Acetylene gas damage.....?
Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
Acetylene in a trashbag with a Loooooooooong fuse...or a loooooooooong extension
cord to a sparkplug at one end and decent battery at the other.....
Talk about a Boom....
Note : Not recommended for any Liberals to try at all, requires a rational brain
to perform this irrational act...
PS...Static electricity is NOT you friend !
cord to a sparkplug at one end and decent battery at the other.....
Talk about a Boom....
Note : Not recommended for any Liberals to try at all, requires a rational brain
to perform this irrational act...
PS...Static electricity is NOT you friend !
Sheriff Joe
DA
Ugly and stupid, just like her mom.YIKES!
Chelsea Clinton Believes Overturning Roe v. Wade Would Be ‘Unconscionable’ and ‘Unchristian’
https://www.redstate.com/kimberly_ross/2018/09/14/chelsea-clinton-roe-unconscionable-unchristian/
Chelsea Clinton Believes Overturning Roe v. Wade Would Be ‘Unconscionable’ and ‘Unchristian’
https://www.redstate.com/kimberly_ross/2018/09/14/chelsea-clinton-roe-unconscionable-unchristian/
If the Clintons had a son, he'd look like Alfred E Newman
Sheriff Joe
DA
SEPTEMBER 15, 2018
Faking Your Way to Racial Equality
By Robert Weissberg
Since the mid-1960s, billions have been spent to close race-related gaps in educational achievement. While these gaps have been somewhat narrowed, they have remained substantial and seem impervious to nearly all nostrums – everything from early intervention programs such as Head Start to hard-headed businesslike remedies such as firing incompetent teachers. Now, given decades of disappointment, what's next?
Let me suggest that "a solution" is emerging, but it is not what gap-obsessed egalitarians have in mind. This "solution" is deception – if genuine equally of outcome is unreachable, instead, provide the illusion of success. Remarkably, this deceit is often welcomed as if it were the real thing, with little outrage when fraudsters are exposed.
The National Center for Fair and Open Testing argues that teachers illicitly boosting student test scores is endemic. Such deception is particularly alluring at schools with large populations of underperforming minority students, where the dismal numbers can bring school closings or mass firings. Such cheating has been documented in Atlanta; Baltimore; and Washington, D.C. as well as in schools in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and elsewhere. They are, according to the center, just "the tip of the iceberg.
Faking Your Way to Racial Equality
By Robert Weissberg
Since the mid-1960s, billions have been spent to close race-related gaps in educational achievement. While these gaps have been somewhat narrowed, they have remained substantial and seem impervious to nearly all nostrums – everything from early intervention programs such as Head Start to hard-headed businesslike remedies such as firing incompetent teachers. Now, given decades of disappointment, what's next?
Let me suggest that "a solution" is emerging, but it is not what gap-obsessed egalitarians have in mind. This "solution" is deception – if genuine equally of outcome is unreachable, instead, provide the illusion of success. Remarkably, this deceit is often welcomed as if it were the real thing, with little outrage when fraudsters are exposed.
The National Center for Fair and Open Testing argues that teachers illicitly boosting student test scores is endemic. Such deception is particularly alluring at schools with large populations of underperforming minority students, where the dismal numbers can bring school closings or mass firings. Such cheating has been documented in Atlanta; Baltimore; and Washington, D.C. as well as in schools in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and elsewhere. They are, according to the center, just "the tip of the iceberg.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Trump and Birthright Citizenship
DANIEL JOHN SOBIESKI
Donald Trump was right -- becoming a U.S. citizen should require more than your mother successfully sneaking past the U.S. Border Patrol.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/09/trump_and_birthright_citizenship.html
DANIEL JOHN SOBIESKI
Donald Trump was right -- becoming a U.S. citizen should require more than your mother successfully sneaking past the U.S. Border Patrol.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/09/trump_and_birthright_citizenship.html
The politics of Racial Division are maintained by Politicians....
It's the ONLY way for them to divide humans and achieve their disgusting goals..
Otherwise we would ALL get along and that is not what THEY want !
Every Human has a unique and beautiful trait, that's what makes this world so
wonderful and special !
