FBI shuts down request for files on Hillary Clinton by citing lack of public interest

D

dukkha

Verified User
The FBI is declining to turn over files related to its investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails by arguing a lack of public interest in the matter.

Ty Clevenger, an attorney in New York City, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in March of 2016 asking for a variety of documents from the FBI and the Justice Department, including correspondence exchanged with Congress about the Clinton email investigation.

But in a letter sent this week and obtained by Fox News, the head of the FBI’s Records Management Division told Clevenger that the bureau has “determined you have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests of the subject.”

Therefore, records regarding your subject are withheld pursuant to FOIA exemptions,” David M. Hardy of the FBI’s Records Management Division told Clevenger.

Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016, was investigated by the FBI for using a private email address and server to handle classified information while serving as secretary of state.

In July 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey famously called Clinton’s email arrangement “extremely careless” though he decided against recommending criminal charges.


Though Clinton lost the election, Clevenger is still attempting to obtain documents related to the investigation. He's seeking to prove she committed perjury, the Washington Times reported.

He specifically asked for all documents resulting from a September 6, 2016 referral to the Justice Department from then-House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican.

At the time, Chaffetz asked the department to “investigate and determine whether Secretary Clinton or her employees and contractors violated statues that prohibit destruction of records, obstruction of congressional inquiries, and concealment or cover up of evidence material to a congressional investigation.”

On Aug. 8, the FBI asked Clevenger to detail why the public would be interested.

“If you seek disclosure of any existing records on this basis, you must demonstrate that the public interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests,” the letter stated. “In this regard, you must show that the public interest sought is a significant one, and that the requested information is likely to advance that interest.”
Click to expand...
Clevenger expressed disbelief at the request.

“Frankly, I am stunned I should have to explain why my request pertains to a matter of public interest,” Clevenger wrote in an Aug. 11 letter to the FBI.

He cited how Clinton was the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, a former secretary of state and a former senator.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...y-clinton-by-citing-lack-public-interest.html
 
request in March of 2016 asking for a variety of documents from the FBI and the Justice Department, including correspondence exchanged with Congress about the Clinton email investigation.

But in a letter sent this week and obtained by Fox News, the head of the FBI’s Records Management Division told Clevenger that the bureau has “determined you have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests of the subject.”
Click to expand...
Deep State protects its own.

This is unbelievable.
She compromised all rights to privacy when she used her private server exclusively for public business.
The FBI denied the records to Congress? Who the hell do they think they are?
 
Clevenger told The Washington Times that he believes the public should learn the truth about Clinton’s conduct despite her 2016 electoral defeat.

“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,” Clevenger said Tuesday.

“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.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/29/f...-email-docs-due-to-a-lack-of-public-interest/
 
I condemn racists & Nazis said:
speaking of which


DIe0xZAUQAEEu6Q.jpg
Click to expand...

I'd never wear white sneakers to a Hurricane.

Btw, WTF with the FBI? Since when does popular opinion determine criminal investigations? What do they do, check the poll numbers?
 
noise said:
The FBI is declining to turn over files related to its investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails by arguing a lack of public interest in the matter.

Ty Clevenger, an attorney in New York City, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in March of 2016 asking for a variety of documents from the FBI and the Justice Department, including correspondence exchanged with Congress about the Clinton email investigation.

But in a letter sent this week and obtained by Fox News, the head of the FBI’s Records Management Division told Clevenger that the bureau has “determined you have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests of the subject.”

Therefore, records regarding your subject are withheld pursuant to FOIA exemptions,” David M. Hardy of the FBI’s Records Management Division told Clevenger.

Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016, was investigated by the FBI for using a private email address and server to handle classified information while serving as secretary of state.

In July 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey famously called Clinton’s email arrangement “extremely careless” though he decided against recommending criminal charges.


Though Clinton lost the election, Clevenger is still attempting to obtain documents related to the investigation. He's seeking to prove she committed perjury, the Washington Times reported.

He specifically asked for all documents resulting from a September 6, 2016 referral to the Justice Department from then-House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican.

At the time, Chaffetz asked the department to “investigate and determine whether Secretary Clinton or her employees and contractors violated statues that prohibit destruction of records, obstruction of congressional inquiries, and concealment or cover up of evidence material to a congressional investigation.”

On Aug. 8, the FBI asked Clevenger to detail why the public would be interested.


Clevenger expressed disbelief at the request.

“Frankly, I am stunned I should have to explain why my request pertains to a matter of public interest,” Clevenger wrote in an Aug. 11 letter to the FBI.

He cited how Clinton was the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, a former secretary of state and a former senator.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...y-clinton-by-citing-lack-public-interest.html
Click to expand...

lol

You should try to learn the difference between 'lack of public interest' and the 'public's interest'.

English is so difficult for most of you RWers.
 
Agreed. There is no public interest. Only right wing obsessed loser tinfoil dumbass interest.

File your civil suits and pay your own freight assclowns
 
domer76 said:
lol

You should try to learn the difference between 'lack of public interest' and the 'public's interest'.

English is so difficult for most of you RWers.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I noticed that by the end of the third paragraph of the OP.

Some people just don't have a good command of the English language.

But then again, annette is one of those people who still doesn't get the difference between "then" and "than".
 
domer76 said:
You should try to learn the difference between 'lack of public interest' and the 'public's interest'.
Click to expand...

like you have with the difference between deciding there are no 'unalienable rights' since those two exact words are nowhere in the constitution, but several founding fathers refer specifically to unalienable rights throughout the whole debates up to ratification???????? yeah, you should learn that difference better.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
like you have with the difference between deciding there are no 'unalienable rights' since those two exact words are nowhere in the constitution, but several founding fathers refer specifically to unalienable rights throughout the whole debates up to ratification???????? yeah, you should learn that difference better.
Click to expand...

lol

The Bill of Rights was a political ploy, stupid fuck. Pandering. Not sent from on high.

ALL rights are alienable, moron. You're justvto stupid to recognize that fact.
 
Speaking of lack of public interest I haven't seen much on the Russian collusion thing. Guess the MSM doesn't find it profitable any more.
 
domer76 said:
lol

The Bill of Rights was a political ploy, stupid fuck. Pandering. Not sent from on high.

ALL rights are alienable, moron. You're justvto stupid to recognize that fact.
Click to expand...

wait, are you telling the board here that the 7 years of debating a Bill of Rights was nothing more than a 'gotcha ha ha' moment by James Madison in order to sucker in an entire populace in to ratifying a constitution that gives a new central government unlimited power???????????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top