Posted on 10/17/2016 6:17:16 PM PDT by Beautiful_Gracious_Skies
Edited on 10/17/2016 6:39:59 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Senior State Department official proposed a
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Bribery, obstruction of justice, evasion of justice....
Seems kind of like a wasted effort since Comey has been a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clinton Crime Family for decades and had no intention of recommending Hillary (or anyone significant) for indictment.
Why would Any of these Laws apply to our Public Masters in the first place??
This is total corruption. Kennedy should be in chains for this. The FBI is a cesspool of corruption. This is so obvious and blatant that even the damned 302 called it “QUID PRO QUO” This is the smoking gun so far beyond Watergate it is light years. We are heading toward a total melt down in this country. We are not going quietly into that good night.
If Mr. Trump would say at next debate “If you are going to vote for me and you get polled by anyone say you will vote for Hillary or one of the third party candidates; and rember the only honest poll is on Nov 8”. That would make every poll invalid and put an end to the silly polls we keep seeing.
Jason, why not start immediate impeachment for Patrick Kennedy? Oops, I forgot!
I hate feeling helpless except for what comes down my driveway.
Is there a way for Congress or the Senate to oust Comey & install a new Director then open the case again & to recommend Hillary’s prosecution before the Elections? LOL
Go up and offer a cop money in exchange for letting you go on a ticket. If you are in an honest place, you will be arrested for bribery.
Why did the FBI agent not immediately arrest him?
He just wanted it re-alphabetized. What’s the big deal?
On behalf of THE RUSSIANS..!!!
(I ate their dressing tonight, please don’t flame me.)
For those with the inclination, here is the text of FOIA Exemption 9 from
Freedom of Information Act Guide, May 2004
Exemption 9
Exemption 9 of the FOIA covers “geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.” (1) This exemption has very rarely been invoked or interpreted, (2) and its boundaries remain substantially undefined to this day. As no court has examined Exemption 9 in any depth, it is still not clear exactly what types of geological or geophysical information are protected from disclosure under the exemption, or whether it was intended to apply to all types of “wells.”
One court held twenty years ago that Exemption 9 applies only to “well information of a technical or scientific nature,” and not to general mineral exploration data — such as the location, depth, or number of exploration drill holes. (3) It is significant that this court pointed to the legislative history of the FOIA — specifically, to evidence that Congress intended through Exemption 9 to protect the oil and gas exploration and extraction industry from unfair competitive harm by “speculators” — in support of its decision to order the release of generalized well data where a competitive harm argument could not readily be supported. (4)
A recent decision, however, might give greater depth to Exemption 9. (5) In that case, the court held that information related to the presence of groundwater — including “ground water inventories, [water] well yield in gallons per minute, and the thickness of the decomposed granite aquifer” — was exempt from disclosure under both Exemption 4 (6) and Exemption 9. (7) Though the court discussed the two exemptions separately, with Exemption 9 receiving very little analysis, it emphasized that “water is a precious, limited resource” and that release of well data would place one party at a disadvantage in negotiations over its use. (8) Only two other decisions have mentioned Exemption 9 with respect to the regulation of natural gas producers; however, neither case discussed its scope or application in significant detail. (9)
A survey of all of the Exemption 9 cases decided to date suggests that its present boundaries are defined neither by the type of well nor the type of information. (10) In fact, what is clear from the Exemption 9 decisions thus far is that courts have applied it to all types of wells and to various information about these wells. (11) It also is reasonable to assume that both agencies and courts may apply Exemption 9 to protect well data in other compelling circumstances, such as when Exemption 9 protection is necessary to guard against an attack upon pooled natural resources intended to cause harm to the public. (12)
1. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(9) (2000).
2. See, e.g., Nat’l Broad. Co. v. SBA, 836 F. Supp. 121, 124 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (noting merely that document withheld under Exemption 4 “also contains geographic or geological information which is exempted from disclosure pursuant to FOIA Exemption 9”).
3. Black Hills Alliance v. United States Forest Serv., 603 F. Supp. 117, 122 (D.S.D. 1984) (requiring government to disclose number, locations, and depths of proposed uranium exploration drill holes in national forest under federally approved program, and noting that this geological exploration information “falls short of the technical and scientific information envisioned by Congress”).
4. Id. (stating that disclosure of “exploratory findings of oil companies would give speculators an unfair advantage over the companies which spent millions of dollars in exploration” (citing H.R. Rep. No. 89-1497, at 9 (1966), reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2418, 2428)); cf. Petroleum Exploration v. Comm’r, 193 F.2d 59, 62 (4th Cir. 1951) (recognizing commercial value of information related to mineral exploration and extraction) (non-FOIA case); Prohosky v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 584 F. Supp. 1337, 1340 (N.D. Ind. 1984) (acknowledging longstanding legal doctrine that subterranean water, oil, and natural gas are considered to be “ferae naturae” until actually pierced with well) (non-FOIA case).
