FBI refuses to cooperate in federal FOIA case

[Peter1469]

FBI refuses to cooperate in federal FOIA case involving Hillary's server (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/21/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-refuses-cooperate-serve/).

A federal judge ordered the State Department to talk to the FBI to get information about Hillary's serve. Oddly, the FBI refused to acknowledge whether there was even an investigation.


The FBI (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/federal-bureau-of-investigation/) refused to cooperate Monday with a court-ordered inquiry into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/)’s email server, telling the State Department (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/) that they won’t even confirm they are investigating the matter themselves, much less willing to tell the rest of the government what’s going on.

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan had ordered the State Department (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/) to talk with the FBI (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/federal-bureau-of-investigation/) and see what sort of information could be recovered from Mrs. Clinton (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/)’s email server, which her lawyer has said she turned over to theJustice Department (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-justice/) over the summer.


The FBI (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/federal-bureau-of-investigation/)’s refusal, however, leaves things muddled.

[Professor Peabody]

I expected no less from the democrat culture of corruption.

[Common Sense]

I expected no less from the democrat culture of corruption.

The FBI are Democrats?

If the FBI does have an ongoing investigation, of course they can't talk about it.

[Peter1469]

A federal judge doesn't make orders lightly. It will be interesting to see what happens.

[hanger4]

Reckon this is the same judge that got the LWNJ's all a twitter when a DoJ lawyer told him/her HC did no wrong ??

[hanger4]

Reckon texan thread; ....
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/51140-FBI-Said-to-Recover-Personal-E-Mails-From-Hillary-Clinton-Server .... has something to do with the Judges order ??

[Safety]

A federal judge doesn't make orders lightly. It will be interesting to see what happens.

But according to some, regarding the Kim Davis case, it seems to be ok to defy a federal order.....'jus sayin.

[whatukno]

But according to some, regarding the Kim Davis case, it seems to be ok to defy a federal order.....'jus sayin.

Well of COURSE you can defy a federal order when you are a CONSERVATIVE, after all, that's standing up to an overreaching government. But you can't be defying a judges orders when they are trying to take down a Democrat. Oh goodness no, there's a witch hunt in progress, got someone to tie to a stake after all.

No, no double standard at all! /sarcasm

[Safety]

Well of COURSE you can defy a federal order when you are a CONSERVATIVE, after all, that's standing up to an overreaching government. But you can't be defying a judges orders when they are trying to take down a Democrat. Oh goodness no, there's a witch hunt in progress, got someone to tie to a stake after all.

No, no double standard at all! /sarcasm

Interestingly, it does seem to be ok for Cliven Bundy and Kim Davis to do it....

[whatukno]

Interestingly, it does seem to be ok for Cliven Bundy and Kim Davis to do it....

But they are conservatives, of course it's okay for them to. Big gubermint bad. Laws are things only Liberals have to obey.

[Peter1469]

I don't support Kim Davis but you guys are being dishonest about where conservatives say a judge is abusing his authority versus areas clearly within the judge's authority.

[hanger4]

You two are making fools of yourselves with that 3rd grade broad brush shtick.

[Safety]

You two are making fools of yourselves with that 3rd grade broad brush shtick.

I disagree. For any layperson, it's obvious to see the hypocrisy when it comes to something like who should comply with a federal order.

[Safety]

I don't support Kim Davis but you guys are being dishonest about where conservatives say a judge is abusing his authority versus areas clearly within the judge's authority.

Where is the line drawn? Isn't the Constitution the final arbiter on the matter? If so, then wouldn't the SCOTUS's ruling have settled the matter?

"Abuse" is subjective.

[Common]

Where is the line drawn? Isn't the Constitution the final arbiter on the matter? If so, then wouldn't the SCOTUS's ruling have settled the matter?

"Abuse" is subjective.

Youre right Scotus is the last stop in interupting the constitution and you are again correct that Scotus decision was the final decision. Anything else is sour grapes by individuals and groups that dont like the outcome

[Crepitus]

I'm with Safety and whatukno on this one. What is "overreach" is subjective. A federal order is a federal order. Most of you conservatives were thrilled when the Bundy Bandit stole millions from the government and the refused to comply with federal orders, as were most of you with the whole Kim Davis thing. Now that it's someone you don't agree with doing it you're all up in arms over it? Hypocrisy at it's finest! Ya can't have it both ways.

[Safety]

I'm with Safety and whatukno on this one. What is "overreach" is subjective. A federal order is a federal order. Most of you conservatives were thrilled when the Bundy Bandit stole millions from the government and the refused to comply with federal orders, as were most of you with the whole Kim Davis thing. Now that it's someone you don't agree with doing it you're all up in arms over it? Hypocrisy at it's finest! Ya can't have it both ways.

Evidently I was supposed to be a fool for posting it....

[Peter1469]

Youre right Scotus is the last stop in interupting the constitution and you are again correct that Scotus decision was the final decision. Anything else is sour grapes by individuals and groups that dont like the outcome

So SCOTUS rightly decided Dred Scott? Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports) 393 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/) (1857).

Or were they wrong then and corrected themselves later?

[Adelaide]

It seems pretty simple to me; the FBI should be working with the government to meet any FOIA requests that don't jeopardize national security. What am I missing?

If the current executive government is somehow preventing that, then there is a big problem with abuse of power by that branch of government.

[Safety]

It seems pretty simple to me; the FBI should be working with the government to meet any FOIA requests that don't jeopardize national security. What am I missing?

If the current executive government is somehow preventing that, then there is a big problem with abuse of power by that branch of government.

Even if there is an ongoing investigation?

[Adelaide]

Even if there is an ongoing investigation?

I'm sure there are plenty of emails they've found or gone over that they could release to the government, while retaining any emails that are illegal or possibly illegal and keeping the investigation contained to that. I don't see a reason the investigation has to completely cancel out FOIA requests. Denying FOIA requests is just going to piss people off. If the emails are harmless and not relevant to the investigation or a threat to national security then just release the damn things.

[Peter1469]

It seems pretty simple to me; the FBI should be working with the government to meet any FOIA requests that don't jeopardize national security. What am I missing?

If the current executive government is somehow preventing that, then there is a big problem with abuse of power by that branch of government.

You likely are not missing anything.