{"id":2611,"date":"2022-10-13T14:02:07","date_gmt":"2022-10-13T18:02:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawflog.com\/?p=2611"},"modified":"2022-10-13T14:02:09","modified_gmt":"2022-10-13T18:02:09","slug":"the-fbi-is-still-trying-to-withhold-records-about-seth-rich-and-crowdstrike","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawflog.com\/?p=2611","title":{"rendered":"The FBI is still trying to withhold records about Seth Rich and CrowdStrike"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Surprise, surprise. The FBI is dragging its feet.

Yesterday the government asked for more time to respond to U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant\u2019s September 29, 2022 order<\/a> directing the FBI to produce all records related to Seth Rich\u2019s laptop. Somewhat relatedly, the FBI is withholding three reports produced by CrowdStrike in August of 2016 regarding the purported hack of the Democratic National Committee.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

First the laptop. The FBI wants two more weeks so it can prepare a motion for reconsideration. As a courtesy, we have not objected to the request. According to the government\u2019s motion<\/a>, \u201cthe FBI is uncertain how to comply with the Court\u2019s order as written, and the FBI is seeking input from a pending appellate consultation regarding the order to properly address this issue.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The order itself is pretty straightforward, at least with respect to Seth\u2019s personal laptop, because it directs the FBI to \u201cproduce the information it possesses related to Seth Rich\u2019s laptop and responsive to Plaintiff\u2019s FOIA requests within 14 days of this Order.\u201d On the other hand, the order does not discuss Seth\u2019s work laptop, which is also in the possession of the FBI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m waiting for the FBI to explain what it thinks needs to be clarified, then I may be filing my own motion for clarification. Meanwhile, the FBI has cited only one narrow basis for withholding the records related to Seth’s laptop, namely his privacy. I’m not sure why it takes four weeks and an appellate lawyer to figure out why the judge did or didn’t get that issue right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In any event, I’m reminded of something that I learned almost thirty years ago when I was a newspaper reporter: people with nothing to hide don’t try to hide nothing. [Continued on page 2].<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The CrowdStrike Reports<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaking of “nothing to hide,” FBI personnel originally ignored my request for the CrowdStrike reports, apparently hoping that I wouldn\u2019t notice. After I called them out in front of the court, they produced cover sheets for the reports and nothing more. In fact, even the cover sheets were partially redacted. You can find the cover sheets here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As you can see, each of those reports is preceded by the statutory exemptions that purportedly allow the FBI to withhold certain pages or sections of the report. That\u2019s where things get interesting. Here are the five exemptions in question, with my comments interspersed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n