5. Starkey v. United States Dep’t of the Interior, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1196 (S.D. Cal. 2002) (affirming action of agency in withholding commercially sensitive portions of “preliminary draft supplemental environmental assessment” related to groundwater tables and wells).
6. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4) (2000) (protecting “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential”).
7. Starkey, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1196.
8. Id. at 1195.
9. See Superior Oil Co. v. FERC, 563 F.2d 191, 203-04 & n.20 (5th Cir. 1977) (accepting without discussion that agency may choose to withhold information concerning regulated natural gas exploration and production by private companies under Exemption 9, but ruling that agency also may make discretionary disclosure of certain information despite risk of competitive harm) (non-FOIA case); Pennzoil Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 534 F.2d 627, 629-30 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1976) (ruling without significant discussion that Exemption 9 may allow, but does not require, agency to withhold information concerning natural gas “reserve data” reported by regulated private companies) (non-FOIA case); see also Ecee, Inc. v. FERC, 645 F.2d 339, 348-49 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding that requirement that producers of natural gas submit confidential geological information was valid) (non-FOIA case).
10. See Superior Oil Co., 563 F.2d at 197 (natural gas exploration expenditure data); Pennzoil Co., 534 F.2d at 629 (natural gas reserve estimate data); Starkey, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1195 (water table levels and well-yield data); Black Hills Alliance, 603 F. Supp. at 122 (uranium exploration test drilling data).
11. Id.
12. See Living Rivers, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 272 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1321-22 (D. Utah 2003) (finding that disclosure of “inundation maps” could reasonably be expected to place at risk lives of individuals in downstream areas that would be flooded by breach of dams through increasing risk of terrorist attack on dams) (Exemption 7(F)); see also White House Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies Concerning Safeguarding Information Related to Homeland Security (Mar. 19, 2002), reprinted in FOIA Post (posted 3/21/02) (emphasizing “obligation to safeguard” homeland security-related records).
Strikes me that an email discussing oil contracts or the disposition/division of spoils of war of post Gaddafi Era oil wells could be covered in the email or perhaps the fact that al Qaeda as diverting oils well revenues to terrorism.
This current FBI revelation is curious when viewed in light interesting bit of information from the interview of one of Hillary Clinton or Ambassador Steven's State Dept aides or associates at the time the Benghazi attack was underway and possibly still in progress.
At the time, no one knew exactly what had happened to Stevens but all kinds of rumors were floating around about what had happened to him and the buzz in the media was the possibility that al Qaeda could have seized all the secret information on Libya and the war on terror that was stored in the Embassy.
A reporter was interviewing an older woman who was part of a group of State Dept people standing next to each other outside a building in the early evening.
The situation was kind of chaotic and the group of State Dept people looked like they were in a state of shock and seemed visibly upset.
The lady being interviewed looked especially shook up.
The reporter first asked lady being interviewed for an update and she told him there were conflicting reports and everything was in state of flux with no confirmed reports except that Amb Stevens was missing and no one was sure where he was.
The reporter then asked if the attackers had taken over the Embassy compound captured any secret documents .
The lady answered that they had not yet been able determine for certain if the Embassy was over run nor did they yet have an inventory of what secret documents were present in the Embassy and if any were missing.
She then mentioned that she was personally aware that Ambassador Stevens was in possession of a briefcase full of very sensitive and highly confidential documents regarding oil field contracts and that part of the reason for Amb Stevens visit to Benghazi that day was related to a meeting regarding those oil contract documents.
She went on to say that the missing briefcase was a cause of great concern and people in the State Department were frantically trying to locate the briefcase and regain control of the documents.
That was the first and last time I ever heard of missing Amb Stevens having oil contracts in Benghazi.
Now we find that one of the documents that no less a person than U.S. State Department’s Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy was desperate enough that he took the risk of trying to barter a quid pro deal with and FBI espionage investigation to classify a Hillary Clinton deleted email regarding the Benghazi attack as a Exemption 9 of the FOIA covering “geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells, “ in order to, bury the (deleted Clinton Benghazi email) in the basement of the State Department archives where it would never be found”.
The Agents direct quote was - Kennedy wanted some information changed to an obscure code known as B9 to “allow him to archive the document in the basement of DoS [Department of State] never to be seen again.”
From the above Exemption 9 documents one established B9 FOIA Exemption interpertation by court precedence is -
“It is significant that this court pointed to the legislative history of the FOIA — specifically, to evidence that Congress intended through Exemption 9 to protect the oil and gas exploration and extraction industry from unfair competitive harm by “speculators” — in support of its decision to order the release of generalized well data where a competitive harm argument could not readily be supported.”
