I might add that we were always terrified of giving ANYTHING unredacted to Congress, due to the leak situation, which was endemic. That much said, we were often required to do so, including classified documents (e.g., Benghazi).
Of course, we have also seen that the FBI is perfectly willing to leak investigative information when it suits them. Unfortunately, they seem to only do it when they don't have a case and they need the leak to coerce a confession.
Mark, speaking as a former Fed who had a long term supervisory position in FOIA/PA, in a law enforcement situation, it is not the least surprising that unclassified/SBU docs were partially withheld under the b7 catecories. Ongoing investigations can be easily compromised by disclosing names, investigative techniques, etc. Withholding the ENTIRE document is another matter altogether. Unless the document looks like a piece of lace after the redactions, which would actually argue in favor of its total withholding, it's simply silly.
Classified documents are another matter entirely, but again, proper judgement needs to be applied. Redactions can be made to render most of them, especially older documents, publically releasable.
"**Ongoing investigations** can be easily compromised ..."
That's the problem, isn't it? Is this a question of an *ongoing investigation* or is it a question of NO investigation? The treatment of the laptop, the claim by the FBI that it was "Russian disinformation", all point toward NO investigation. Moreover, I believe--based on what I've been told by people who have had dealings with Grassley--that Grassley is fair-minded enough that if he was assured that there was an ongoing investigation that could be jeopardized he would back off. The point of the whistleblower--and Grassley probably knows the truth of this--is also that a highly regarded source provided information that was NOT acted upon. The FBI has made no representations about an ongoing investigation--either publicly or, it seems very likely, to Grassley.
You know, it would be a breath of fresh air if just one time these people were upfront and honest. Can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m fed up with the games, the subterfuge, the endless parsing of language! Say what the hell you mean and mean what the hell you say.
They aren't investigating it- only a fool would believe that.
I might add that we were always terrified of giving ANYTHING unredacted to Congress, due to the leak situation, which was endemic. That much said, we were often required to do so, including classified documents (e.g., Benghazi).
Of course, we have also seen that the FBI is perfectly willing to leak investigative information when it suits them. Unfortunately, they seem to only do it when they don't have a case and they need the leak to coerce a confession.
Mark, speaking as a former Fed who had a long term supervisory position in FOIA/PA, in a law enforcement situation, it is not the least surprising that unclassified/SBU docs were partially withheld under the b7 catecories. Ongoing investigations can be easily compromised by disclosing names, investigative techniques, etc. Withholding the ENTIRE document is another matter altogether. Unless the document looks like a piece of lace after the redactions, which would actually argue in favor of its total withholding, it's simply silly.
Classified documents are another matter entirely, but again, proper judgement needs to be applied. Redactions can be made to render most of them, especially older documents, publically releasable.
"**Ongoing investigations** can be easily compromised ..."
That's the problem, isn't it? Is this a question of an *ongoing investigation* or is it a question of NO investigation? The treatment of the laptop, the claim by the FBI that it was "Russian disinformation", all point toward NO investigation. Moreover, I believe--based on what I've been told by people who have had dealings with Grassley--that Grassley is fair-minded enough that if he was assured that there was an ongoing investigation that could be jeopardized he would back off. The point of the whistleblower--and Grassley probably knows the truth of this--is also that a highly regarded source provided information that was NOT acted upon. The FBI has made no representations about an ongoing investigation--either publicly or, it seems very likely, to Grassley.
Closely related problem--the FBI has given strong reasons for distrust over the last decade.
Maybe why the whistleblower leaked to Grassley as well - no trust that the fbi would do right thing.
You know, it would be a breath of fresh air if just one time these people were upfront and honest. Can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m fed up with the games, the subterfuge, the endless parsing of language! Say what the hell you mean and mean what the hell you say.
Big problem for Wray/FBI narrative:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/person-alleging-biden-criminal-bribery-scheme-is-a-highly-credible-fbi-source-used-since-obama-admin-source
Gee, where have we heard that before?!?!?!