ are a little ashamed of their unwillingness to disclaim use of ethnicity as a factor.

That’s part of my strategy — pressing to figure out if the enforcement imperative is really worth the shame and heat.

Maybe INS/DOJ should be pushed by someone other than me???

(Someone please forward to Irene Bueno.)

http://elenasinbox.com/thread/racial-profiling-and-immigration-enforcement/


5 posted on 07/03/2010 12:21:12 PM PDT by STARWISE ( The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
Choice document
6 posted on 07/03/2010 12:23:40 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( - Eccl. 10:18 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog; All

I’ll say ............. BUMP TO #6!


7 posted on 07/03/2010 12:26:05 PM PDT by STARWISE ( The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
Is there someplace I can get a mouse pad?

Try the 99¢ store, dummy!
LOL!

8 posted on 07/03/2010 12:32:22 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( - Eccl. 10:18 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog; STARWISE

ROFL!


9 posted on 07/03/2010 12:40:08 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
5th commandment
10 posted on 07/03/2010 12:44:59 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( - Eccl. 10:18 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; smokingfrog

Ooh jeeze ...


11 posted on 07/03/2010 1:35:20 PM PDT by STARWISE ( The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog; Ernest_at_the_Beach; piasa; onyx; hoosiermama; wagglebee; woofie; NYer

Abortion

http://elenasinbox.com/thread/abortion/?q=acog


12 posted on 07/03/2010 1:39:19 PM PDT by STARWISE ( The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Nice find.

Makes me wonder if Kagan has an interest in the abortion industry, personally or financially—we already know she has a political interest in it, but her aggressiveness leads to something deeper.


13 posted on 07/03/2010 2:15:24 PM PDT by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

http://elenasinbox.com/search/?q=gay

254 messages


14 posted on 07/03/2010 2:26:37 PM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

two pieces in Times
9:02 AM 10 Jun 1999
from: Barry J. Toiv
to: Elena Kagan

1. Thernstrom op-ed — Is that OCR report a problem for our testing and
standards, etc.?

2. Safire — We should probably think about guidance on the question of
repealing the 2nd amendment if Safire’s going to be talking about it

two pieces in Times
9:02 AM 10 Jun 1999
from: Barry J. Toiv
to: Elena Kagan

1. Thernstrom op-ed — Is that OC”R report a problem for our testing and
standards, etc.?

2. Safire — We should probably think about guidance on the question of
repealing the 2nd amendment if Safire’s going to be talking about it

<,


15 posted on 07/03/2010 3:03:03 PM PDT by FroedrickVonFreepenstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Lots of good stuff, Thanks!!!


16 posted on 07/03/2010 5:14:20 PM PDT by diji (IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS, PLEASE, FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

FYI — Brady Arrests4:58 PM 16 Jun 1999

from: Jose Cerda III

to: Bruce N. Reed, Elena Kagan, Leanne A. Shimabukuro

BR/EK:

Today in Florida, ATF indicted 17 Brady Law violators (yes, false claims
cases) and arrested 15 of them. What timing, eh?!


17 posted on 07/03/2010 5:26:31 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

ypu were right9:55 AM 02 Aug 1995 from: Elena Kagan
to: Todd Stern

In case you ever doubted your own political judgment, see p. 16 of this week’s
Time magazine.
RE: ypu were right11:23 AM 02 Aug 1995 from: Todd
to: Elena Kagan

Thanks for the heads up. Devroy’s lead paragraph in today’s Post
leads to the same conclusion. So now two of us agree. Hope
you’re well. Let’s hook up again soon. todd


18 posted on 07/03/2010 5:38:33 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Letters to Wlson and Davis9:59 AM 28 Jul 1995 from: Elena Kagan
to: Abner J. Mikva

As you no doubt know by now, the letter to Davis ended up going to Wilson as
well. Because of that decision,which Barry Toiv informed me of, I took out some
of the stuff early on that referred specifically to Davis. Toiv put in the
phrase “in order to apply with all applicable law.” Emerson added the sentence
saying that the Chief of Staff had instructed you to work with the UC system in
solving any problems. (James and I discussed paging you on the golf course for
this and decided not to.) Panetta read it and much to Toiv’s surprise, changed
nothing. I think I do a fairly good Abner J. Mikva signature.


