Here’s a headline news story that has me scratching my head: FBI Says Lack of Public Interest in Hillary Emails Justifies Withholding Documents.
Hillary Clinton’s case isn’t interesting enough to the public to justify releasing the FBI’s files on her, the bureau said this week in rejecting an open-records request by a lawyer seeking to have the former secretary of state punished for perjury.
Ty Clevenger, the lawyer, has been trying to get Mrs. Clinton and her personal lawyers disbarred for their handling of her official emails during her time as secretary of state. He’s met with resistance among lawyers, and now his request for information from the FBI’s files has been shot down.
In the end, the FBI didn’t recommend charges against Mrs. Clinton, concluding that while she risked national security, she was too technologically inept to know the dangers she was running, so no case could be made against her.
“I’m just stunned. This is exactly what I would have expected had Mrs. Clinton won the election, but she didn’t. It looks like the Obama Administration is still running the FBI,” Mr. Clevenger told The Washington Times.
“How can a story receive national news coverage and not be a matter of public interest? If this is the new standard, then there’s no such thing as a public interest exception,” he said.
Technologically Inept
By my estimation, at least half the nation is interested in Hillary’s emails.
Hillary is not only technologically inept, she is inept in every way shape and form.
That’s my opinion, and you may disagree. That’s OK.
Dissent is welcome as long as you answer this simple question: Since when is being inept an excuse for breaking the law?
Bonus question: Is Hillary running the FBI?
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
If I or anyone else reading this blog had done half of what Hillary has over the years I’d be so far back in jail they’d have to pump oxygen in for me.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Most of us would be under the jail.
LikeLike
Like that Mexican drug runner guy who escaped from prison via underground tunnel?
LikeLike
@jack — “If I or anyone else reading this blog had done half of what Hillary has over the years I’d be so far back in jail they’d have to pump oxygen in for me”
+1000000
LikeLike
It’s funny that anyone thinks the FBI are law enforcement. From day one they have been spying on, and collecting information on, those in and around (figuratively) Washington. They are Washington’s cleaners same as mobster cleaners. They quickly dispose of anything that could be used to incriminate Washington. What do they do? They collect information as quickly as possible, and destroy it, hide it, classify it! Just look at TWA 800, 9/11, clintons, pedoesta, weiner, etc. etc. etc. if the fbi guys show up, it is because you have information they don’t want anyone to see. On the side they sometimes deal with criminals.
LikeLike
“Deal with criminals”? They ARE criminals.
LikeLike
If you had helped the CIA run drugs and arms to facilitate the numerous coups for Wall Street that have been documented by Perkins in CONFESSIONS OF ECONOMIC HIT MAN, you would have no problem with the visible government. Nobody messes with the Shadow Government.
LikeLike
No…
Actually I thought Christopher Wray was running the FBI ???
LikeLike
True,,,a Trump appointee,,,,and he has obviously been handed orders to “Stand Down” on matters Clinton.
Big ‘ol club, and we ain’t in it.
LikeLike
I thought I was the only one thinking perhaps Trump doesn’t want to have her indicted. There was a joke going around that Trump ran on a golf bet with Bill Clinton at one of Trumps courses. There was also a story that Bill deliberately got on Lorett Lynches plane knowing full well the press would crucify everyone and it would screw her chances of being president. I wish to god I would save some of this crap floating on the internet but I’d have to get an FBI NSA type server . Has this been the the Chinese year of Bull Shit or what?
LikeLike
“Big ‘ol club, and we ain’t in it.”
Correct.
Plus, there’s the unwritten rule for a new prez that the tens of thousands of pages of federal regulations that can easily make any peon (but NOT royalty) an unintentional felon several times over are not applied to the previous prez even if the transgressions were severe. This is a CYA move by the acting prez to make certain the same isn’t applied to him when he leaves office.
Book: Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to “white collar criminals,” state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.
LikeLike
“Big ‘ol club, and we ain’t in it.”
