Post #17279 by albaby1 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (19)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 0

Not because the judge thought his original argument of privilege was wrong (or obstructive) but because other information the Justice Department had previously released on the topic rendered his claim unsustainable.

She wrote: “This ruling is not predicated on a finding that the withholding was intended to cloak wrongdoing on the part of government officials or that the withholding itself was improper.”

Fair enough - then just pick any other instance where the administration made a call that was later overturned by the courts. Say, some AG construing DAPA as an effort to obstruct immigration hearings.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (19)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.