Can somebody translate this for those of us who didn’t go to law school? When you get a minute. The article seems to contradict the headline.
Translation:
When there’s a sealed court record that might *hurt* a prominent Democrat (HRC) it stays sealed.
When there’s a sealed court record that might *help* a prominent Democrat (such as Jack Ryan’s divorce proceedings when he was running against BHO for senator from Illinois) it gets released.
All the rest is irrelevant legalese.
As I read it the National Archives under the 0bama administration is refusing to release the draft indictments of Hillary Clinton over the Whitewater fiasco and JW is suing to get them under the FOIA.
Judicial Watch discovered that the National Archives holds draft indictments of Hillary Clinton related to the Whitewater scandal.
The petitioned the National Archives to release these public documents to them.
The National Archives refused, citing the privacy rights of Hillary Clinton, a public figure and married to the President of the United States when the investigation was ongoing, outweighed the public right to have access to a public document.
This is what is called misusing the law to protect the government and a political figure from the public. The privacy laws were intended to protect the public from the government. They have turned the whole thing around in order to provide continued cover for the Clinton Organized Crime Family. The same thing is going on over at the IRS, the FBI, the Justice Department, the EPA, the State Department, etc., etc.
We may have just heard a loud “KRICK” as somebody stepped on a land mine....
No harm, no foul, as long as you don’t step OFF that land mine, or even shift around too much.
Any time an article contradicts it's headline, you can be sure you've properly understood its legal meaning.