Sheriff Joe
DA
WATCH: Anne Hathaway Attacks 'Straightness' And 'Whiteness'
46 mins ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQBQ&usg=AOvVaw1wS748k5FftQOM0YGiY0XO&cf=1
46 mins ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQBQ&usg=AOvVaw1wS748k5FftQOM0YGiY0XO&cf=1
Sheriff Joe
DA
Obama repeatedly stutters, talks about himself 79 times while campaigning for candidates
September 15, 2018
By Kyle Olson
No wonder this dope won't release his transcripts.
Stuttering, babbling fool.
There were times during a Thursday rally Barack Obama couldn’t help but talk about himself, even though he was supposed to be talking about other people.
There were other times he could barely talk at all.
During the Cleveland rally for Rich Cordray and Betty Sutton, Obama repeatedly talked about himself, despite the candidates sitting behind him.
Several times, he stuttered as he attempted to attack President Trump and the success of recent Republican initiatives.
“I see you,” Obama started, pointing into the audience.
“Let, let, let, let, let me just say these, these are friends of mine,” Obama said, stumbling over his words, “I admit I am biased.”
Several times, Obama called Cordray and Sutton a “friend of mine.”
“I have worked with them,” he said, keeping the focus on himself.
Several times, Obama attempted to regale the audience with stories about when he was important and the President.
Speaking of Cordray, he said, “He had my back even when some of you couldn’t pronounce my name.”
After seemingly being forced to talk about the candidates he was campaigning for, Obama said, “But I have a broader message…”
He found a way to make a heckler about himself, too.
“I always miss having at least one heckler up in here,” Obama told the audience.
“I can never really hear what they’re saying, but I appreciate the exercise of free speech,” he said.
At one point, The Chosen One devolved into a stuttering mess, saying, “We, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we spend…”
“I know that sometimes, when I was president, even when I was a candidate, folks would say, ‘Barack, you’re talking too long.’
‘You’re like too professorial, you’re explaining stuff too much,'” Obama said people told him.
“I know, but sometimes things are complicated and I didn’t, I, I, I, and I was confident…” he continued.
Making a pass at talking about the candidates, Obama said, “And that’s why I’m here. Not just because I love Ohio, although I do. And not just because I love Cleveland,” he said.
More than half way into his remarks, he finally said, “I want to talk a little bit about Rich just for a second.”
And he was meaning that pretty literally, as he quickly shifted back to talking about himself, and musing about his own opinions.
“I, I, I can’t, I can’t even beat Sasha at Jeopardy,” he said, getting way off the subject and talking about his daughter and the game show.
About 30 minutes into his remarks, Obama said, “Now listen, I know it’s hot so I gotta wrap up.”
But he just kept going.
“But here’s something I said last week that I want to repeat,” he said, before later saying virtually the same thing.
“I said this last week, I want to repeat it,” he said.
All told, Obama talked about himself 79 times during the roughly 40 minute speech, saying “I” 66 times, “Me” 5 times, “My” 5 times, and “Mine” 3 times.
Last week, Obama gave two speeches in which he mentioned himself a combined 168 times — 63 times in California and 102 times in Illinois.
Christine Blasey Ford claims that Brett Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed at a Maryland high school party they attended in the early 1980s, clumsily tried to remove her clothing and put his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream.
"I thought he might inadvertently kill me," Ford said. "He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing."
Yet this woman never uttered a word about this "attack" and her near death experience for 35+ years?
This wouldn't be admitted into evidence in a court of law
Yet this all makes perfect sense to many in DC.
The man should be removed from the bench, disbarred and sent to prison.
Unbelievable.
"I thought he might inadvertently kill me," Ford said. "He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing."
Yet this woman never uttered a word about this "attack" and her near death experience for 35+ years?
This wouldn't be admitted into evidence in a court of law
Yet this all makes perfect sense to many in DC.
The man should be removed from the bench, disbarred and sent to prison.
Unbelievable.
From CNN:
- The early 1980s: Christine Ford said that while she and Kavanaugh were high school students at their respective schools in Maryland, they both went to a party. Ford alleged that at this party, she was pushed into a bedroom and an inebriated Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed while his friend Mark Judge was watching and laughing. She said Kavanaugh groped her, tried to take off her clothes and placed his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream. Ford said she managed to escape when Judge jumped on top of them. Kavanaugh and Judge have denied the allegations, and Ford said she did not speak about the incident for years. Ford told The Washington Post that she thought it happened in the summer of 1982, when she would have been 15 and the newspaper said Kavanaugh would have been 17.
