Federal Judge Smacks Down DOJ Lawyers Protecting Hillary

a reply to: Gryphon66

Phage's point is absolutely moot, because it doesn't matter if the popular vote was for Hillary--she's not the president. Phage can pretend that it matters, as can you, but it doesn't. And it's not a "little attempt to weasel" when someone points out that not all electors are legally held to vote for the majority candidate from the popular-vote results--maybe if you can admit that much, we'll make some progress.

And just for S&G, since you are a self-proclaimed sucker for punishment and want to make claims about what I say in my "last post and other posts" (I've only made two, plus this one) let's revisit my comments:

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

The popular vote isn't what mattered.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Gryphon66

But all that you did was solidify my "knee-jerk response" by verifying that it's the electoral vote that matters. ...the fact remains that Phage's point about popular vote is moot because of the electoral college ... My point about the popular vote not mattering was to directly contrast Phage's complaint about Hillary getting more of the popular vote. That shouldn't have been a difficult concept to grasp.

The underlying point, which, again, shouldn't have been difficult to grasp, was that it's the result of the electoral college that matters during a presidential election. NOT ONCE DID I SAY THAT IT "HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION." What you choose to infer from my written words is on you, not me.

Fix your reading comprehension skills for another time, but right now, I'm done with this discussion because it's way off topic for this thread, and I'm not going to continue to disrespect the OP because you misconstrue what I write and can't understand the broader point.

Best Regards.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You are absolutely incorrect. Phage's point was direct and simple: the popular vote totals reflect the will of the American People. To claim otherwise is simply ridiculous.

Speaking of a moot point, however, there has never been a General Election in which faithless electors have made a difference except in 1836 for the Vice President. So, yes, your quibble about faithless Electors is mere weaseling:

The result of the Electoral College is based on the Electors who are legally bound (in most cases) to vote for the winner of the Popular Vote in their State (or in the case of Maine and Nebraska, their Congressional District).

The 1836 election was the only occasion when faithless electors altered the outcome of the electoral college vote. The Democratic ticket won states with 170 of the 294 electoral votes, but the 23 Virginia electors abstained in the vote for Vice President, so the Democratic nominee, Richard M. Johnson, got only 147 (exactly half), and was not elected. However, Johnson was elected Vice President by the U.S. Senate.

Faithless Electors - Wikipedia

Why should I "admit" something that is incorrect? Why would I want to make progress with you into further ignorance?

I will cede the point about your previous posts, as I usually skip over them.

The underlying point is not difficult to grasp at all, you just don't seem to be capable of such a simple task.

Your silly, sophomoric comments about reading skills are best applied to yourself, friend. As usual, when some folks realize their points are fallacious, you're declaring victory and moving on, LOL.

Enjoy it; you're still wrong and it's blatantly obvious.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Please explain how the people who didn't vote were represented by the popular vote? As I see it, a good bit of America didn't vote, so you know NOTHING of their will, or desire. The ONLY thing you know is that, as expected, the liberal majority in both California and New York, did what everyone expected them to do. And the Electoral College did it's job of making sure those two locations didn't make the choice for all American based on nothing more than a large population of leftist thinkers.

a reply to: network dude

You seem to be asking if I can read minds. I can’t and neither. can you.

You’re making a classic argument from ignorance.

I’m arguing from what we know, not what we don’t.

People in California and New York are Americans too and they all (including the millions in both States that voted for someone other than Clinton) deserve to have their votes counted like all other Americans. That you don’t like what you think of as their political preference is irrelevant.

originally posted by: xuenchen
A Federal judge has apparently stopped the U.S. Justice Dept from holding some of Hillary Clinton's email.

Judicial Watch has been in court trying to get some as a FOIA request.

The case has been going back and forth as the Justice Department and maybe the State Department appear to be against releasing something.

Gets confusing.

So now a judge will have a look at the actual redacted segments that were classified.

People wonder why the Trump Administration department(s) are fighting ?

Maybe it's a "fight" that want to lose.

The issue is about something called the government misconduct exception (whatever that is).

Federal Judge Smacks Down DOJ Lawyers Protecting Hillary – Will Review Redacted Clinton Emails

Why is Tillerson’s State Department and Sessions’ DOJ protecting Hillary Clinton?

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch announced Thursday that a federal judge will personally review, on camera, redacted material from Hillary Clinton’s emails during her time as Secretary of State.


Via Judicial Watch:


Judicial Watch announced today that a federal judge will personally review, in camera, redacted material from emails discussing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of iPads and iPhones during her tenure at the State Department. Judge Kollar-Kotelly also ordered the State Department to file an affidavit addressing why it should not have to search new Clinton emails recovered. In taking these steps, the court rejected arguments by the Tillerson State Department and its lawyers at the Sessions Justice Department.

The court will review the blacked-out information so as to better ascertain whether the government misconduct exception would require the release of the full emails. Generally speaking, the government misconduct exception prevents government agencies from withholding information that would shed light on government wrongdoing under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

any update on the actual issue for this thread x?

a reply to: Gryphon66

But "People in California and New York" don't get to run the whole country because they have high populations.

Low population States have equal rights.

a reply to: shooterbrody

The election, the candidates, and the current Administration all speak directly to the topic here.

a reply to: shooterbrody

No. No updates.

I don't know when "The Judge" is doing the "viewing".

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

But "People in California and New York" don't get to run the whole country because they have high populations.

Low population States have equal rights.

We all have equal rights, and no one is saying that CA and NY should run the country.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: shooterbrody

No. No updates.

I don't know when "The Judge" is doing the "viewing".

Shame that the Trump DOJ has apparently come to similar conclusions to ex-Director Comey’s huh?

Awww... too soon?

a reply to: xuenchen

Thanks gor the update!

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: shooterbrody

No. No updates.

I don't know when "The Judge" is doing the "viewing".

How does the Government handle this if the judge in question doesn't have proper security clearance?

I hope they don't send the docs to him in email.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen

Wasn't the actionable part of the accusations that she had classified emails on her private server? Now why oh why would the State Department not want Clinton's emails made public? Work it out for yourself. (At least some folks in this administration realize that the operation of government transcends partisan politics.)

We already know for sure she did have classified information on her homebrew server.

And what does the word "classified" mean? Make public for political purposes?

a reply to: Phage

Your argument is invalid because it is a logical fallacy.

Prove that everyone who voted for her hated Trumo.

You can't, so therefore you are wrong.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen

Wasn't the actionable part of the accusations that she had classified emails on her private server? Now why oh why would the State Department not want Clinton's emails made public? Work it out for yourself. (At least some folks in this administration realize that the operation of government transcends partisan politics.)

We already know for sure she did have classified information on her homebrew server.

And what does the word "classified" mean? Make public for political purposes?

No, it's either Top Sercet, Secret or Confidential information as defined by the US govt. Hillary is proven to have use dher homebrew server to send and receive classified information. We don't need any further evidence to know this.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen

Wasn't the actionable part of the accusations that she had classified emails on her private server? Now why oh why would the State Department not want Clinton's emails made public? Work it out for yourself. (At least some folks in this administration realize that the operation of government transcends partisan politics.)

We already know for sure she did have classified information on her homebrew server.

And what does the word "classified" mean? Make public for political purposes?

No, it's either Top Sercet, Secret or Confidential information as defined by the US govt. Hillary is proven to have use dher homebrew server to send and receive classified information. We don't need any further evidence to know this.

And remember too, the classified stuff was not known to the classification authorities at the time sent.

They saw it all later after it was all discovered.

That's why it was never marked classified at the time.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen

Wasn't the actionable part of the accusations that she had classified emails on her private server? Now why oh why would the State Department not want Clinton's emails made public? Work it out for yourself. (At least some folks in this administration realize that the operation of government transcends partisan politics.)

We already know for sure she did have classified information on her homebrew server.

And what does the word "classified" mean? Make public for political purposes?

No, it's either Top Sercet, Secret or Confidential information as defined by the US govt. Hillary is proven to have use dher homebrew server to send and receive classified information. We don't need any further evidence to know this.

And that is why this was a frivolous FOIA request and the judge ruled correctly. But anything that distracts "conservatives" from the antics of the White House serves a purpose, I guess.

the part that bugs me in situations like this is people are putting all their eggs in one basket with one judge. it should be a panel of atleast 3 imo. whats it even matter if hes on camera reading the documents? all that tells me is yes he put in the time to atleast make it look like hes reading them. it tells me nothing else. seems like were putting all our trust in one judges opinion and since we dont get to see what he sees we just have to go with it? situations like this seem ripe for corruption.

Any faith placed in our judicial system, is simply misplaced.

a reply to: craterman

It's not a matter of faith.
It's a matter of the law. The Constitution, to be precise.