Jump to content
BeAChooser

Incredible – FBI Blocking Release of Unredacted Text Messages Between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok…

Recommended Posts

Here's another example of why I'm beginning to suspect Barr is a member of the Deep State ...

 

 

... and Trump either doesn't control what's happening ... or is one of them too.

 

Thi is OUTRAGEOUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

Here's another example of why I'm beginning to suspect Barr is a member of the Deep State ...

 

 

... and Trump either doesn't control what's happening ... or is one of them too.

 

Thi is OUTRAGEOUS.

If DOJ lawyer are defending her, then they are required to defend her if this is something that took place within the scope of her employment.  Come on, man, stop claiming everyone is in on the big deep-state conspiracy until you actually have solid proof. Not many Republicans are deep-staters.  Most are Democrats because of Equal Employment Opportunity policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Skans said:

If DOJ lawyer are defending her, then they are required to defend her if this is something that took place within the scope of her employment. 

 

Actually, they are not ... not if she did something criminal ... WHICH SHE DID.  The court has already ruled that  the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”  She violated a host of laws setting it up, filling it with official documents and classified materials, then deleting said materials, and wiping the servers.   The DOJ is under NO obligation to defend Hillary in that matter, Skans.   The DOJ should be prosecuting her and a bunch of her staff ... right now.   And prosecuting those FBI and DOJ employees who were supposed to investigate what she did but covered it up instead.

 

Quote

Come on, man, stop claiming everyone is in on the big deep-state conspiracy until you actually have solid proof.

 

No, YOU "come on, man".    There already is solid proof.   Haven't you been paying attention?  

 

That's why so many of us are angry that noone has yet been arrested in regards to this criminal activity.

 

It's way past time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BeAChooser said:

 

Actually, they are not ... not if she did something criminal ... WHICH SHE DID. 

Doesn't this concern some kind of FOIA claim?  How is that criminal?

Just now, BeAChooser said:

There already is solid proof.   Haven't you been paying attention?   That's why so many of us are angry that noone has yet been arrested in regards to this criminal activity.

There probably is enough to indict her for obstruction or destruction of evidence. I wouldn't mind seeing that happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skans said:

Doesn't this concern some kind of FOIA claim?  How is that criminal?

 

You really don't get it, do you?   Hillary set up her server to deliberately circumvent the record keeping and FOIA laws of the Federal government.    To hide what she was doing from the public.   And now the DOJ is supposed to defend her for breaking Federal laws?   What sort of universe do you live in?

 

1 hour ago, Skans said:

There probably is enough to indict her for obstruction or destruction of evidence. I wouldn't mind seeing that happen. 

 

The very act of setting up the server was a violation of law.    She did it to try and avoid what happened during her husband's tenure when FOIA lawsuits ... by Judicial Watch ... revealed so much of the illegal activity they engaged in ... including Emailgate, Filegate, Chinagate, etc.   That's why this matters, Skans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

You really don't get it, do you?   Hillary set up her server to deliberately circumvent the record keeping and FOIA laws of the Federal government.    To hide what she was doing from the public.   And now the DOJ is supposed to defend her for breaking Federal laws?   What sort of universe do you live in?

I get it, BAC.  I asked you doesn't the lawsuit involve a FOIA claim.  That's all I asked.  You're ranting about why the DOJ is defending her in a lawsuit; as if they have a choice.  I think it matters what the lawsuit is about, so I asked you.  What you gave me is a bunch of "you just don't get it...... bullcrap, rather than have a discussion about why the DOJ might have to defend Clinton on an FOIA claim. 

12 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

The very act of setting up the server was a violation of law.  

That's not the issue.  I asked whether Clinton was being sued under FOIA.

12 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

 She did it to try and avoid what happened during her husband's tenure when FOIA lawsuits

I don't care if she did it to cover up 1001 Mafia hit-jobs.  I asked if she was being sued to turn over government records she kept during the time of her employment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skans said:

I get it, BAC.  I asked you doesn't the lawsuit involve a FOIA claim.  That's all I asked. 

