Anonymous ID: e9eddf Aug. 2, 2019, 7:44 a.m. No.34917   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4922 >>5084 >>5199 >>5267

>>34887

Good article.

>The agreements issued were with DOJ and the FBI. They asserted that Mills and Samuelson would turn over the computers to them, but stipulated that they weren't turning over "custody and control". This critical point is a legal and factual bunch of bunk. The FOIA statute applies to information in the agencies' "custody and control". Anything not in their custody or control cannot be FOIA'd.

>Suspects cannot withhold "custody and control" by mere words or lack of consent, as consent is not required. In other words, these agreements are extremely flawed and whomever signed off on them should be investigated and perhaps prosecuted. It is clear that the purpose of this clause was to make the arguably illegal activities of Mills and Samuelson out of the reach of FOIA --- in other words, it would be withheld from the public.

Anonymous ID: e9eddf Aug. 2, 2019, 8:14 a.m. No.34937   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>34922

It's pretty brazen. And predicated on the belief that Hilldawg would be elected and they could get away with it through obsfucation & intimidation.

 

Unfortunately to fully unpack it in a traditional criminal law sense, looks like you would have to penetrate 3-4 layers of prosecutions.

Anonymous ID: e9eddf Aug. 2, 2019, 1:50 p.m. No.35132   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>34959

>>34965

Could be interesting to see how this corresponds with the Cass Sunstein paper on conspiracy theories.

 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585