Immaculate Constellation SAP

[UltraBudgie]

The Mace report, while citing an author, makes it quite clear in the opening paragraph it’s a scrubbed account that was ran through Public Affairs before being approved for release due to the source documents still being controlled.

It mentions the Bureau of Global Public Affairs, which has several areas of activity, but does not appear to themselves do national security review, for example:

The Digital Content team provides an integrated approach to digital channel strategy to engage the right audiences on the right platforms and utilizes creative and strategic production capabilities to communicate ideas and tell stories across channels and audiences

Creative Office
Video Office
Platforms Office
The Audience and Distribution Strategy Office

https://www.state.gov/about-us-bureau-of...c-affairs/

I find it a little eyebrow raising that the disclaimer of review in the opening paragraph is built right in to the document; usually redacted documents claim that separately in a cover letter or such, since modifying a redacted document would invalidate the process. They could do that, in a multilayer review process, but not get the section numbering right? It lends weight to the claim that the document is structured to appear redacted.

Of course I don't know what I'm talking about and no one does and its all a labyrinth anyway and disclosure has already happened and it's all talking about claims about hearsay and this is all narrative for foreign competitors and okay whatever.


ETA: And one thought that's recurred to me several times now that I'll mention: Trust cannot be rebuilt on the same level of engagement upon which it was destroyed. So for there to be a context in which this issue actually advances, doesn't it have to be broadly international?