How Convenient
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Can you give me any other examples of when a FOIA request was granted in respect to classified information?
The foremost controlling legal authority on this would be the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). Secondly, you could look to the FOIA itself and discover that there are 9 exemptions to the govt having to comply with a FOIA request, with No. 1 reading as follows: "National defense or foreign policy information properly classified pursuant an Executive Order. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)."
It should come as no surprise that the request was denied, given what the legal statutes on the topic require.
The foremost controlling legal authority on this would be the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). Secondly, you could look to the FOIA itself and discover that there are 9 exemptions to the govt having to comply with a FOIA request, with No. 1 reading as follows: "National defense or foreign policy information properly classified pursuant an Executive Order. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)."
It should come as no surprise that the request was denied, given what the legal statutes on the topic require.
Appeals of FOIA refusals to produce are typically subject to judicial review through litigation.
Stored digitally on a server in Hillary's closet.
Interesting. I did not see any of those statutes cited as the basis for the denial. And, the denial letter was embedded in the link above; assuming the letter is a true and complete copy.
Do you have some additional support for the notion that the legal authority you cited was the basis for the denial? If not, are you suggesting that a legitimate basis for denial exists and the person who drafted the denial letter (and, all layers of its review) chose not to cite legitimate authority?
Going by that letter, the response wasn't even a denial.
It's a statement that they have no records responsive to the request in their custody and control to produce or to deny.
Those are good points. And, I agree. Of course, I believe that supports the notion that the statutes cited above are irrelevant for purposes of the letter.
Should a second letter be sent to the BHO library, I would expect to see a more thoughtful, and legally supported, denial letter in response.
If/when that time comes, perhaps the letter will cite those statutes. Perhaps not. Either way, records germane to an investigation should not be cloaked in secrecy for 5 years because of what appears to be an administrative decision to transfer to a library. That's bullshit.
I'd also be interested to learn if there's actually a "standard" for what can be transferred. Seems something in need of further definition to prevent abuse by crooked scum.
"And hermetically sealed in a #2 mayonnaise jar on Funk and Wagnall's back porch" - Carnac
Similar threads