+1
All anyone really needs to know, is The Government runs the FBI. For the benefit of The Government.
LikeLike
Hillary is corrupt enough and well connected enough to bluff through her obvious ineptness. The FBI is due a thorough scouring with an industrial strength sandblaster.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did this story come from “The Onion”?
Others who did the same thing but not as much went to jail for it. One guy volunteered the information that he did a little bit of it accidentally, but he went to jail anyway. It’s nice to have influential friends. Clintons don’t need no stinkin Rule of Law.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sadly I saw it on Washington Times myself.
The reason I’m a subscriber of Mish since 2009, I have never seen Mish pitch bs.
LikeLike
Sadly I saw it on Washington Times myself.
The reason I’m a subscriber of Mish since 2009, I have never seen Mish pitch bs.
LikeLike
This is part and parcel of the corrupted swamp establishment that Trump campaigned against. It’s not just one or two bad apples. The entire barrel is rotted.
Over the years the FBI was probably our most trustworthy LE government agency. It and the media were our last lines of defense against government tyranny, other than pitch forks and torches. We lost the media a long time ago. They joined the enemy. Now it appears as if the FBI has sided with the bad guys.
This is precisely the reason it was absurd to put Mueller in charge of the special investigation over the Trump administration. He has an agenda and a mission with special instructions from the swamp dwellers in charge. He can’t afford to return empty-handed. How hard would it be to open up the books on any billionaire for the past 10-20 years and not find some dirt?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Errr dude, remember your President wrote a letter firing the FBI director because he was too mean to Hillary. Remember, he wrote that down and signed his name to it as cause for him firing the FBI Director.
If you think the problem here is a corrupt FBI and not people like you being sold as suckers by a con-man Emperor sporting ‘new clothes’ then you are the problem.
LikeLike
Where in the hell did your get bull sheet from you libtard troll. Your the one that needs to leave the site. Like him or not President Trump is fighting the bs press and spineless representatives of congress and senate. Along with the communist leftist followers of Saul Alinsky Hillary and Obama. Right or wrong Trump won the election according to the rules of our constitution.
Pack your pen, computer or phone and take a hike back to CNN you liberal or never trumper crap hound. I don’t know about anyone else here but I’m sick of crap hounds like you bashing our President and our constitution.
LikeLike
Again keep reminding yourself of the fact that your President signed his name to a letter saying the FBI Director had to go because he was too mean to Hillary. Not that he let her get away with a crime, not that he didn’t investigate her properly.
LikeLike
If a letter with that reason exists outside your imagination produce it or a link to it. Funny how my searches only lead to references to Director and AG recommendation letters, themselves similarly lacking that reason. An FBI director who rewrites law on the fly (“intent” ) to his liking in the face of case precedent isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit to anyone except banana republic partisans and benefactors. Or like Clowney Crony Comey, are you just going to have a friend read “portions of it” over the phone.?
LikeLike
Link?
LikeLike
Some people just follow where ever the MSM leads them. In horse racing terms they have blinkers on, less they see something they’re not supposed to see.
LikeLike
If you are going to run a successful criminal enterprise, the first thing you do is make sure everyone in the swamp has some form of collusion. If you get busted, everyone goes down. That seems to be where the Clintons are and the reason for leniency.
LikeLike
Trump’s finest hour was when he showed up at the last debate with four of Bill’s accusers as his guests. He asserted then that she should be indicted and prosecuted.
That is when he got his biggest boost in the polls and chants of “Lock her up!!” were raised to thunderous levels at his campaign stops.
The voters were the only people who could stop HRC and they did so on Nov 8, 2016. Now we find out even that may not be enough…
LikeLike
I can’t imagine the number of people involved, but inside the FBI? My mind is swimming. There’s a whole ‘nother story around them.
LikeLike
Agreed
LikeLike
She’s a thoroughly horrible person, but what law did she break related to the server? It sounds like this guy is trying to pin a perjury charge on her.
