---That's what he called her about.... an applicable statutory exemption...Thats what she is the expert on, thats why he called her, EVERYTHING else she said is simply suggestions.--- (my you and this democrat SA sure have a lot in comon , you both hate Rush enough to justify an means to get him, you both omit things deliberately in attempts to deceive, I wonder what else you have in common?)
Here's what she said, ALL of it not the half you deliberately omitted
While we both agreed that we were unaware of any applicable statutory exemption, we also discussed the possibility that a court might refuse to authorize release based on constitutional concerns.
Now tell my why is she "disappointed in him personally and professionally"????????
because he... [hint: it rhymes with died, and starts with an L]
"...we also discussed the possibility that a court might refuse to authorize release based on constitutional concerns."
Is she also the resident expert on what a court MIGHT do ?
If she SUSPECTS that something MIGHT happen is he obligated by any law or ethics to agree with or act upon it ?
She says they discussed it... but she dosen't say that they came to any sort of conclusion, or even if, besides simply considering it, in her opinion he SHOULD ask a court to decide.
Is he supposed to include all of her speculations in his report, or simply as she says, that they BOTH AGREED on what he asked her about, and what she is the expert on ?
"Now tell my why is she "disappointed in him personally and professionally"???????? "
You want me to speculate again ?