 

That is not all you asked.   You wrote "Doesn't this concern some kind of FOIA claim?  How is that criminal?"   And THAT is the part my response addressed.

 

1 hour ago, Skans said:

You're ranting about why the DOJ is defending her in a lawsuit; as if they have a choice.

 

Of course they have a choice if Hillary and her staff broke the law, which she did.

 

1 hour ago, Skans said:

What you gave me is a bunch of "you just don't get it...... bullcrap, rather than have a discussion about why the DOJ might have to defend Clinton on an FOIA claim. 

 

Tell you what.  Why don't YOU cite the law or regulations that state the DOJ MUST defend someone on an FOIA claim.

 

1 hour ago, Skans said:

I don't care if she did it to cover up 1001 Mafia hit-jobs.  I asked if she was being sued to turn over government records she kept during the time of her employment.

 

You asked if what she did was criminal.   And I told you why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

Tell you what.  Why don't YOU cite the law or regulations that state the DOJ MUST defend someone on an FOIA claim

There would be no such law or regulation.  I suspect that it would be part of an employment agreement or policy handbook which would require the DOJ to represent her in certain lawsuits concerning her employment.   Typical high-level manager or executive HR stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

Here's another example of why I'm beginning to suspect Barr is a member of the Deep State ...

 

 

... and Trump either doesn't control what's happening ... or is one of them too.

 

Thi is OUTRAGEOUS.

You think Tom is tapping that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Skans said:

There would be no such law or regulation.

 

Then there is no requirement that the DOJ defend Hillary or her staff in an FOIA lawsuit like you implied there was, Skans.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

Then there is no requirement that the DOJ defend Hillary or her staff in an FOIA lawsuit like you implied there was, Skans.

 

I said there could be a contractual obligation.  No company or agency just spends lots of money to defend lawsuits for the hell of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Skans said:

I said there could be a contractual obligation. 

 

Show us the contract.   I'll bet you are blowing smoke.    The DOJ has no obligation to defend someone who BROKE THE LAW.   What's hard for you to understand about THAT?

 

Quote

No company or agency just spends lots of money to defend lawsuits for the hell of it. 

 

Of course not.  

 

The DOJ is likely defending Hillary in the context of the DOJ having tried to make her President through illegal means and then trying to cover up what they did.    

 

I'll bet those emails are VERY incriminating ... for Hillary ... for the DOJ and FBI ... and for Obama.

 

THAT is the reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BeAChooser said:

 

Show us the contract.   I'll bet you are blowing smoke.

Ahhh, geeeeeezzzzz!  Is this how you debate?  Demanding some forum guy to "show us the contract"?  As if I'm going to have Hillary's employment contract in my back pocket; or a copy of the policies and procedures handbook.  All I said is that IF the obligation exists, it is not some law or statute, but a contractual one.    Then, you have to go and accuse me of "blowing smoke"!  I'm having a discussion with you.  I am explaining where I think the obligation to defend might be found.  I am expressing skepticism that a government agency, a Trump controlled government agency, would take it upon themselves to spend money defending Hillary Clinton where it did not have to.  That's all. 

Just now, BeAChooser said:

The DOJ has no obligation to defend someone who BROKE THE LAW.   What's hard for you to understand about THAT?

At least I gave you a rational basis for saying that perhaps they do in certain situations.  What do you base your opinion on?  Furthermore, Clinton has not been indicted, tried and convicted of anything.  I think she broke the law too - but that's just my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Skans said:

Ahhh, geeeeeezzzzz!  Is this how you debate?  Demanding some forum guy to "show us the contract"?

 

Skans, you claimed the DOJ is "required" to defend her.   I think when you make such a claim you should expect to be challenged.

 

All I'm asking is for some proof of that ... otherwise it look like you're making things up just to excuse the DOJ defending a criminal.   