LikeLike
She broke a host of laws related to the treatment of classified information. What’s more, she didn’t do it accidentally. She did it quite consciously so that she could avoid future freedom of information act requests that would expose the almost risibly overt pay to play bribe machine that she was running at the state department with her “charity”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree her motivation for using her own server was so she could control what would ultimately be released, but the FBI investigated her and found no grounds for any charge. Those are the facts whether you agree or not. To re-open the same investigation could only be politically motivated, banana republic shit. But to start an investigation into a different crime, like perjury, bribery, or whatever could be sold as legitimate.
LikeLike
Actually, in his press conference, Comey outlined something close to an open and shut case of her violating several laws in regard to the handling of classified information but then invented out of thin air a requirement, not actually in any of the relevant laws, that she didn’t intentionally expose classified information to theft so she couldn’t be prosecuted. As many actual lawyers, (I’m an engineer), outlined afterward, there is no such requirement to find positive intent to expose classified material in the law. The perpetrator only had to be negligent which she certainly was, at the very least.
LikeLike
“The perpetrator only had to be negligent which she certainly was, at the very least.”
Gen. David Petraeus exposed one single page of a classified document to a woman (okay, a mistress) that was writing his biography. Even she had been clearanced but it had expired by the time of the infraction. That cost him his position as national security adviser and effectively ended his career. Negligence, not intent.
LikeLike
Neither ignorance of the law nor ineptness are legiimate defence under law. Excuses but not defences.
The well connected always win when it comes to exposing wrongdoing.
Using she was inept and no one is interested as reasons? Does someone have a hold over TPTB?
LikeLike
Yes, many lawyers on Fox News said she broke the law, and many on CNN said she didn’t. All opinions, all irrelevant.
LikeLike
Shamrock wrote “those are the facts whether you agree with them or not.”
No, that was the conclusion of the FBI.
What was concluded can be different from what the facts are.
People have gone to prison for the same crimes she committed regarding handling of classified information.
America has become the ‘banana republic’ we used to laugh at.
LikeLike
Your kidding right?
LikeLike
My what?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You understand you can’t put Classified data on a server in your own home, right? Maybe not.
LikeLike
Yes you can take classified information (up to a certain level) out of a secure environment. You do need to follow procedures to safeguard it from unauthorized access.
LikeLike
There is a sailor in PRISON for simply photographing the inside of a sub. Hillary DELIBERATELY PUT national secrets at risk. The law clearly states that INTENT is irrelevant. She did it and doesn’t even deny it. A server in her closet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And don’t forget she also intentionally destroyed evidence after being specifically told to preserve evidence, which is another crime. The crimes are glaringly obvious. The FBI is not supposed to decide who deserves prosecution, they are supposed to present the evidence to a Grand Jury. The cover-up by FBI personnel is yet another crime. If the Swamp ever really gets emptied, it is going to be pretty empty.
Speaking of which ~ according to the US Debt Clock, in the last 10 days the number of people working for government has decreased by 1309.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, thank you. I thought I was the only one in dis-belief of this statement. That along with the judge throwing out Sara Palin’s lawsuit against the NY Times was just a little too much to take in one day. Did Trump win or was that just a nice dream I had?
Sherlok
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly right and it’s seems that they are the only ones that get anything done. What cool about Judicial watch is they go after everybody. Trump included. Ttmyghmmm
Does that mean their days are numbered?
I hope not. I think they are certainly worth a donation or two, more especially so since our days of freedom are numbered.
LikeLike
Can’t say that I believe everything, or anything, for that matter, that I might read in the newspapers, online journals, and sundry other sources. If there was a Freedom of Information request under the Freedom of Information Act then i would find it difficult to see how any FBI manager, spokesman, or officer would risk their career by asserting such bunkum. But during these times I am not really surprised by what passes for intelligence. i hope a judge will inform the FBI that it is not up to them to determine what is and is not in the public’s interest. J. Edgar is starting to look totally honest nest to today’s crowd.
