DOJ claims revealing FBI declaration will "interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

[FourScore]

Is there anyone versed in law who could expand on this?

DOJ Claims Revealing FBI Declaration Will Jeopardize Clinton Email Investigation
by Rachel Stockman | 7:35 pm, April 27th, 2016

Attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice say they cannot make public a classified FBI declaration because it would “adversely affect the ongoing investigation” into Hillary Clinton‘s private email server. The recent filing by DOJ attorneys, obtained by LawNewz.com, is significant because it not only acknowledges the ongoing federal probe, but also asserts that if the declaration is made public, it could “reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

The DOJ’s memorandum is part of a FOIA lawsuit that was originally filed in federal court by Vice News reporter Jason Leopold. Leopold is seeking Clinton’s emails that the DOJ obtained from her private server. He is also seeking correspondence between the FBI and Clinton referencing the Clinton email server.

In March, the government filed a motion for summary judgement in the case, and incorporated this classified declaration as one of the supporting documents. Leopold’s attorneys argued that the declaration should be made public, or the DOJ should show cause for why it must be kept secret. On Tuesday, DOJ attorneys filed an memorandum in opposition to plaintiff’s motion to show cause.

The DOJ says in its filing:

Records responsive to Plaintiff’s request that are subject to FOIA relate to a pending investigation. The FBI has stated publicly that it received and is working on a referral (from) Inspectors General in connection with former Secretary of State Clinton’s use of a private email server. The FBI therefore submitted a classified in camera, ex parte declaration to provide the Court with additional details to demonstrate that responsive information was properly withheld, and explained on the public record that this was the purpose of the in camera declaration...

http://lawnewz.com/important/doj-claims-unsealing-fbi-declaration-could-jeopardize-clinton-email-investigation/

[HooptieWagon]

1. What it means:

There is an on-going investigation. FBI/DoJ commenting publicly about the investigation jeopardizes it.

[Gwhittey]

2. funny that this is not even a problem

Romney got more shit in 2012 for using dog carrier on top of his car. Than Hillary does from media for having a FBI investigation. And least they could of talked about how she lied and said it was just a security review. When FBI has clearly said it was a criminal investigation. We just don't know of who or what it is about. But we do know that it is just not standard security review.

[HooptieWagon]

3. Yep. FBI has put a significant amount of time and manpower into the investigation.

A month or so ago, Comey stated that the stage of examining emails and the server hard drive was complete, they were beginning the stage of personal interviews, and were examining evidence in conjunction with DoJ attorneys. At least one Clinton staffer has been given immunity, and a Romanian hacker extridicted to the U.S. for questioning. This is not a 'security review'.
This leads us to the question about the Obama-Sanders meeting a while back. What was so important that they had to discuss in private, face to face? Just a social visit? If it was merely to ask Sanders not to jeopardize an on-going investigation by commenting on it, that could have been handled by a phone call from Comey or Lynch to Sanders. Purely a hunch, but my personal thoughts are Obama told Sanders not to bail out of the primary campaign early, and keep staff on standby to jump in the GE if necessary...that there was a fairly solid probability that the hammer may fall during the GE.

[frylock]

5. I feel the same.

[frylock]

4. Nothing to see here, folks.