- 2012: While at couples therapy with her husband, Ford told the Post she described the alleged incident in detail for the first time. Her husband, Russell Ford, recalled to the Post that she talked during their 2012 sessions about the incident, mentioning Kavanaugh's last name and that he was a federal judge who might be on the Supreme Court eventually. Ford provided portions of the therapist's notes to the paper, which described an incident without mentioning Kavanaugh by name. The Post said the notes referred to four boys involved, which Ford said was an error made by her therapist. Ford told the Post four boys at the party, but only two were in the room.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/kavanaugh-ford-timeline/index.html
Multi Sport
DA
Too bad it didn't go like this:
Obama repeatedly stutters, talks about himself 79 times while campaigning for candidates
September 15, 2018
By Kyle Olson
No wonder this dope won't release his transcripts.
Stuttering, babbling fool.
There were times during a Thursday rally Barack Obama couldn’t help but talk about himself, even though he was supposed to be talking about other people.
There were other times he could barely talk at all.
During the Cleveland rally for Rich Cordray and Betty Sutton, Obama repeatedly talked about himself, despite the candidates sitting behind him.
Several times, he stuttered as he attempted to attack President Trump and the success of recent Republican initiatives.
“I see you,” Obama started, pointing into the audience.
“Let, let, let, let, let me just say these, these are friends of mine,” Obama said, stumbling over his words, “I admit I am biased.”
Several times, Obama called Cordray and Sutton a “friend of mine.”
“I have worked with them,” he said, keeping the focus on himself.
Several times, Obama attempted to regale the audience with stories about when he was important and the President.
Speaking of Cordray, he said, “He had my back even when some of you couldn’t pronounce my name.”
After seemingly being forced to talk about the candidates he was campaigning for, Obama said, “But I have a broader message…”
He found a way to make a heckler about himself, too.
“I always miss having at least one heckler up in here,” Obama told the audience.
“I can never really hear what they’re saying, but I appreciate the exercise of free speech,” he said.
At one point, The Chosen One devolved into a stuttering mess, saying, “We, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we spend…”
“I know that sometimes, when I was president, even when I was a candidate, folks would say, ‘Barack, you’re talking too long.’
‘You’re like too professorial, you’re explaining stuff too much,'” Obama said people told him.
“I know, but sometimes things are complicated and I didn’t, I, I, I, and I was confident…” he continued.
Making a pass at talking about the candidates, Obama said, “And that’s why I’m here. Not just because I love Ohio, although I do. And not just because I love Cleveland,” he said.
More than half way into his remarks, he finally said, “I want to talk a little bit about Rich just for a second.”
And he was meaning that pretty literally, as he quickly shifted back to talking about himself, and musing about his own opinions.
“I, I, I can’t, I can’t even beat Sasha at Jeopardy,” he said, getting way off the subject and talking about his daughter and the game show.
About 30 minutes into his remarks, Obama said, “Now listen, I know it’s hot so I gotta wrap up.”
But he just kept going.
“But here’s something I said last week that I want to repeat,” he said, before later saying virtually the same thing.
“I said this last week, I want to repeat it,” he said.
All told, Obama talked about himself 79 times during the roughly 40 minute speech, saying “I” 66 times, “Me” 5 times, “My” 5 times, and “Mine” 3 times.
Last week, Obama gave two speeches in which he mentioned himself a combined 168 times — 63 times in California and 102 times in Illinois.
When I lied to you about your healthcare..
When I lied to you that you can keep your doctor..
Back when I lied to you that your insurance rates wouldn't go up, not a dime...
When I lied about the economy never growing past 2%...
When I lied about ending the war in Iraq..
Back when my administration and I lied about the Fast and Furious..
When my administration and I failed to protect our embassy and then lied about it..
Read the Post article, Kavanaugh is an admitted gang member (“Beach Week aralph Club”and “Keg City Club”) and goes by the gang moniker “Bart O’Kavanaugh.” A thug is a thug is a thug!
You know Trump’s base is keeping Obamacare alive don’t you, at least they’re not that stupid? And how much better would it be if they didn’t intentionally try to sabotage it? Talk about Envy with a capital E.
