It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI says lack of public interest in Hillary emails justifies withholding documents

page: 2
56
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill

Why is it so hard to find info on who this guy is. The only thing I found is that he has been in this position since 2002.

So, that means he is an entrenched bureaucrat. I think Christopher Wray, the new FBI Director, should get an earful from The American People. Dammit...we ARE interested. The absurdity of this man's response is unbelievable.


“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.



Christopher Wray and Jeff Sessions need to hear "sufficient demonstration" from the public that there is more than sufficient interest in disclosure.




posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill

The waves are rolling back in on the FBI

Grassley released a letter Thursday to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in which he raised concerns about McCabe’s independence. The letter comes as conservative media outlets are increasingly targeting McCabe and other officials involved in the investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia in the Kremlin’s efforts to influence the presidential election. Grassley noted that the Justice Department inspector general is investigating whether McCabe should have recused himself from the Hillary Clinton email probe, since McCabe’s wife got donations from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton ally, when she ran for a Virginia state Senate seat. Grassley also hit McCabe over a gender-discrimination complaint filed against the FBI. The senator said Flynn filed a letter of support for the FBI agent who reported the discrimination.
www.politico.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill

I honestly almost thought this was an "Onion" article or something.... How the hell do they say there's no public interest?? I'm laughing as I type this.. How can they really believe this? lol...
edit on 29-8-2017 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: GuidedKill

Why is it so hard to find info on who this guy is. The only thing I found is that he has been in this position since 2002.

So, that means he is an entrenched bureaucrat. I think Christopher Wray, the new FBI Director, should get an earful from The American People. Dammit...we ARE interested. The absurdity of this man's response is unbelievable.


“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.



Christopher Wray and Jeff Sessions need to hear "sufficient demonstration" from the public that there is more than sufficient interest in disclosure.



I have no idea who this person is either not that is saying much. I can however say he seems to wield quite a bit of power as the judge and jury of FOIA request....

I think his position and it's power needs to be revisited that's for sure!!!






posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: GuidedKill

I honestly almost thought this was an "Onion" article or something.... How the hell do they say there's no public interest?? I'm laughing as I type this.. How can they really believe this? lol...



It's so ridiculous you would think it is. Other people are running this story and his response as well. I don't do social media but someone should blow twitter up and copy the Donald on it!!

Foxnews



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   
It is all right to tear apart Trump but not Hillary I guess. Anything Trump gets leaked by the FBI. When the leakers start giving out Democrat information I suppose the security agencies will start investigation into the leakers.
edit on 29-8-2017 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill




I have no idea who this person is either not that is saying much. I can however say he seems to wield quite a bit of power as the judge and jury of FOIA request....

I think his position and it's power needs to be revisited that's for sure!!!



This is what I am thinking, too. He has been in that FOIA position for at least 15 years. The newbie FBI director and DOJ have probably not interfered in his "domain".

I bet they have no idea he denied this and used this pitiful excuse..."no interest", my a##!!



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill

Any excuse will do a, surely they cannot be that desperate for an excuse not to charge her, that they have sunken to this level of excuse making?

The US is resembles Zimabawe every day.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Petition. I would sign it.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Discuss? - ted!
The arse covering never ends, does it?
After we drain the swamp looks like we have to dredge the scum at the bottom.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:41 AM
link   
I believe the legal question in such matters goes to whether the release of information benefits the public interest (the good produced for the public as a whole) to such an extent as to overcome the individual (and Constitutional) right to privacy.

It doesn't go to if the public is nosy and wants to gawk at someone else's information.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

BWAHAHAHA Drain the swamp...

OMG THATS GOOd!!!

I seriously giggled a bit in real life...



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Petition time!

I think theres one already on Change.org?

I'll link back if I can find it



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill

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.



“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.

Link

Well I'm the public and I'm interested... are you ATS?

Discuss...


The Washington Times's writer is an imbecile.

"The public interest" means "the best interests of the public". It does not mean "what the public would find interesting."

Public interest is a standard requirement in FOIA requests. In this particular instance, it's hard to tell why it might not be in the public's interest to release the material, but that's neither here nor there.

This is not some sophisticated and obscure piece of arcana. The phrase "public interest" is well-known and in FOIA terms it is near-ubiquitous.

Accusing the WT writer of imbecility is the kindest intepretation. The alternative is that he's a liar.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   
They have to uphold the constitutions and ensure domestic tranquility. This is the first time I've ever heard of not releasing document requests because of lack of public interest. With huge interest in UFOs you would think with this logic we would have had all th UFO documents released decades ago.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill


This is a fine demonstration of how the federal government protects its own, the insiders.

A similar excuse was offered by Holder regarding an indictment a few years back. He the AG presumed to speak for the public.

This government today is as corrupt as they come.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Lol, they've aprobably "lost it" already anyways.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCoxthat is fake news because you can have video f him walking the streets beheading people as long as it happened before he took his oath of office you can not charge him for it . its part of the protections awarded by his office. for congress to impeach a sitting president it is because of something he has done in office usually to congress like committing pejury like bill clinton did. hillary could still be charged if wikileaks info is true for treason,murder,colluding with foreign governments, money laundering
and much more




posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
The FBI are just covering their behinds. I'm sure that if the emails were released, there'd be a few FBI officials with red faces.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill

If she's innocent for a fact an investigation would be a waste of time. Facts themselves is the issue with the witch hunt that is after her.

Can I request you investigated for terrorism, knowing you're "innocent for a fact" to only hurt your image and waste Goverment resources? I mean, yeah I could. But why?

The dumbest people in the world is who is out to get her, not really worried about her as much as their ability to imprison anyone they want for anything they can make sound good on thw whim of a meme.



new topics




 
56
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join