Isn't this just what I posted.No one is argueing that the action is not legal.
You are truly amazing. You apparently do not have the ability to express an original thought, you must rely on what others have said and in this case to post a totally irrevalent citation. Don't you ever think for yourself? Can't you comprehend what you read?
And notice it WAS DISMISSED.....soemthing you do not see on Klayman's web site.
And what part of:
As to Hall's claims against Clinton, the district court held that the DOJ can represent Clinton pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 517 because its decision to do so is either unreviewable generally or is in this case supported by "a sufficient interest to pass muster under the flexible mandate of that statute." Hall II, 143 F. Supp. 2d at 4.
don't you understand?
And, in fact, this:
Isn't Bush providing Hillary DOJ lawyers free of charge to assist in her defense.
was what you said which is NOT true; the DOJ is providing a lawyer for her because she was FIRST LADY.....they are defending the position NOT her.