Obama took the stock market from 5k and handed it off at 20k, saved your 401k, took unemployment from 10+ and handed it off at 4.7, and had gas at 2.50 /gal. How much are you paying now? Oh and by the way, even though unemployment numbers are at 3.9, there has been no ‘real’ wage increase. Where’s all the trickle down from the tax cuts? I’ll gladly take an extra 40k in retirement as opposed to $800/ year now from the cuts. And I thought you guys were fiscal conservatives, adding 1.5 trillion to the deficit.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Did you forget about the GDP?
Obama is the ring leader of the worst recovery in history, give me 10 trillion and I could do better than that dude.
Your liberal stripes are showing.
I was ready to quit trump over the spending bill last year, but you and your friends lying on Trump 24/7 brought me back.
What do you think about this Kavanaugh thing?
Sheriff Joe
DA
More about your hero, the lawless bastard child.
Revealed: The Justice Dept's secret rules for targeting journalists with FISA court orders
Trevor Timm
Executive Director
Today
Flckr: RestrictedData
Today, we are revealing—for the first time—the Justice Department’s rules for targeting journalists with secret FISA court orders. The documents were obtained as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by Freedom of the Press Foundation and Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.
While civil liberties advocates have long suspected secret FISA court orders may be used (and abused) to conduct surveillance on journalists, the government—to our knowledge—has never acknowledged they have ever even contemplated doing so before the release of these documents today.
The FISA court rules below are entirely separate from—and much less stringent—than the rules for obtaining subpoenas, court orders, and warrants against journalists as laid out in the Justice Department’s “media guidelines,” which former Attorney General Eric Holder strengthened in 2015 after several scandals involving surveillance of journalists during the Obama era.
When using the legal authorities named in the “media guidelines,” the Justice Department (DOJ) must go through a fairly stringent multi-part test (e.g. certifying that the information is critical to an investigation, that it can’t be obtained by other means, and that the DOJ exhausted all other avenues before doing so) before targeting a journalist with surveillance. They must also get approval from the Attorney General.
With the FISA court rules, there is no multi-part test that we know of. The DOJ only must follow its regular FISA court procedures (which can be less strict than getting a warrant in a criminal case) and get additional approval from the Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General. FISA court orders are also inherently secret, and targets are almost never informed that they exist.
The documents raise several concerning questions:
- How many times have FISA court orders been used to target journalists? The memo that accompanies these rules strongly suggests that there have been journalists subject to FISA court orders in the past (“Consistent with this determination, such applications [targeting members of the media] shall be reviewed by the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General“) and that it’s entirely possible there are such orders active now. How many journalists have been targeted total, and are any currently under a FISA investigation?
- Why did the Justice Department keep these rules secret -- even their very existence -- when the Justice Department updated its “media guidelines” in 2015 with great fanfare? FISA Court orders are exempt from the media guidelines yet apparently these rules existed in secret at least since then.
- If these rules can now be released to the public, why are the FBI’s very similar rules for targeting journalists with due process-free National Security Letters still considered classified? And is the Justice Department targeting journalists with NSLs and FISA court orders to get around the stricter “media guidelines”?
The fact that these were kept secret during the Obama administration is cause for great concern. Now, President Trump has repeatedly stated his hatred for the media, and his Attorney General Jeff Sessions has already tripled the amount of leak investigations since the Obama era (when they were already at an all time high). Has the Trump administration used FISA court orders to target journalists with surveillance? If so, when?
This is critically important information at a time when press freedom has been under threat from the government, and its role in our democracy has never been more important. We hope the Justice Department will answer these questions immediately.
Special thanks to our co-plaintiffs and legal counsel for this case, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. you can read their full analysis of the secret FISA rules here. We hope this is just the first of many documents from this still-running FOIA case about the government’s surveillance of journalists we will be able to share with the public in the coming months.
You can read the full rules below (starting on page 10 of the PDF).
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Information Policy
Suite 11050
1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
-0001
Telephone: (202) 514-3642
August 31, 2018
Ms. Carrie DeCell
Knight First Amendment Institute
at Columbia University
314 Low Library
535 West 116
th
Street
New York, NY 10027
carrie.decell@knightcolumbia.org
Mr. Trevor Timm
Freedom of the Press Foundation
Re:
DOJ
-2018-000135 (AG)
601 Van Ness Avenue
DOJ
-2018-000288 (DAG)
Suite E731
DOJ
-2018-000289 (ASG)
San Francisco, CA 94102
17-
cv-9343 (S.D.N.