What was in the briefcase full of “very sensitive oil contract documents” that the State Dept was frantically trying to locate and gain control of and that the State Dept lady being interviewed let slip in moment of candor while the chaos of attack in Benghazi was still in progress?
And why was no less a personage as Under Secretary of State Kennedy so desperate to get information probably related to both the oil and gas exploration and extraction industry and the attack on Benghazi given a B9 FOIA exemption re classification to “allow him (Patrick Kennedy) to archive the (Clinton Benghazi related email) document in the basement of DoS [Department of State] never to be seen again.”
Kind of makes you wonder, does it not?
Kennedy sounds like a complete ass in dealing with the FBI and making these demands. Kennedy wanted classified info reclassified (B9) so he could dump in the DoS statement where it permanently evaporates.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For those with the inclination, here is the text of FOIA Exemption 9 from
Freedom of Information Act Guide, May 2004:
Exemption 9
Exemption 9 of the FOIA covers “geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.” (1) This exemption has very rarely been invoked or interpreted, (2) and its boundaries remain substantially undefined to this day. As no court has examined Exemption 9 in any depth, it is still not clear exactly what types of geological or geophysical information are protected from disclosure under the exemption, or whether it was intended to apply to all types of “wells.”
One court held twenty years ago that Exemption 9 applies only to “well information of a technical or scientific nature,” and not to general mineral exploration data — such as the location, depth, or number of exploration drill holes. (3) It is significant that this court pointed to the legislative history of the FOIA — specifically, to evidence that Congress intended through Exemption 9 to protect the oil and gas exploration and extraction industry from unfair competitive harm by “speculators” — in support of its decision to order the release of generalized well data where a competitive harm argument could not readily be supported. (4)
A recent decision, however, might give greater depth to Exemption 9. (5) In that case, the court held that information related to the presence of groundwater — including “ground water inventories, [water] well yield in gallons per minute, and the thickness of the decomposed granite aquifer” — was exempt from disclosure under both Exemption 4 (6) and Exemption 9. (7) Though the court discussed the two exemptions separately, with Exemption 9 receiving very little analysis, it emphasized that “water is a precious, limited resource” and that release of well data would place one party at a disadvantage in negotiations over its use. (8) Only two other decisions have mentioned Exemption 9 with respect to the regulation of natural gas producers; however, neither case discussed its scope or application in significant detail. (9)
A survey of all of the Exemption 9 cases decided to date suggests that its present boundaries are defined neither by the type of well nor the type of information. (10) In fact, what is clear from the Exemption 9 decisions thus far is that courts have applied it to all types of wells and to various information about these wells. (11) It also is reasonable to assume that both agencies and courts may apply Exemption 9 to protect well data in other compelling circumstances, such as when Exemption 9 protection is necessary to guard against an attack upon pooled natural resources intended to cause harm to the public. (12)
1. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(9) (2000).
2. See, e.g., Nat’l Broad. Co. v. SBA, 836 F. Supp. 121, 124 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (noting merely that document withheld under Exemption 4 “also contains geographic or geological information which is exempted from disclosure pursuant to FOIA Exemption 9”).
3. Black Hills Alliance v. United States Forest Serv., 603 F. Supp. 117, 122 (D.S.D. 1984) (requiring government to disclose number, locations, and depths of proposed uranium exploration drill holes in national forest under federally approved program, and noting that this geological exploration information “falls short of the technical and scientific information envisioned by Congress”).
4. Id. (stating that disclosure of “exploratory findings of oil companies would give speculators an unfair advantage over the companies which spent millions of dollars in exploration” (citing H.R. Rep. No. 89-1497, at 9 (1966), reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2418, 2428)); cf. Petroleum Exploration v. Comm’r, 193 F.2d 59, 62 (4th Cir. 1951) (recognizing commercial value of information related to mineral exploration and extraction) (non-FOIA case); Prohosky v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 584 F. Supp. 1337, 1340 (N.D. Ind. 1984) (acknowledging longstanding legal doctrine that subterranean water, oil, and natural gas are considered to be “ferae naturae” until actually pierced with well) (non-FOIA case).
5. Starkey v. United States Dep’t of the Interior, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1196 (S.D. Cal. 2002) (affirming action of agency in withholding commercially sensitive portions of “preliminary draft supplemental environmental assessment” related to groundwater tables and wells).
6. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4) (2000) (protecting “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential”).