19 posted on 07/03/2010 5:42:53 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Late night session10:15 AM 26 Jul 1995 from: Elena Kagan
to: Jon Yarowsky

A quick summary of yesterday’s late night session. The two religious experts
made the case that Koresh was coming out soon, that a major breakthrough had
occurred on the 14th, etc. This testimony fit with the two lawyers’ testimony
earlier in the day, and allowed Republicans to press the case that if only the
FBI had waited, all would have ended well. The implication was that people in
Washington (exactly who was never made clear) made the decision to go forward
without knowing what those closer to the situation knew: that a corner had been
turned in the negotiations with Koresh.
The questioning of the Rangers was uneventful. They effectively defused the
controversy surrounding their conversations with Noble, in part by pointing out
that they had equally detailed conversations with Republican staff members, in
part by looking incorruptible. They criticized some aspects of the operation
and ‘supported others; in general, no one got very much out of them. All the
members participated in a kind of contest as to who could suck up to them (the
Rangers) more.
MOST IMPORTANT: At one point, out of the blue, Buyer stated the following
theory: In April 1993, a new administration was going through some rough times
— on both the domestic and foreign policy scenes. That administration, in a
panic over its falling poll numbers, determined to use Waco as an opportunity to
“do something” (i.e., anything), in an effort to look decisive and presidential.
In its effort to appear strong, the administration ignored the counsel of those
on the ground etc. In response, Congressman Green rebuked Buyer for making
allegations with no real basis. (Among other things, Green noted that Pres
Clinton would be grateful now for the approval ratings he had in the spring of
1993. )


20 posted on 07/03/2010 5:46:19 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

abortion memo2:38 PM 17 Jul 1995 from: Elena Kagan
to: James Castello

After you left, George asked that a draft of the decision memo be circulated;
after the meeting, he said that meant to Rasco, Rovlin, Griffin, and him. It
seems to me that the way to go is to recommend that the President reject the
bill because (1) it does not inlcude an exception for the health of the mother,
and (2) (not stressed as much) because it may apply to abortions that are done
prior to the last trimester and prior to viability. It sounds as if what George
wants is for the President to take an up-front position that if narrowed in
these two ways, he would support it. (We should make clear because George didn’t
seem to understand it, that such a bill would prevent abortions in cases of
fetal deformity.) As we’ve discussed, I think it would be hard to argue that
such a position is unconstitutional (i.e., I think OLC’s third argument is
weak). The question that the participants in the meeting didn’t realy focus on
is: what happens if the health exception is included, but the bill continues to
apply to pre-viability as well as post-viability abortions? As a legal matter,
the question here has to do with whether this an undue burden. A certain answer
to this question would require lots of facts we don’t know, having to do with
the circumstances in which this procedure could (or could not) be replaced by
other procedures; my hunch, though, is that the undue burden argument would be
a stretch.
abortion memo8:17 AM 20 Jul 1995 from: Elena Kagan
to: James Castello

Sorry I didn’t get back to you; I was at the Waco hearing all day (and night).
I actually think the old. paragraph was better. Here’s why. (1) Even under Roe,
I do not think courts would have automatically equated fetal deformities with
harm to maternal health. (2) The Schroeder bill also does not equate the two.
It seems to apply only when fetal deformity itself endangers women’s health;
perhaps there is a presumption that this will always be the case, but this
presumption is not spelled out. (3) Related to the above but more generally, I
think in this paragraph you equate the two too much. For some women, all fetal
deformities will pose a threat to maternal health; for other women, some will;
for other women, none will. I don’t think any court, now or before Casey,
automatically would have equated the two.
What have other people said about the memo generally?


21 posted on 07/03/2010 5:49:56 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson