[philman_36]

The letter’s existence, which was written in November 2017, was denied a year later in response to American Oversight’s litigation. The Justice Department maintained that Sessions didn’t direct Huber in writing and that any order was passed verbally.

Oh, LOOK..

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5764384-DOJ-11-18-MSJ-Declaration.html#document/p8/a485896

Do take the time to find and read pages 7 & 8 and, most especially...pages 102 and 103. (PAGES tab, upper left)

And
notwithstanding the use of a plural in DOJ’s responses, Ms.
Brinkmann’s declaration establishes
that the only senior prosecutor former Attorney General
Sessions “directed” to carry out the
evaluation of issues raised by Chairman Goodlatte’s letter,
in the sense indicated by the
November 13 letter, is Mr. Huber. Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 14.
Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the results of the search
it requested is not a reason to
conduct additional searches outside the scope of its
request. Plaintiff can always request a search
of such records separately if it desires. Accordingly, this
argument provides no sound reason to
call the adequacy of DOJ’s search into question.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, DOJ respectfully requests that
the Court grant its motion and
enter summary judgment in its favor.
And then the 2 page "smoking gun" that really isn't?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5764383-DOJ-2-19-Extension-Request.html#document/p1/a485898

Muttley...snicker...
Oh, to hell with that!
ROTFLOLAPIMP

[philman_36]

Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the results of the
search it requested is not a reason to conduct additional
searches outside the scope of its request.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I can't stop laughing!
I know, I know...it's petty, but DAMN! Learn to write a proper FOIA request!

[philman_36]

I’ll even give you a direct ping!