 

And frankly I don't see the logic in the DOJ being "required" to defend actions by her that were obviously ILLEGAL.   So prove me wrong.

 

Quote

All I said is that IF the obligation exists

 

No, you wrote "If DOJ lawyer are defending her, then they are required to defend her".

 

Quote

I am explaining where I think the obligation to defend might be found.

 

Then how ironic that back in Bill Clinton's regime, DOJ head Janet Reno issued this statement ...

 

https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-update-attorney-general-renos-foia-memorandum

 

Quote

 

October 4, 1993 

 

MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 

 

SUBJECT: The Freedom of Information Act 

 

President Clinton has asked each Federal department and agency to take steps to ensure it is in compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. The Department of Justice is fully committed to this directive and stands ready to assist all agencies as we implement this new policy. 

 

First and foremost, we must ensure that the principle of openness in government is applied in each and every disclosure and nondisclosure decision that is required under the Act. Therefore, I hereby rescind the Department of Justice's 1981 guidelines for the defense of agency action in Freedom of Information Act litigation. The Department will no longer defend an agency's withholding of information merely because there is a "substantial legal basis" for doing so. Rather, in determining whether or not to defend a nondisclosure decision, we will apply a presumption of disclosure. 

 

To be sure, the Act accommodates, through its exemption structure, the countervailing interests that can exist in both disclosure and nondisclosure of government information. Yet while the Act's exemptions are designed to guard against harm to governmental and private interests, I firmly believe that these exemptions are best applied with specific reference to such harm, and only after consideration of the reasonably expected consequences of disclosure in each particular case. 

 

In short, it shall be the policy of the Department of Justice to defend the assertion of a FOIA exemption only in those cases where the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would be harmful to an interest protected by that exemption. Where an item of information might technically or arguably fall within an exemption, it ought not to be withheld from a FOIA requester unless it need be.

 

 

Ok, Skans, tell us what the "specific reference to" "harm" "to governmental and private interests" is in this case?  

 

Why is the DOJ refusing to release the requested information?

 

Quote

I am expressing skepticism that a government agency, a Trump controlled government agency,

 

Now that's a total mischaracterization of the situation, Skans, and you know it.   The only reason we've spent the last 3 years not getting the seditious plot against Trump and Hillarys' email scandal resolved is that Trump still does NOT "control" the DOJ.   That's because the DOJ is just that infested with Clintonistas, Obama appointees, and Deep Staters.  We still don't even really know if Barr is a white hat or a black hat.  Trump has also lived under threat of a bogus impeachment with the coup plotters (and RINOs) looking for any excuse to call for one.  With Deep Staters inserted in his administration advising him against cleaning house because of the threat of impeachment.   In fact, even the suggestion that Trump should declassify all these documents has resulted in threats of impeachment.    Indeed, one of the threats that was used against Trump was that ANY attempts by him to interfere with the DOJ was impeachable.   As a result, he still does NOT control the DOJ.   

 

Quote

would take it upon themselves to spend money defending Hillary Clinton where it did not have to.  That's all. 

 

I already told you exactly why they'd do it, Skans.  Because they've covering their own butts in this.   What they did could put them in jail if documents prove what they did.   That is the "smoking gun" you insisted there must be when we started this exchange.    The noose isn't potential only around Hillary at this point, but dozens of DOJ officials.   AND YOU KNOW IT.   These emails must be pretty damning against the DOJ and FBI (and others) for the DOJ to be fighting their release.

 

Quote

What do you base your opinion on?

 

Good Lord ... where have you been?   You sound like an ostrich with your head in the ground.

 

Quote

Furthermore, Clinton has not been indicted, tried and convicted of anything.  I think she broke the law too - but that's just my opinion. 


And here you are pulling out the argument that hardcore DemocRATS and Clintonista's have used for 2 decades to the Clintons from accusations they committed crimes.  

 

That's telling, if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...