‘Four Times Greater Than Solyndra’: DOE Drops 1,200 Pages Of Heavily Redacted Docs (T)

dailycaller.com ^ | 12/25/2015 | Michael Bastasch

[rktman]

The Department of Energy recently turned over more than 1,200 pages of heavily redacted documents in response to a records request about a subsidized biofuels company from The Daily Caller News Foundation.

In October, TheDCNF filed a FOIA request with the Energy Department, asking for email records from government officials regarding federal loan guarantees given to Abengoa, a Spanish-based green energy company. The request came on the heels of reports Abengoa was running into big financial problems, despite being given generous taxpayer-backed loans.

The DOE gave TheDCNF the records it requested Dec. 18, and after spending time reviewing the documents, it's apparent there's a lot of information the department did not want the public to see. The DOE redacted virtually all information specific to Abengoa - in many cases whole pages were blacked out.

Reporters were mostly interested in Abengoa's $400 million biofuels plant near Hugoton, Kansas. The company got a $132 million federal loan and a $97 million grant to build the plant, but after a year of operation the plant seemed to be having problems of its own. Despite the hype surrounding the plant, Abengoa has filed for bankruptcy and halted operations in Hugoton.

[rktman]

Who said we're in the "red"? Apparently there's plenty of black ink in d.c. Anybody going to jail over this? Uh, that's got as much likelyhood as hildebeast getting indicted. Your tax dollars at work.

[jneesy]

i’m sure that this dropping the day after christmas on a saturday is pure coincidence

[immadashell]

Time for Odumbo to double down. Maybe he can dupe some of his Paris buddies.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

My you are a suspicious sort...

[rktman]

Uh, I thought they duped us. Mo money, mo money, mo money.

[Baynative]

Hold on just a minute!

I don't think a public agency is allowed to conceal or destroy ANY information or documents. How can they redact archived files that are not protected by national security of executive confidentiality?

[loungitude]

‘Four Times Greater Than Solyndra’

I think that should read ‘Four Times Worse...’

[irv]

"How can they redact archived files that are not protected by national security of executive confidentiality?"

There's this button with the word "Delete" on it.

Whether they are allowed or not, hiding inconvenient information is SOP in Washington.

[LibertyOh]

“I don’t think a public agency is allowed to conceal or destroy ANY information or documents. How can they redact archived files that are not protected by national security of executive confidentiality?”

Unfortunately there are several ways the Government can exempt information, you mentioned Exemption 1. Below is a more complete list, and I imagine 2 and 4 were highly used:

Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security.

Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.

Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law.

Exemption 4: Trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged.

Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies, including:

Deliberative Process Privilege
Attorney-Work Product Privilege
Attorney-Client Privilege
Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy.

Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that:

7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings
7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication
7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source
7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions
7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual
Exemption 8: Information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions.

Exemption 9: Geological information on wells.

[Reddy]

“Four times greater than Solyndra”

Does that mean taxpayers threw away 2 billion this time? (Solyndra flushed 500 million down the toilet, er into zero’s donor’s pockets).

[tina07]

UN-redacted should be the order, what is being hidden and why, covering for Bozo & Co.

[rktman]

Uh, isn’t stuff usually redacted for national security reasons? Oh and to keep somebody from incriminating themselves. I forgot about that part. Fits the usual mode of ops for libs.