***Official Political Discussion Thread***

For reference, (b5) is the 'deliberative process' exemption. Specifically "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency, provided that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or more before the date on which the records were requested."
(b)(7)(A) is the exemption for harm to ongoing law enforcement proceedings.
https://buzzfeed.egnyte.com/dl/rrpLVVjqY5/
 
Last edited:
giphy.gif
 
https://buzzfeed.egnyte.com/dl/rrpLVVjqY5/

In the excerpts below, I have skimmed through all the newly released 302s to look for references to the 'harm to ongoing matter' exemption, which is (b)(7)(A). Not all of the ongoing matters exemptions involve Roger Stone, and I also found multiple exemption for information that could endanger someone's life if disclosed. Those latter exemptions came from a K.T. McFarland 302 and a Felix Sater 302.
Sidenote: I have now memorized all FOIA exemptions.

Below are excerpts from every single 302 that contained redactions under the 'harm to ongoing matter' exemption. Most of them refer to Roger Stone's case but not all of them. I've put them in a spoiler due to the image size.

The (b)(7)(B) exemption protects information that "would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication."
The timing of the redaction process fits with Roger Stone's trial. I think it can be reasonably assumed that all (b)(7)(B) exemptions involve Roger Stone, even though it is finished at this point. It seems to have been applied pretty indiscriminately to anything that involves Stone.
Therefore, all (b)(7)(A) exemptions that are not accompanied by (b)(7)(B) are separate proceedings from Stone's case.
29525ed7fc3e19112725ce88c37ea8cb.png

bb374fa0d68d80ded6c5df08c3a60207.png

6642cb66bb842db8feb99326963da883.png

b9e87c490b64920e53958011ae900732.png


Interesting spot for a b7A exemption. Not sure how or where that conversation would fit into an ongoing investigation. Notably, it does not involve Roger Stone.
c95ac4fce2178bf134e1c30892f9c29f.png


A name I haven't heard before. A Trump adviser named Chris Ruddy was interviewed in June 2018. (b)(7)(B) pops up again here.
20bc9943d578a88a38f434336a9db3de.png


K.T. McFarland's interview notes partially involve an ongoing investigation as well but the exemptions suggest that it was yet again about Roger Stone.
362392469a709b4dfa2fe1abacf5ce08.png

Same goes for Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
f7806d019bf2e9306d00a6d151ed5978.png



This is rather strange. Unlike all the other 302s, which clearly identify the person being interviewed, this one does not.
Some of of his/her answered are redacted under the (b)(5) exemption so part of it involved information about internal deliberative process communications/documents. For the record, (b)(5) is a notoriously broad exemption.
Most of the interview notes are covered under (b)(6), which protects information about individuals in personnel and medical files and similar files" when the disclosure of such information "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
Additionally, some of the answers are redacted undr (b)(7)(D), which protects law enforcement information that "could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source", as well as (b)(7)(E), which involves information that would "disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions."
A small portion of the answers involve the exemption for "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential" as well.
The identity of the person is covered by (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) so he/she is not a confidential human source. (b)(7)(C) is an "unwarranted invasion of privacy" exemption.
Presumably this is someone who works for US intelligence, based on the exemptions applied to the notes.
497fecf47ac9af1b6455f06d80af794e.png

Some of it is also redacted under (b)(7)(A), in other words an ongoing investigation. Notably, this does not involve the (b)(7)(B) exemption, thus it is not related to Roger Stone.
b93a663c765feb8931b61f1415139504.png


Thed Malloch's interview obviously was about Roger Stone's case, no surprises there.
760698a0df4377eb3d7a8d9265c8b2e0.png


Back to another Manafort interview. I recall Manafort was questioned about text messages that had something to do with a plan to "save the candidate."
Roger Stone was involved somehow.
b024cdb4b1d1ba98eb80d51ef32175c2.png



Back to another K.T. McFarland interview, this one is relevant to a still ongoing investigation unrelated to Roger Stone. Judging by the (b)(7)(E) exemption, it also has something to do with investigative techniques. Not sure what to make of this.
d3544f58b784a7756d01c245dc552c0a.png

8156f3474ea526e7afd7ee2e47af3d80.png


The following is what is most baffling. Note the (b)(7)(F) exemption.
That exemption protects information that "could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual."
???
b609cea39c6cf93a63f2ba9b66546fce.png

It pops up again in a later interview with McFarland.
5089d6ff5eb927c4c59a2400822ef9d5.png


After the Mueller report, Dimitri Simes claimed vindication. These interview notes however involve an ongoing investigation.
Simes had various interactions with Jared Kushner. Nearly all the notes for his interview are marked with the (b)(7)(A) exemption.
Quite a few parts are redacted under both the 'harm to ongoing matter' and 'deliberative process' exemptions.
Out of the very few names that are mentioned, Kushner comes up a lot.
f9aa1f00e671918a6ee81a7c4b58104b.png