LikeLike
The Judicial Watch organization is constantly having to get court orders to force government agencies to turn over information they try to hide.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have they been denied due to lack of public interest?.
LikeLike
No, that’s a new excuse. Trump needs to find out who made up that excuse and say “you’re fired”. Something is very wrong if he doesn’t.
LikeLike
Everything government does is in the public interest.
It may sometimes be OK to delay release of some information to to public; say, during planning of the Normandie invasion, or a hot investigation.
But as soon as the most immediate of immediate reasons to not release are over, put every document, every video every everything on Youtube or Wikileaks and move on. So the supposed “Masters” can get to pour over evidence of whether their supposed “Servants” have been serving them well. Instead of merely serving themselves.
LikeLike
The big question is: why are Trump and Sessions still defending and hiding the corruption of the Obama administration? This is no way to drain a swamp:
http://dailysignal.com/2017/08/23/trumps-justice-department-appointees-protecting-irs/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newslink&utm_term=members&utm_content=20170830040811
LikeLike
No. I’d say the “big question” is, “why isn’t she being prosecuted for conspiring to murder over 100 potential witnesses against her”. What has the FBI done about those publicly known facts? Of course the FBI is complicit, as are all the homicide detectives who have let her get away with all of those crimes. Of course too, she could by now have been held accountable for all the deaths she caused in the middle East. The woman is a mass murdering menace. The only explanation that makes any sense is that every branch of government is run by people over whom she has “blackmail power.”
LikeLike
Yes, I love how honest politicians and government officials must be forced to divulge the truth. Restores my faith in due process.
Actually, we have always had the problem of government not being honest with us. Too bad we do not have automatic removal from office for less than full disclosure.
LikeLike
The Washington Times? Christ. It was founded by a literal cult leader. I’m not sure you’re going to find an unbiased source of information there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2015/washington-times-has-history-hyped-stories-shoddy-reporting-and-failing-correct-errors
It’s healthy to be skeptical, just be aware of your own confirmation bias (which we all suffer from).
LikeLike
From your link:
“The Times was established by Moon to combat communism and be a conservative alternative to what he perceived as the liberal leanings of The Washington Post. Since then, the paper has fought to prove its editorial independence, trying to demonstrate that it is neither a “Moonie paper” nor a booster of the political right but rather a fair and balanced reporter of the news.[11]
Conservative commentator Paul Weyrich commented:
The Washington Post became very arrogant and they just decided that they would determine what was news and what wasn’t news and they wouldn’t cover a lot of things that went on. And the Washington Times has forced the Post to cover a lot of things that they wouldn’t cover if the Times wasn’t in existence.[72]”
I guess if you do not want to hear anything bad about liberals you would subscribe to WaPo and dislike the Times.
LikeLike
Should have gone down a little bit further in your google search of Washington Times
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/
LikeLike
tiptoe, you offered SPLC as an unbiased source? You are joking, right? They have gone extreme left, which is too bad since they used to do some good things.
LikeLike
LikeLike
What is the “FBI”???
LikeLike
Face Book 1 ?
LikeLike
FBI = For Bipartisan Interference
LikeLike
FBI = Foreigners Buying Influence
LikeLike
Fat bald and ignorant
LikeLike
When I was a kid, the FBI was Female Body Inspectors.
I was a kid a long time ago.
LikeLike
Well, that’s the Bill Clinton connection, right there!
LikeLike
If anyone outside the Clinton crime syndicate had pulled even half the felonies this so-called Hillary “lady” has pulled, we would already be in prison. The trial would have been quick, and we would have been sentenced long ago.
The FBI might as well have announced they cannot be trusted to enforce the law equally. The FBI are either incompetent or compromised (bribed).
Time to purge the FBI rank and file
LikeLike
O/T — rescue groups and police are trying to rescue some of the dogs (and other animals) that were tied up and abandoned by their useless humans as Harvey approached.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/29/rescue-groups-law-enforcement-work-to-save-animals-displaced-by-harvey.html
Hopefully these animals can find homes where they get the same loyalty from humans that they give the humans.
