Quickly on experience: I was a state homeland security advisor so received (was consumer of) these and I was an Assistant Secretary at DHS working with the SLTT stakeholders. Classification was always FOUO (For Official Use Only) meaning that it wasn't secret in any real sense 2/
A good academic researcher could have figured it out, but it is something DHS would want its partners to know (others I remember were about the rise of recreational drones near airports or increase in Fentanyl.) There was always an expectation information would be public; 3/
while sent to law enforcement agencies generally, there isn't anything especially super secret. It was more of a way to provide transparency to the entire homeland; most police departments don't have sophisticated intelligence capabilities like NYPD. 4/
So I believe the classification and order of what Karl found is key. First, the Bulletin's would always be sent to communications, political and legislative offices under belief that they would get a heads up. That's what the documents show. 5/
The return demand "hold up until you have had a chance to review with S1 (shorthand for Secretary)" elevates to a level -- the big boss -- not normal in the course of these. Of course, it is Russia, and misinformation, and so we would expect some sensitivities 6/
But the failure to have this released suggests that the "sensitivities" were to protect Trump or Russia. Trump consistently focuses on Biden's health; the Russian's do too. But I think Karl also exposes an irony (beyond the mere treachery) here 7/
which is related to ODNI Ratcliffe's statement that he will no longer allow verbal briefings to Congress about election interference. It is that the fear of leaks by Congress is a total sham. The leak here CAME FROM DHS. Trump's DHS. Anyway, just some background. @jonkarl 8/8
