Epstein Secrets

lized. See Supp. Christenson Decl. ¶ 16. These prior versions of the ultimate response document were properly withheld under Exemption 5 as drafts. See American Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't ofJustice, 844 F.3d 126, 133 (2d Cir. 2016); Amnesty Int'l USA v. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479, 518 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ("It is well- settled that

ecords withheld by BOP under Exemption 7 were compiled for law enforcement purposes, thereby satisfying the first prong of the Exemption 7(A) test. See Amnesty Intl USA v. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479, 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); BOP MOL at 8-10. The Times criticizes the Government for arguing that BOP documents—or at least t

lized. See Supp. Christenson Decl. ¶ 16. These prior versions of the ultimate response document were properly withheld under Exemption 5 as drafts. See American Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't ofJustice, 844 F.3d 126, 133 (2d Cir. 2016); Amnesty Int'l USA v. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479, 518 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ("It is well- settled that

ecords withheld by BOP under Exemption 7 were compiled for law enforcement purposes, thereby satisfying the first prong of the Exemption 7(A) test. See Amnesty Intl USA v. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479, 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); BOP MOL at 8-10. The Times criticizes the Government for arguing that BOP documents—or at least t

it was finalized. See Supp. Decl. ¶ 16. These prior versions of the ultimate response document were properly withheld under Exemption 5 as drafts. See American Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't ofJustice, 844 F.3d 126, 133 (2d Cir. 2016); Amnesty Int'l USA v. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479, 518 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ("It is well- settled that

ecords withheld by BOP under Exemption 7 were compiled for law enforcement purposes, thereby satisfying the first prong of the Exemption 7(A) test. See Amnesty Intl USA v. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479, 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); BOP MOL at 8-10. The Times criticizes the Government for arguing that BOP documents—or at least t