You took a very limited point and attempted to refute it by overstating the scope of discussion. So you either didn't follow the conversation just fine, or you deliberately misrepresented my argument. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Yawn. I was mocking your ludicrous analogy. You're desperately trying to divert attention from this. My reply stands on its own. The prior comments that led you to concoct that analogy are irrelevant to my comment.
Why the qualifier? Could it possibly be because that hypothetical email contains information, so you can't honestly claim it doesn't?
It absolutely is necessary she was telling them to conceal anything they didn't want Congress to see. For example, their opinion that "Darrell Issa is a lying assclown" is information, according to Lerner, they shouldn't put in an email if they don't want Congress to potentially find out.
When you must stoop to such ridiculous semantics games, it's clear you've lost. The only "information" that sentence contains is the writer's contempt for Issa. While that is indeed information in the technical sense of the word, it is totally immaterial to any investigations. Only a partisan shill would suggest that suppressing such contempt is equivalent to concealing information from investigators.
To help prevent future semantics distractions, however, please assume that any such statements I make are qualified with the word "material". For example, in this case you may safely assume I said, "'Darrell Issa is a lying assclown.' doesn't really contain any
[material] information, but most federal employees wouldn't want it released to Congress." You're welcome.
Facebook
Twitter