And hopefully, we humans will stop the practice of building houses at sea level and then acting surprised when storms flood the area (storms that have been happening for centuries, long before Al Gore wanted to tax the weather).
Instead of bombing more sand in the middle east, how about we put a few bucks into proper infrastructure (NOT public unions) back here in the USA? Houston was well known for clogged street drains BEFORE Harvey.
LikeLike
I have never understood why people will buy homes on low ground, subject to flooding. I have found that houses on high ground don’t cost any more. dumb dumb dumb (sorry Houston folks, I do feel sorry for you).
LikeLike
That’s easy. Hurricane Betsy led to the National Flood Insurance Program in 1968.
Now ask why the cost of a college education is disconnected from the market economy. That’s easy too. 🙂
LikeLike
Part of the problem is that Houston is on a layer of slate. The ground can’t absorb much water to begin with, but 50 inches of rain exposes all kinds of problems seen only once every few hundred years. Freaky stuff that can’t be remedied by any normal actions.
LikeLike
About 2000 years ago, someone invented a drain pipe. Centuries before that, someone invented a drainage ditch.
You can make all the excuses you want, but at the end of the day its just excuses. If you can build a city there, if you can build foundations for multi-story buildings, if you can build foundations for massive refineries and chemical plants… then you could (if you wanted to) build drainage too.
There was a conscience and deliberate decision (lots of them over many years) to save money by not building proper drainage.
LikeLike
BTW — I was also opposed to handing out free money in New Orleans; rewarding people for building houses in flood zones and mangrove fields is foolish.
I was also opposed to bailing out north eastern states from Sandy; the flooding was localized to beach communities, built right at “normal” high tide water level. The power outages were mostly caused by decades of neglect of basic infrastructure and trees (both of which were billed for every year for decades). My street lost power for a month because an insect ridden tree fell on top of a 42 year old phone pole… and it took the utility union workers more than a month before “they allowed” out of state workers to come in and fix things. We had to wait a month because of f-ing utility union rules.
Hurricanes hit the east cost of the USA almost every year. They have been hitting for centuries. There is no excuse for “the greatest nation on Earth” not to plan for weather events that have happened and continue to happen regularly. The Natl Weather Service puts out a list of 50+ names at the beginning of every season because these storms are not unexpected nor unprecedented.
And if corrupt union rules get in the way of planning for regular weather events, than seize their pensions and ban the unions. Enough already.
PS — tax the cr@p out of CNN for trying to use the tragedy to boost their ratings. Home Depot donated $250K, Walmart donated $1 million, Coca Cola… dozens of companies that are regularly demonized by the wet-farts on CNN have donated to relief efforts. CNN and Time Warner contributed ziltch.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just remember, Michael….
LikeLike
Your media treats you like chumps. Don’t be chumps.
FBI did not cite a “lack of public interest”, meaning that members of the public are not curious. That would be dishonest. But oh what a headline for the chumps, right? A quick web search shows that Washington Times, Breitbart, Fox, Blaze, etc are all running with that angle, not to mention all of the bottom feeders that rip and run stories using those sites as “sources”.
FBI denied the request because the paperwork did not demonstrate that the release would be “in the public’s interest”, which is an extremely well known term of art meaning “to the benefit of the populace, exceeding the harm that would be caused”. I don’t mean to be pedantic, but jeez don’t be the idiots they think you are!
There are well-defined standards for denying an FOIA request. Most folks here will be happy to learn that one of the most frequently used is when the release would harm an ongoing legal investigation.
So maybe HRC is still going to rot in jail for her sins.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Thank you – that’s a different case. Should have spent some time to peel it back.
LikeLike
Public interest is distinct from what the public finds interesting.
The FBI has it seems taken the perhaps bold step of deciding that justice and the public good generally are not served by release of some information about Clinton. It presumably has good and sufficient reason for taking that view although it must have expected to see it challenged.
