Brzezinski on Clinton Emails: ‘Can’t Pretend to Be Transparent ... You Haven’t Been’

BRZEZINSKI: "Wall Street Journal reports that top Clinton staffers kept a tight rein on document releases during her tenure at State. It has to do with items requested under the Freedom of Information Act."

SCARBOROUGH: "That's what we were talking about. I don't understand."

BRZEZINSKI: "The paper cites anonymous sources who say at one instance Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, bring up Cheryl, you know Cheryl, asked to see documents that were requested and related to the Keystone pipeline."

SCARBOROUGH: "They're mad at her because she's a woman."

BRZEZINSKI: "Mills reportedly asked that some not be released. According to the Journal [indecipherable] some documents having to do with President Clinton's speaking engagements also be held back."

SCARBOROUGH: "Wait. What? I don't understand?

BRZEZINSKI: "A spokesman for Hillary Clinton told Journal that Mills didn't inappropriately interfere with the process."

SCARBOROUGH: "Inappropriately, that's an important word."

BRZEZINSKI: "And also says the State Department takes FOIA, that's Freedom of Information requests very seriously and has a rigorous process [crosstalk] in place, for handling the thousands of requests that come in. Clintons -- so what do they do if a request comes in and it's scrubbed? Do you just get -- a piece of paper gets completely redacted?"

SCARBOROUGH: "So Mark Halperin, get us through this. I was reading an article this morning, it was an AP article that just says that this doesn't usually happen. I am sure I am going to hear not everybody only did this but killed Billy [indecipherable] and they had tied back to their agency. [crosstalk]. And it's not just the Clintons that did this, that everybody did this, was slaughtering Billy goats and the like. Why do you always pick on the Clintons? I just trust in this article that says this is highly unusual. You don't let people that work for you scrub what you are going to let out and what you are not going to let out, especially like Bill Clinton making $550,000 for speeches. Why is that protected under the FOIA Act and is there anybody in Washington, D.C. that is responsible for this? That is going to step forward and say, yes, the American people can actually trust there is a shred of transparency in their government, even if we let rock stars be secretary of state."

HALPERIN: "I think the inspector general should look at this because career FOIA experts are the ones that should be making these decisions, not political appointees. And this Journal story, which is an important story, raises three issues that have been around that are not [indecipherable] issues and not holding the Clintons to a different standard. One is secrecy. One is a failure to play by the normal rules that they really should play by. And a third is people around the Clintons working hard to do what the Clintons want done --" [crosstalk]

BARNICLE: "Mike Barnicle, what's the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act? Is it so politicians can have their henchmen decide what they are going to let out and what they are not going to let out?"

BARNICLE: "As Mark Halpern just mentioned, the key to the Freedom of Information Act in terms of making it work the way it's supposed to work is you can't have political appointees run it, you should have career bureaucrats." 

SCARBOROUGH: "Cheryl Mills and Jeremy Peters of all people? Cheryl Mills, of all people, deciding? She goes from finding to the impeachment wars, to fighting the, you know, this latest round. I mean, who is Cheryl Mills to decide what the American people can see and what the American people cannot see?"

PETERS: "Unfortunately, anybody who's dealt with trying to get documents out of the government entity knows that the people who handle these requests make the TSA look like an efficient and competent arm of government. I mean, it's all constant foot dragging to get government entities to release these things. That said, Hillary Clinton and her behavior in the State Department, the way that she and her officials conducted themselves, doesn't exactly appear at this point as they are committed to openness and transparency. There are a lot of questions here."

SCARBOROUGH: "Jeremy, can I ask you, is this any different? Let's ask a question that the Clintons will certainly ask. Is this different than what happens at any other department? Are we just focusing on it because Hillary Clinton is running for president?"

PETERS: "It does seem in this case as there was a level of control over her documents that you would come to expect from the Clintons. I mean, certainly, they've demonstrated that they do not --  I mean, look at the e-mail server. Right? That's a perfect example. So I think there is a pattern here."

BRZEZINSKI: "You know, I think there is a problem. I think the sound bite where she is saying, of course, we want them to move quickly, just release all the e-mails -- well, there aren't any. There is only 55,000. There is a whole bunch that is not ever going to be released."

SCARBOROUGH: "They're e-mails that she wanted to be released."

BRZEZINSKI: "You can't pretend to be transparent when you haven't been and when you can never be again, because you absolutely destroyed all the information."

BARNICLE: "If, under the FOIA Act, you request from an agency of government specific information, they do, indeed, drag their feet. I'd also point out that I strongly suspect that if you apply to get documents from the Bureau of Indian Affairs or something like that as opposed to [indecipherable] State Department, you will get them far more quickly from the Bureau of Indian Affairs."

BRZEZINSKI: "Fair enough."