All that bluster and you still don’t address where the source is wrong. If they’re so bad that should be easy. Take a lesson from icu2.
@ICU2
The question I have is; Why are they fighting it at all? We shouldn’t need a foia request to make public what our leaders plans are re: elections. This should’ve been out there to the public the minute it went to whatever agencies it did. It’s the people’s country, not the politician’s. All they do by denying and redacting is raise eyebrows.
Originally Posted by Jacuzzme
Well I don't disagree with transparency, but I think the fault may be in how it was filed and all the subsequent updates to the request. Courts respond to exact requests vs. general ones, and it could be extremely onerous to produce mountains of information, per the 600 different agencies that were referenced and why, and what they were asked to do. That level of detail may require a much higher amount of response time, or the judge may have instructed them to mediate, which I believe is what happened here, so that they could be more specific in their request. Mind you- no objections were filed by either party as yet and the production date currently is September 28th. But likely will be again asked to extended, but who knows.
But to your point I do believe that when possible these FOIA requests should be replied to 100%. And I mean that for both sides.
Just like I think when people are subpoenaed to Congress or any special committee, they should show up and not plea the fifth. Americans deserve transparency in politics, but we're talking about incredible greasy slippery eels, who do not like to be captured in direct lies, innuendos or anything else in nefarious. And I mean that on both sides