LikeLike
Lack of public interest? Sounds like CNN is running the FBI.
LikeLike
Keep lid on. Must keep lid on. Can’t let lid blow. Must keep lid on. Keep lid on…
LikeLike
Hillary is dead and buried, except for when they dig her up from time to time, wave her arms around and yell for the “booga booga!” I wonder what they might be trying to distract us from…
LikeLike
Under this is the same reasoning that let the bankers off.
LikeLike
Tptb deciding what the plebs are interested in.
Who asked the plebs?
LikeLike
This is more of the “change” you can believe in!!!
LikeLike
I always wondered if any intelligent people actually read the Washington Times. Still wondering.
LikeLike
….Or “news” papers in general….
A day late and dead wrong, has been the universal motto in that camp, at least since Hazlitt was at NYT.
LikeLike
No Rule of law that is what it means. When will the citizens rise up?
LikeLike
question # 1: answer when you are Hillary
bonus question answer: she is running something, fbi? maybe. I would guess higher up.
answer to the bonus bonus question which you didn’t ask:
kissinger
LikeLike
Here’s a thought for you commenters; If history rhymes every so often, then the USA is the modern France, Hillary is our Marie Antoinette, and we are in need of a revolution. (Today’s France will just erupt into a civil war type problem though, indeed, there is nothing civil about war.) There are too many to count of documented instances where such a royal screw up, similar to her fiasco, sent the person to prison, yet she walks free. Our “law” enforcement agencies are a joke and no longer a valid or trustworthy institution.
LikeLike
The corruption in our alphabet agencies especially the so called intelligence ones makes the Mafia pale in comparison! How soon they forgot all the Trump rallies calling LOCK HER UP!
LikeLike
Hillary will be seen as a great public servant and a true patriot. She is a dedicated politician that serve the interests of the people who have a vested interest in her. History will record her as a hero if the Democrats are allowed to rewrite history as they are trying to do now.
LikeLike
Hillary has much in common with Richard Nixon — he convinced himself he never did anything wrong, and he was never officially charged with any wrong doing.
Nixon had a foul mouth and didn’t always treat his enemies well, he wasn’t liked — but until Watergate he hadn’t broken any laws (yeah yeah, he knew nothing about Watergate either).
By contrast, Hillary is part of a crime family, but lacks the integrity to be a crime boss. She has broken so many laws its hard to keep track.
To paraphrase Nixon, “The American people want to know if their president is a crook, and Hillary **IS** a crook”
LikeLike
Thanks for your boldness to print this ‘post’. Our Gov’t is in dire straights…and it’s engrained in all Parties.Mike Timma
LikeLike
In the military at all ranks, releasing classified information is a criminal offense. Ignorance is no excuse. If Hillary Clinton is as ignorant as the FBI says she is, she is too stupid to hold any government office at any level. .
LikeLike
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
The military typically goes to great lengths to secure sensitive information because lives often depend upon it. Meanwhile, MORONS at high levels make accessing sensitive materials by unauthorized persons easy. Just the latest example of blatant incompetence:
Exclusive: Wasserman Schultz IT Staffer Banned From House Network Months Ago Still Has Active Account
A former IT aide suspected of stealing equipment and data from Congress still has an active, secret email account on the House computer system, even though he has been banned from the congressional network because of a criminal investigation into the alleged cybersecurity violations, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned.
Imran Awan’s still-active email address is linked to the name of a House staffer who specializes in intelligence and homeland security matters for Indiana Democratic Rep. André Carson. Court documents and emails obtained by TheDCNF show Awan used the address 123@mail.house.gov in addition to his standard imran.awan@mail.house.gov account.
Authorities apparently did not realize Awan has a second account that is not linked to his identity. While his main email address began rejecting mail after it was shut down, the 123 address was still accepting mail Tuesday.
—–
And, BTW, what kindergarden student filled out this affidavit revealing the above?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3983049-Scan.html
LikeLike
Hilary at Melania’s wedding to Trump.
