General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt's Rudy Giuliani's time in the barrel (FBI FOIA requests)
FBI just informed me it is no longer Glomar-ing our FOIA litigation request for @LouiseMensch re investigations into leaks to Rudy Giuliani.
Link to tweet
See legal documents in post #7.
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)Blue Meany
(1,947 posts)consider his FOIA request because it would interfere with an ongoing investigation. Thus, they did look for materials nor did they deny him copies of them, they simply stalled. Apparently that has now changed.
There's lots of cryptic stuff on the twitter discussion of Russia and Trump. I can't figure out half of the stuff posted by those with real inside knowledge.
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)interested in doing so.
Honestly, I don't see how one is supposed to get anything out of a string of supposedly related comments that are not all temporal to the original message and may be directed at nearly anything or anyone else in the "chain".
It is ludicrous to me.
titaniumsalute
(4,742 posts)We really need to start H-Blipping the FBI with some Non-Comp PERSPIRE trimwear. Get twith the program hlthe2b!!
MelissaB
(16,420 posts)Glomar response
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In United States law, the term Glomar response (aka Glomarization or Glomar denial[1]) refers to a "neither confirm nor deny" (NCND) response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. There are two types of instances in which a Glomarization has been used. The first is in a national security context, where to deny a request on security grounds would provide information that the documents or programs which the requester is seeking indeed exist. Glomarization is also used in the case of privacy, in which a response as to whether or not a person is or is not mentioned in law enforcement files may have a stigmatizing connotation.[1]
Lower courts have thus far ruled the Glomar response to have potential merit if the secretive nature of the material truly requires it, and only if the agency provides "as much information as possible" to justify its claim. Otherwise, the principles established in FOIA may outweigh claims to secrecy.
Origin of the term
The Glomar Explorer was a large salvage vessel built by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for its covert "Project Azorian"an attempted salvaging of a sunken Soviet submarine. In February 1975, aware of the pending publication of a story in the Los Angeles Times, the CIA sought to stop the story's publication. Journalist Harriet Ann Phillippi requested that the CIA provide disclosure of both the Glomar project and its attempts to censor the story, to which the CIA chose to "neither confirm nor deny" both the project's existence and its attempts to keep the story unpublished. This claim stood, and Phillippi's FOIA request was rejected, though when the Ford administration was replaced by the Carter administration in 1977 after the 1976 presidential election, the government position on the particular case was softened and both of Phillippi's claims were confirmed.[2][3]
The "Glomar response" precedent still stood, and has since had bearing in FOIA cases such as in the 2004 lawsuit American Civil Liberties Union v. Department of Defense, wherein Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein rejected the Department of Defense and CIA's use of the Glomar response in refusing to release documents and photos depicting abuse at Abu Ghraib prison.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)The CIA wanted the Glomar Explorer to be confused with the Glomar Challenger, which was a real ocean research vessel. They used the same design company.
"Glomar Challenger was made to help Harry Hess with the theory of Seafloor Spreading by taking rock samples confirming that the farther from the Mid-ocean ridge, the older the rock was."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Challenger#Purpose