Vivek Ramaswamy Sues DOJ, Requests Trump Jan. 6 Indictment Details

Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy.
Yeah, I can understand this.. . .

Hell, this is probably what this case is all about. . . he probably took evidence of Biden family corruption in Ukraine with him out of office as an, Insurance policy. . .



:auiqs.jpg:

Nice exemption.

:eusa_think:

I mean, this is Trump we're talking about, why the hell else would he take his, "work," home with him? :dunno:

 
  • 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 those protected by the:
    1. Deliberative Process Privilege (provided the records were created less than 25 years before the date on which they were requested)
    2. Attorney-Work Product Privilege
    3. 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, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law
    • 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.
Source?
 
When we are in the process of indicting someone over a political opinion? Why bring that up? It is my right and Trump's right to say the 2020 election was stolen. This is the last desperate attempt to cover up the obvious theft. It is not going to work. But you know that already.
did you hear that Youtube is gonna put all the videos back up that questioned the election? hahahaahahaahahahahahahha, they are in fear for their lives of losing business. Elon's coming hide your heart. paraphrasing 3 dog night.
 
I should have said an "active case" not just the investigation part.

Do we really want Law Enforcement releasing information prior to the case being concluded?
Trump never read his presidential briefings when he was president. We really should start being real about this whole thing, I think being honest about reality would do everyone some good here.

You really have to think like Vivek and use some critical thinking.

No, somewhere in that classified material, is dirt on either the current adim, or the upper management of the intel agencies, proving a management, or biased foreign policy agenda.

Now that we know that Hunter was calling Joe, while he was doing business dealings, regardless of what Joe actually said, we now know, this makes Hunter, more than likely, in violation of FARA. It might make this whole thing, more serious, depending on what cards Trump IS holding. . . .

That is more than likely what this whole thing is about, IMO.
 
Nice try, you google searched and found something to correlates with your opinion.

Exemption Seven has 6 exemptions that fall under this category. Which one? 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, etc..

These three at least...

  • 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
 
This guy is making waves. He has got to be a target for our corrupt government. They might bite off more than they can chew. This guy is smart.

"Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has sued the Department of Justice (DOJ) for allegedly failing to respond to his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request regarding the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump.

Mr. Ramaswamy announced the lawsuit, filed in district court in Columbia on Aug. 1, in a statement on Twitter, now known as X.

The GOP 2024 presidential candidate accused the DOJ of having failed to “substantively respond” to his FOIA request to “uncover what White House officials, including President Joe Biden, communicated to [Attorney General] Merrick Garland and [special counsel] Jack Smith about the unprecedented indictment in the classified documents case of a former U.S. President and one of Biden’s political opponents in the 2024" Presidential election.”


Vivek is an imbecile.

Grifty has literally provided all the evidence necessary in the classified docs case.
 
These three at least...

  • 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
Not one of those is what you stated in your original comment.

Thank you for proving you did not know anything about the exemptions.
 

Forum List

Back
Top