Interestingly, Felix Sater's interview notes are filled with exemptions for information that could endanger someone's life. This is just a small excerpt and (b)(7)(F) pops up numerous times already.
1490887f52519be1ad8bbce243067c82.png

49150e02c3385bee57f260b9c29536c9.png


The final interview notes are from one of Jerome Corsi's interviews. Obviously they involve Roger Stone's case.
262840f35d03509a08d089054f3c0539.png

a5b0c5ad9107588cf90a61bb2e994d37.png



In a later interview with Corsi however, the (b)(7)(B) exemption is not applied, unlike previous instances. In a part right above this except, (b)(7)(B) is included. This suggests an ongoing investigation that does not involve Roger Stone.
f850ab96db91afa91ef9a943a7a8705b.png

Same thing right below it. The upper part includes information exempted because it could "would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication" (Roger Stone), whereas the part below it does not.
9be723b604e4e5459419ae980d374173.png


Same goes for the notes from another Corsi interview. Anything related to Stone throughout these releases has been marked by (b)(7)(B) so it must be something else.
153e727340ae0480181cd7fb47e25d50.png
 
Last edited:
Oh boy...



Such a deliberate act of escalation like this doesn't benefit anyone but the extremists in the governments over here and abroad along with the MIC

Fully expecting even more escalation now which was probably the aim since it's pretty much like killing their defense secretary. Going after and actually taking out someone so high up in the revolutionary guard hierarchy is unprecedented.

Really hope it's not 2003 all over again but this has to be the most serious and dangerous/inflammatory action taken yet during these increased tensions with Iran since 45 took over and undid all those years of hard work on the diplomatic front to try to keep the peace under Obama

Feels like a powder keg moment tbh depending on how they choose to respond/retaliate but I'm legit concerned given how close the guy was to the Ayatollah and how influential he was in their army...
 
cower in fear, cowards! Papa Trump is a man of action!

in all seriousness, I'm sure he had little say in this attack. he was probably presented things in a way to make him think he was calling the shots.

and I don't see Iran (Hezbollah) escalating. they'll carry out some symbolic counter-measure but that's about it.

at the end of the day, both sides will puff out their chests but do little other than let a bunch of other people die in another proxy war.

although:

ENUjAjBX0AAVjQm
 
Uh oh...



Such a deliberate act of escalation like this doesn't benefit anyone but the extremists in the governments over here and abroad along with the MIC

Fully expecting even more escalation now which was probably the aim since it's pretty much like killing their defense secretary. Going after and actually taking out someone so high up in the revolutionary guard hierarchy is unprecedented.

Really hope it's not 2003 all over again but this has to be the most serious and dangerous action during these increased tensions with Iran since 45 took over and undid all those years of hard work on the diplomatic front to try to keep the peace under Obama

Feels like a powder keg moment tbh depending on how they respond/retaliate

The US embassy was stormed a few days ago by Iranian-backed militias (which is why 750 marines were deployed in Baghdad as of this morning). This happened after an airstrike took out a dozen of them throughout Iraq. The US said it was in retaliation to the militia attack that killed a contractor and wounded US soldiers; meanwhile, the Iraqi government is clearly not happy with US intervention, calling it a violation of Iraqi sovereignty.

What do you think is going to happen with this new development?

Trump is trying to pull off a Bush 2004 campaign.
 
cower in fear, cowards! Papa Trump is a man of action!

in all seriousness, I'm sure he had little say in this attack. he was probably presented things in a way to make him think he was calling the shots.

and I don't see Iran (Hezbollah) escalating. they'll carry out some symbolic counter-measure but that's about it.

at the end of the day, both sides will puff out their chests but do little other than let a bunch of other people die in another proxy war.
I'm hoping that's as far as it'll go cause nothing good can come from more escalation but this was a pretty huge leap from the proxy skirmishes that have been going on for years in the region.

Taking out high ranking IRGC leadership might just force their hand to react drastically which is most likely the aim to begin with with the election coming up

Not even Bibi, Bush or Cheney who have no love lost for them and have been banging the war drums for decades had the short sightedness and recklessness to attempt something like this
 
oh this is huge. and a lot of americans (not even on the right) seem to be happy /in support of this

this is like killing the vice president of iran. THE very top armed forces guy. and marines are now arresting religious and political leaders who initiated the embassy break in

i feel like this is all going to favor trump heavy. the timing couldn't be worse for democrats if this is successul
 
The Pentagon already confirmed it along with it being ordered straight from the top

IMG_20200102_215309.png

and 45 just tweeted this all of a sudden...



Really not how I wanted to see the year start but the man has another election to steal and I don't think a wartime president has ever lost reelection
 
Assassinating the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard? I’m sure that’ll go over well in Iran.
That’s way beyond a minor escalation
 
Back
Top Bottom