Y.)
trevor@freedom.press
TAZ
:JMS
Dear Ms. DeCell and Mr. Timm:
This
is in
response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated
October 10,
2017, and received in this Office on October 11, 2017, for records concerning restrictions
imposed by statute, regulation, or the First Amendment on government surveillance targeting
members of the news media or otherwise implicating the freedoms of speech, association, or
the press
. This response is made on behalf of the
Offices of the Attorney General (OAG),
Deputy Attorney General (ODAG), and Associate Attorney General (OASG).
By letter dated July 31, 2018, we provided you with a partial response, and advised that
we were processing additional records
which were either recently referred, or require
d
additional consultations. Our review of the remaining material containing records responsive
to your request is now complete.
I have determined that fourteen
pages containing records responsive to your request are
appropriate for release with
excision
s, some on behalf of the Office of Legal Counsel, the
National Security Division, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, pursuant to Exemptions 1,
3, 5, and 7(E) of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1),
(b)(3), (b)(5), and (b)(7)(E). E
xemption 1
pertains to information that is properly classified in the interest of national security pursuant to
Executive Order 13526. Exemption 3 pertains to information exempted from release by
statute, in this instance 50 U.S.C. § 403-1(i)(1) (currently at 50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)(1)) (National
Security Act of 1947). Exemption 5 pertains to certain inter
- and intra- agency
communications protected by the deliberative process and attorney-
client privileges.
Multi Sport
DA
I can tell you this.
I've had my business since 1985. This current year is probably the bedt I've had in over 8 years. Spin it any way YOU want, I don't care.
BTW.. hpw much did healthcare go up? Ours went to $1500 a month. Thsnkfully the company my wife works for picked up the difference.
And if you want to givevObama all this credit for what he did in his 8 years he also turned over a country whos race relations were set back to the 60s.
This woman is a LIAR !
At 15 years old if something like that happened to the daughter of a CIA operative ( Esp CIA ) .....
A. She would have told her dad and mom.
B. She would have told ALL of her friends before the night was over.
C. Her dad would have been all over 17 year old Brett Kavanaugh like a wet towel.
D. The High School would have known.
E. Her High School would have known.
F. The Local Police Dept would have been informed.
G. His friend who supposedly was in the room would definitely have a different response !
H. ALL....and I do mean ALL of the young ladies now 50 year old women + would recount it !
As a Youth/Young Adult I attended and promoted many many many parties
and I am telling you ....She's a Goddamn LIAR !
She wishes she had been to " Animal House " style parties, but she was probably your
proverbial stick in the mud who fantasized.....
This Woman is a LIAR and she has boxed herself into a corner BIGTIME with the
made up shit to support Democrats....
She will go down in History as the Lying Piece of Crap who got down on her knees to
please the Democratic Party....!
Seriously, look at Chelsea and take the hair away.
Its him.
More about your hero, the lawless bastard child.
Revealed: The Justice Dept's secret rules for targeting journalists with FISA court orders
Trevor Timm
Executive Director
Today
Flckr: RestrictedData
Today, we are revealing—for the first time—the Justice Department’s rules for targeting journalists with secret FISA court orders. The documents were obtained as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by Freedom of the Press Foundation and Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.
While civil liberties advocates have long suspected secret FISA court orders may be used (and abused) to conduct surveillance on journalists, the government—to our knowledge—has never acknowledged they have ever even contemplated doing so before the release of these documents today.
The FISA court rules below are entirely separate from—and much less stringent—than the rules for obtaining subpoenas, court orders, and warrants against journalists as laid out in the Justice Department’s “media guidelines,” which former Attorney General Eric Holder strengthened in 2015 after several scandals involving surveillance of journalists during the Obama era.
When using the legal authorities named in the “media guidelines,” the Justice Department (DOJ) must go through a fairly stringent multi-part test (e.g. certifying that the information is critical to an investigation, that it can’t be obtained by other means, and that the DOJ exhausted all other avenues before doing so) before targeting a journalist with surveillance. They must also get approval from the Attorney General.
