It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What you attached means nothing in this case.
The public declaration of David M. Hardy (“Hardy Decl.”), see ECF No. 9-1, which was filed concurrently with Defendant’s Motion, provided detailed information sufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request and properly withheld responsive information pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(A). See Hardy Decl. ¶¶ 10-24. The Hardy Declaration also explained, however, that the FBI could not provide more information on the public record without adversely affecting the ongoing investigation that is the subject of Plaintiff’s FOIA request.
Exemption 7 of the FOIA, as amended, protects from disclosure "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual."
As such, it was consistently construed to exempt all material contained in an investigatory file, regardless of the status of the underlying investigation or the nature of the documents requested. (3) In 1974, Congress rejected the application of a "blanket" exemption for investigatory files and narrowed the scope of Exemption 7 by requiring that withholding be justified by one of six specified types of harm. (4) Under this revised Exemption 7 structure, an analysis of whether a record was protected by this exemption involved two steps: First, the record had to qualify as an "investigatory record compiled for law enforcement purposes"; second, its disclosure had to be found to threaten one of the enumerated harms of Exemption 7's six subparts.
Under this exemption, an agency must demonstrate that the records “relate to any ongoing investigation or . . . would jeopardize any future law enforcement proceedings.”26 The government must make a greater showing of interference than a conclusory statement that “the withheld information was clearly related to (an ongoing investigation).”27 If possible, you should provide evidence that an agency’s investigation is not — or has ceased — “gather[ing] evidence for a possible future . . . case” that “would be jeopardized by the premature release of that evidence.”
The very heart of FBI operations lies in our investigations—which serve, as our mission states, “to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.” We currently have jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal law, and you can find the major ones below, grouped within our national security and criminal priorities. Also visit our Intelligence program site, which underpins and informs all our investigative programs.
NOT ONCE have I attacked your character or femininity. I have pointed out holes in your argument, nothing personal there. Also, my feelings aren't hurt.
originally posted by: Sillyolme I've been saying from the first that she's not going to be charged and I'm being proven correct.
Near the beginning of a recent interview, an FBI investigator broached a topic with longtime Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that her lawyer and the Justice Department had agreed would be off limits, according to several people familiar with the matter. Mills and her lawyer left the room -- though both returned a short time later - and prosecutors were somewhat taken aback that their FBI colleague had ventured beyond what was anticipated, the people said.