.@robportman showing a document CISA sent to a congressional committee in response to a chair's letter.

Not a FOIA release. They sent this TO THEIR OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.

That's $%^&ed up. Image
I do particularly like the "Not for Further Dissemination or Public Release" footer though. It's both hilarious that they put this on an almost entirely redacted page & obnoxious that they tried to tell a Member of Congress what to do with that page.
Agree or disagree with any particular Member of Congress's politics, in the end they're Members of Congress, & Executive Branch agencies don't get to dictate to them what can be done with unclassified information. Classified is a closer call, but this is over the top.
And whoever thought they could get away with this clearly didn't know how to read the room.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with National Security Counselors

National Security Counselors Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @NatlSecCnslrs

9 Jun
This is a pretty good nutshell about the merits of DOJ's argument in the Carroll-Trump defamation case, but it's important to separate the question of whether or not DOJ is RIGHT from whether or not DOJ will DEFEND IT.
Let's assume that @JuddLegum's analysis is entirely correct (which I tend to support myself). The fact that DOJ lawyers are making an objectively bad argument is nothing new. DOJ lawyers make objectively bad arguments all the time. If they didn't, you'd never see a case where ...
the Govt lost.

It's important to remember that DOJ litigators are LITIGATORS first and DOJ second. Now, we can argue about whether or not that's a good thing until the cows come home (and I tend to think it's not), but the relevant thing is, that's the way the agency has ...
Read 6 tweets
8 Jun
#Lawtwitter Hail Mary incoming

I would normally exhaust literally every other option before even considering openly seeking assistance on Twitter with a case, & even then probably still not do it, but this is a truly $%^&ed up matter that just hurts my soul, so here goes.
A colleague was on the cusp of filing a federal lawsuit in an egregious case involving a female Bureau of Prisons employee, when her male colleagues were doing things like subjecting her to extra scrutiny & saying she wouldn't need to do that if she put out for them. When she ...
complained about this, she was harshly retaliated against because a primary offending culprit was a senior union official, ultimately being forced out by intense psychological pressure. The factual record has been fully fleshed out at the administrative level, even though ...
Read 9 tweets
5 Jun
.@qjurecic is right to identify this as DOJ being, well, DOJ, but I think she overlooks a key point, at least in the context of FOIA litigation. Are judges more likely to question the candor & accuracy of agency officials involved in Trump-related cases? Maybe. But that ...
doesn't necessarily mean what you might think it means. In a vacuum, that statement might seem ominous, but when you consider that over the past 20 years judges have been giving ever greater deference to ever more unsupported agency declarations, being more skeptical just ...
means being less reflexively credulous. Judges who actually practice the rule that agencies can't win FOIA cases with conclusory testimony are a dying breed, being replaced by judges who hold that the only way to overcome the presumption of good faith in agency declarations ...
Read 9 tweets
5 Jun
This dude (@JeffNealHR) was the former Chief Human Capital Officer at DHS. And he thinks that federal employees who work from home can take care of their kids at the same time. Peter is right; that's explicitly prohibited at almost every agency I've seen. So even before we ...
get to the part of how insane it is to think that taking care of a child who would otherwise need child care while trying to work, we can't get past the fact that THE PEOPLE HE'S TALKING ABOUT CAN'T EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO.

Here's the offending statement. npr.org/2021/06/04/100…
Read 6 tweets
4 Jun
So, remember when I talked about the @ShawnMusgrave #FOIA lawsuit for #FBI records about @DevinCow? Man, I can still remember it like it was yesterday.

Anyway, there's more. At least, more to FBI's complete reversal about whether it had records about Nunes's Most Wanted.
So, to recap, after we sued them, FBI ran away from its Glomar response & said fine, we'll process the request.

Then things got goofy again. They sent a "final" response to me last week.

Pause here a moment to review the 5 types of records we wanted. This will be relevant.
They CLAIM that they searched for the first three categories, but their description of their search is, shall we say, wanting. "We searched the places we wanted to search for things we wanted to search for and didn't find anything."
Read 15 tweets
4 Jun
Previously on #BadFOIATakes:

1) @ShawnMusgrave & I filed a #FOIA request for #FBI records about @DevinCow. FBI refused to confirm or deny the existence or non-existence of records, saying it would harm the privacy interests of a fake anonymous cow.

2) We sued.
3) FBI unilaterally reversed its position & agreed to process the request rather than defend its response.

4) We learned that the US Atty's Office for DC had attempted to subpoena Twitter for information about @NunesAlt.
5) We filed a new FOIA request for US Atty's Office for DC's records about @DevinCow.

And now:

US Atty's Office for DC refused to confirm or deny the existence or non-existence of records, saying it would harm the privacy interests of a fake anonymous cow.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!