With the FISA court rules, there is no multi-part test that we know of. The DOJ only must follow its regular FISA court procedures (which can be less strict than getting a warrant in a criminal case) and get additional approval from the Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General. FISA court orders are also inherently secret, and targets are almost never informed that they exist.
The documents raise several concerning questions:
We initially filed our FOIA lawsuit in part because we knew the DOJ had already kept the use of National Security Letters against members of the media exempt from the “media guidelines.” Those separate—and still secret rules—are in a redacted appendix in the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DOIG). A version was leaked to the Intercept in 2016 and they read very similar to these unredacted FISA court rules.
- How many times have FISA court orders been used to target journalists? The memo that accompanies these rules strongly suggests that there have been journalists subject to FISA court orders in the past (“Consistent with this determination, such applications [targeting members of the media] shall be reviewed by the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General“) and that it’s entirely possible there are such orders active now. How many journalists have been targeted total, and are any currently under a FISA investigation?
- Why did the Justice Department keep these rules secret -- even their very existence -- when the Justice Department updated its “media guidelines” in 2015 with great fanfare? FISA Court orders are exempt from the media guidelines yet apparently these rules existed in secret at least since then.
- If these rules can now be released to the public, why are the FBI’s very similar rules for targeting journalists with due process-free National Security Letters still considered classified? And is the Justice Department targeting journalists with NSLs and FISA court orders to get around the stricter “media guidelines”?
The fact that these were kept secret during the Obama administration is cause for great concern. Now, President Trump has repeatedly stated his hatred for the media, and his Attorney General Jeff Sessions has already tripled the amount of leak investigations since the Obama era (when they were already at an all time high). Has the Trump administration used FISA court orders to target journalists with surveillance? If so, when?
This is critically important information at a time when press freedom has been under threat from the government, and its role in our democracy has never been more important. We hope the Justice Department will answer these questions immediately.
Special thanks to our co-plaintiffs and legal counsel for this case, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. you can read their full analysis of the secret FISA rules here. We hope this is just the first of many documents from this still-running FOIA case about the government’s surveillance of journalists we will be able to share with the public in the coming months.
You can read the full rules below (starting on page 10 of the PDF).
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Information Policy
Suite 11050
1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
-0001
Telephone: (202) 514-3642
August 31, 2018
Ms. Carrie DeCell
Knight First Amendment Institute
at Columbia University
314 Low Library
535 West 116
th
Street
New York, NY 10027
carrie.decell@knightcolumbia.org
Mr. Trevor Timm
Freedom of the Press Foundation
Re:
DOJ
-2018-000135 (AG)
601 Van Ness Avenue
DOJ
-2018-000288 (DAG)
Suite E731
DOJ
-2018-000289 (ASG)
San Francisco, CA 94102
17-
cv-9343 (S.D.N.
Y.)
trevor@freedom.press
TAZ
:JMS
Dear Ms. DeCell and Mr. Timm:
This
is in
response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated
October 10,
2017, and received in this Office on October 11, 2017, for records concerning restrictions
imposed by statute, regulation, or the First Amendment on government surveillance targeting
members of the news media or otherwise implicating the freedoms of speech, association, or
the press
. This response is made on behalf of the
Offices of the Attorney General (OAG),
Deputy Attorney General (ODAG), and Associate Attorney General (OASG).
By letter dated July 31, 2018, we provided you with a partial response, and advised that
we were processing additional records
which were either recently referred, or require
d
additional consultations. Our review of the remaining material containing records responsive
to your request is now complete.
I have determined that fourteen
pages containing records responsive to your request are
appropriate for release with
excision
s, some on behalf of the Office of Legal Counsel, the
National Security Division, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, pursuant to Exemptions 1,
3, 5, and 7(E) of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1),
(b)(3), (b)(5), and (b)(7)(E). E
xemption 1
pertains to information that is properly classified in the interest of national security pursuant to
Executive Order 13526. Exemption 3 pertains to information exempted from release by
statute, in this instance 50 U.S.C. § 403-1(i)(1) (currently at 50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)(1)) (National
Security Act of 1947). Exemption 5 pertains to certain inter
- and intra- agency
communications protected by the deliberative process and attorney-
client privileges.
I’m not reading this.