We have no idea what’s really going on behind the curtain.
LikeLike
Er, Barack the merciful, the magnificent, and omnipotent, is still running the FBI.
LikeLike
Mish, you are confusing the FBI with Paul Harvey…
the FBI is not in the habit of revealing the “rest of the story”.
We are a Nation State of Perpetual War…
current administrations inherit the “skeletons in the closet” of the prior…
as the TRUTH is the first casualty of war.
“LOCK HER UP” was just another bull$hit promise from Trump…
all the enraged, republicans-can-do-no-wrong, dead heads…
should take THAT issue up with HIM.
The obsession with the LOSER of the Presidency is pointless…
our focus should be on the CURRENT, dysfunctional administration.
For starters, we have a clear indication of NO LEADERSHIP:
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson says Trump “SPEAKS FOR HIMSELF”.
I’d want to distance myself from a perpetual liar as well…
Looks like Trump has always been in it for himself.
LikeLike
Embedded video apparently not so embedded in the original post after all:
LikeLike
Wow…talk about made up excuses that have nothing to do with the law. I cannot find anything that says “lack of public interest” is a valid reason for denying an FOIA request. Law enforcement has many valid exemptions related to denying FOIA requests, “would interfere with ongoing investigation,” “would put people at risk,” etc, etc. The only mention of “lack of public interest” I can find is, if there is a lack of public interest in a request, then the Feds make the requesting party pay the bill for running the copies.
Apparently the FBI is no longer strictly concerned about law enforcement. That’s very bad news.
LikeLike
You need to read better news sources.
FBI did not cite “lack of public interest/curiosity”. They determined that the request did not adequately establish that the request is in “the public’s interest”, outweighing any associated harm.
This is the standard against which all FOIA requests are measured. The list of nine reasons to deny a request describe the criteria for determining the decision that is most beneficial to the populace — “in the public’s interest”.
The privacy of individuals involved is one criterion. Harmful effects on an ongoing legal investigation is another.
We don’t know *why* this request was denied, but *all* denials are literally the result of a determination that the release would not be “in the public’s interest”.
It really pains me to see “journalists” intentionally misinterpret this simple and well-established fact, just to rile up their readers. This is literally Fake News. And you’re the victim. Don’t be the chump they think you are!
LikeLike
Andrew, I think you make a valid point and I do not dispute what you are saying (except I like to think I am not quite as gullible as you suggest).
I have to wonder what the “associated harm” could be that you refer to. Harm to Hillary Clinton or her associates personally? Why would that be? Many FOIA responses have those kind of details heavily redacted. All I would ask in this case is, if the denial is perfectly valid as you say, then the FBI should certainly make the reason for their denial very specific and clear.
I realize the FBI does not control the accuracy of how what they say is reported by others, but they certainly can make their reasoning clear to anyone who cares to dig even a little. They do have a website where they can make public statements and have total control over what is published, yes?
I would also appreciate you being specific in referring me to “better news sources.” Please tell me, which news sources should I be reading, exactly?
LikeLike
The “you” was meant in the collective sense, not individual. Sorry for the implication otherwise, this stuff really makes me incredulous.
The point I was trying to make is that we do not know _why_ the FBI denied the FOIA request. Just that there are nine categories of exceptions to the default decision (which is disclosure), and they all result in a declaration of “not in the public’s interest”.
I too wonder what potential harm they weighed in making their decision. As noted, it could well be that there is, or is expected to be, an open investigation that would be compromised by disclosure.
Or, it could be HRC’s expectation of privacy on her private email server. Yes, that would be disturbing and sickeningly ironic. But we don’t know.
We do, absolutely, know that the FBI did _not_ deny the request because they think the public is not curious. And that’s the lie that several media sources are running with, and it’s appalling and insulting. Literal Fake News, and anyone who believes the lie is a victim, often all too willing, but a victim nevertheless.