7. Starkey, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1196.
8. Id. at 1195.
9. See Superior Oil Co. v. FERC, 563 F.2d 191, 203-04 & n.20 (5th Cir. 1977) (accepting without discussion that agency may choose to withhold information concerning regulated natural gas exploration and production by private companies under Exemption 9, but ruling that agency also may make discretionary disclosure of certain information despite risk of competitive harm) (non-FOIA case); Pennzoil Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 534 F.2d 627, 629-30 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1976) (ruling without significant discussion that Exemption 9 may allow, but does not require, agency to withhold information concerning natural gas “reserve data” reported by regulated private companies) (non-FOIA case); see also Ecee, Inc. v. FERC, 645 F.2d 339, 348-49 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding that requirement that producers of natural gas submit confidential geological information was valid) (non-FOIA case).
10. See Superior Oil Co., 563 F.2d at 197 (natural gas exploration expenditure data); Pennzoil Co., 534 F.2d at 629 (natural gas reserve estimate data); Starkey, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1195 (water table levels and well-yield data); Black Hills Alliance, 603 F. Supp. at 122 (uranium exploration test drilling data).
11. Id.
12. See Living Rivers, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 272 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1321-22 (D. Utah 2003) (finding that disclosure of “inundation maps” could reasonably be expected to place at risk lives of individuals in downstream areas that would be flooded by breach of dams through increasing risk of terrorist attack on dams) (Exemption 7(F)); see also White House Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies Concerning Safeguarding Information Related to Homeland Security (Mar. 19, 2002), reprinted in FOIA Post (posted 3/21/02) (emphasizing “obligation to safeguard” homeland security-related records).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why is this significant, one might ask?
Strikes me that an email discussing oil contracts or the disposition/division of spoils of war of post Gaddafi Era oil wells could be covered in the email or perhaps the fact that al Qaeda as diverting oils well revenues to terrorism.
This current FBI revelation is curious when viewed in light interesting bit of information from the interview of one of Hillary Clinton or Ambassador Steven’s State Dept aides or associates at the time the Benghazi attack was underway and possibly still in progress.
At the time, no one knew exactly what had happened to Stevens but all kinds of rumors were floating around about what had happened to him and the buzz in the media was the possibility that al Qaeda could have seized all the secret information on Libya and the war on terror that was stored in the Embassy.
A reporter was interviewing an older woman who was part of a group of State Dept people standing next to each other outside a building in the early evening.
The situation was kind of chaotic and the group of State Dept people looked like they were in a state of shock and seemed visibly upset.
The lady being interviewed looked especially shook up.
The reporter first asked lady being interviewed for an update and she told him there were conflicting reports and everything was in state of flux with no confirmed reports except that Amb Stevens was missing and no one was sure where he was.
The reporter then asked if the attackers had taken over the Embassy compound captured any secret documents .
The lady answered that they had not yet been able determine for certain if the Embassy was over run nor did they yet have an inventory of what secret documents were present in the Embassy and if any were missing.
She then mentioned that she was personally aware that Ambassador Stevens was in possession of a briefcase full of very sensitive and highly confidential documents regarding oil field contracts and that part of the reason for Amb Stevens visit to Benghazi that day was related to a meeting regarding those oil contract documents.
She went on to say that the missing briefcase was a cause of great concern and people in the State Department were frantically trying to locate the briefcase and regain control of the documents.
That was the first and last time I ever heard of missing Amb Stevens having oil contracts in Benghazi.
Now we find that one of the documents that no less a person than U.S. State Department’s Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy was desperate enough that he took the risk of trying to barter a quid pro deal with and FBI espionage investigation to classify a Hillary Clinton deleted email regarding the Benghazi attack as a Exemption 9 of the FOIA covering “geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells, “ in order to, bury the (deleted Clinton Benghazi email) in the basement of the State Department archives where it would never be found”.
The Agents direct quote was - Kennedy wanted some information changed to an obscure code known as B9 to “allow him to archive the document in the basement of DoS [Department of State] never to be seen again.”
From the above Exemption 9 documents one established B9 FOIA Exemption interpertation by court precedence is -
“It is significant that this court pointed to the legislative history of the FOIA — specifically, to evidence that Congress intended through Exemption 9 to protect the oil and gas exploration and extraction industry from unfair competitive harm by “speculators” — in support of its decision to order the release of generalized well data where a competitive harm argument could not readily be supported.”
What was in the briefcase full of “very sensitive oil contract documents” that the State Dept was frantically trying to locate and gain control of and that the State Dept lady being interviewed let slip in moment of candor while the chaos of attack in Benghazi was still in progress?
And why was no less a personage as Under Secretary of State Kennedy so desperate to get information probably related to both the oil and gas exploration and extraction industry and the attack on Benghazi given a B9 FOIA exemption re classification to “allow him (Patrick Kennedy) to archive the (Clinton Benghazi related email) document in the basement of DoS [Department of State] never to be seen again.”
Kind of makes one wonder, does it not?
“Influence” is the new word for “bribe”?
As in, “the mob influenced the dirty cop?”?
How creepy...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.