|
If such claims were all the DoJ limited itself to, I'd rest easier.
The DoJ is arguing that just because you might have a valid FOIA claim on something in the missing 5 million e-mails doesn't mean that the internal documents about the plans to look at if those e-mails are recoverable are themselves subject to FOIA.
The reason this is hypertechnical is that the court has a valid interest in knowing what the hell is going on with that so, even if it is an exemption that is like a camel passing through the eye of a needle, even if the plaintiffs have no right to that document under FOIA, the judge does to ensure that FOIA is properly adhered to. And certainly Congress has an interest in seeing that administration e-mail is properly taken care of.
Compared to the claims that Myers and Rove don't have to respond to valid subpoenas, this is, in and of itself, not one bit any worse than anything you'd see under previous administrations (and I mean, besides Nixon's), including Democratic administrations. But everyone's so hypersensitive that even a restrained claim of FOIA exemption (not immunity. exemption) inspires howls of outrage because it is the straw on an overburdened camel's back. (Yes, that's two camel metaphors. So sue me.)
|