As for other news sources, I don’t know. But any source that runs with this dishonest drama story is utterly disqualified. When I did a search for the keywords, I saw that Fox, Breitbart, Blaze, and some others were running the lie. Milking it for all it’s worth. That’s a problem.
And it reflects the level of respect they have for their readers. Zero.
LikeLike
Hm…
I’m confused.
Hillary created a server – while under the employ of the United States of America – and on that server she ran a program to send and receive messages that were sent and received in the course of her duties in the employ of the United States of America and some of which contained data considered classified at some level by her employer.
Given this simple reality, she has ZERO expectations of privacy – as does anyone else who used that server to send or receive e-mails whether they *knew* that the server was an insecure personal server or not.
The second she hit the “send” button on the first e-mail that contained content related to her work for the United States, classified or not – she opened the entire server up for scrutiny by her employer.
It isn’t rocket science.
LikeLike
Excellent reply. The public’s interest in Hillary Clinton’s actions are a matter of public record. It is weak for the FBI to be asserting that Clinton has privacy rights on a server that was used for state business while she was Secretary of State. (If that is what the FBI is asserting. At the moment I am not sure what they intend to be stating.)
LikeLike
It ain’t rocket science, true. Nevertheless, you’re wrong.
HRC’s “private” mail server, even if illegally repurposed for official work, is still two things: government confidential, and private citizen private.
Either of those designations will exempt the content from FOIA disclosure. Critically, they will _not_ exempt the content from examination by law enforcement. But that has already happened, and this is something completely unrelated.
Go ahead, try to FOIA the contents of the State Dept official email server for the same time period. Or the email server for a private business which ran into legal trouble, with charges dismissed. Same result. Not rocket science.
LikeLike
You sound like you know law enforcement. Thanks for shedding some light on the situation. I did check the FBI website before originally posting my comment on this forum and I did not find anything at that time. I think it would help their case if they posted a concise explanation for public consideration as you just did.
LikeLike
Lack of public interest is clearly sensationalism in the title. The article says
“You have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests of the subject,” FBI records management section chief David M. Hardy told Mr. Clevenger in a letter Monday.
“It is incumbent upon the requester to provide documentation regarding the public’s interest in the operations and activities of the government before records can be processed pursuant to the FOIA,” Mr. Hardy wrote.
My questions are: How can it not be in the public interest to disclose potential nation-threatening behaviors by HC? and How does one go about providing documentation of the public’s interest when the very information you are requesting is the answer to that question?
Are we to believe the FBI looked and said, “Well, that’s not too bad. Doesn’t outweigh HC’s privacy interests.” Hell, of course she wants to keep it private.
Too much of the government taking care of its own for my taste. I say string her up (just on general principals.)
_aleph_
LikeLike
> How can it not be in the public interest to disclose potential nation-threatening behaviors by HC?
Simple. The public does not investigate crimes. That’s the exclusive responsibility of law enforcement, and obviously FBI has been all over the contents.
They have decided, at least as publicly communicated, that no crime worthy of prosecution has been committed. Letting the public run through private communications adds no investigative value.
We might disagree with that decision, but we can’t exactly override them. In the absence of legally incriminating evidence, do we not all have an expectation of privacy?
LikeLike
So incompetent politicians who have no clue how a major percentage of GDP is produced in this country, using a technology that is used by nearly 100% of every business, individual and organization in the US, gets a pass from a major percentage of voters because she is just too stupid to understand all these “high tech” things? What about all her techno-experts who should have told her what’s what? (What the hell is a “techno-expert” anyway? A DJ?
BS. But how long is the “I’m just a dumb user” going to be an acceptable excuse for voters? Why is the meare suggestion that she’s unable to understand even the most simple rules about email accounts and forwarding given a pass in this day and age?
I have two cell phones. One for work, one for personal use. It isn’t difficult. You don’t mix the two. Yes, it’s a pain to carry two phones, but I have access to a network that has confidential customer data, and I don’t want to be the one who compromises it due to an accident.
LikeLike
Son, that’s one even yo momma won’t believe.
LikeLike