[Freee-dame]

2. They appealed, but it dragged on for years even as Trump replaced DOJ positions in 2016, and House flips Dem in 2018. Announced today: both parties finally settled with agreement that the judge's rulings would not be a binding precedent in future cases.

If I understand this correctly, the judge’s ruling was that the DOJ did NOT have to release the documents in the Eric Holder subpoena. Now that NOT releasing the Holder documents is NOT precedent, Barr may CAN be ordered by a court to release documents. It is confusing.

Also, who are the “both parties” referenced above? Could one of the parties possibly be a committee of the House of Representatives, which is now Dem? The founders of the USA certainly did not have today’s Dems in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

[stylin19a]

I looked all over for a half way decent explanation and did find one - see link in post #743.

Jackson denied the Obama administration’s bid to end the matter and, 10 months later, ordered Holder to produce nonprivileged documents. Two years after that, she again rejected assertions of privilege.

Near as I figured, (before the settlement) the RATs would use this as a precedent to sue POTUS over privilege.(depending on the meaning of "nonprivileged documents") I'm guessing they now have to start over.
- again, I haven't seen the actual settlement, so there may be weasel words in there that makes my opinion crap.
The timing of the settlement is a head scratcher...