Milton Banana wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Milton Banana wrote:
When will the EPA comply and turn over all secret email accounts being run out of the EPA?
I imagine that would probably depend on when the request that would require compliance is made. Unless you are changing the story again, the last claim was the request for just one account,
which is still not reflected in the legal documents in either case.
Once again my OP clearly laid out a time line that for debate purposes Wayne is refusing to acknowledge.
That would be due to the biased nature of the source and the lack of support for the story claims in the legal documents
they filed in court. Either the story line is not correct or their legal filings are not accurate, which makes both less credible.
Once again Landmark first asked for all communications from EPA to third parties.
Not according to the document they filed in court, but that would not be important .... would it?
Then when asked to narrow the scope Landmark asked for all senior officials of EPA with third parties.
Again, not according to the document they filed in court.
Then Landmark asked for one email account. One.
According to someone since there is no supporting evidence. Given the differences in the two previous claims this is not probable.
Now let’s not beat around the bush here Landmark had information about this account before filing to be sure.
Like the political opinion from FOX? The initial request was based on nothing more than a rumor according to them.
Wait, EPA refused BEFORE the first FOIA? That was never included in the "story" until now.
Knowing this case was going back to court Landmark strategically asked for more.
Based on the aforementioned rumor, but why not just take the same legal action to get the information they supposedly knew about? Why file court documents that do not reflect the supposed timeline thus documenting a misrepresentation to either us or the court?
All secret email account being run out of EPA.
Which is not mentioned in either of the two documents and one was filed in December.
Legal strategy. Nothing more. Now I have been accused of "changing my story."
The evidence shows that to be the case. Where was the initial request refused in the story until this post?
Is reading comprehension a problem here?
Not on my part. I cannot speak for you.
I don’t know what is pissing Wayne off here. Is it the fact I brought this up? Is that the problem?
I am not pissed off, but I am pointing out the numerous issues with your source and the story when compared to the legal documents in the public record.
Is it the fact that the EPA is attempting to conduct business in secret?
If it is a fact do you have the evidence to support it? From the story it seemed more of a hunch, for which evidence was being sought.
Is it the fact the Wayne feels he has to defend this conduct knowing its wrong but the agenda is most important?
Not a fact at all, which causes one to question the credibility of the rest of your "facts".
Is it the fact that one legal foundation is attempting to shed some light on that fact that the EPA is lawless?
They seem to be taking an unusual path in doing so, but the assumption is unsupported by evidence. If there is such a "fact" known they would just have to release the evidence of the factual nature. Of course, if the basis is an assumption, it cannot be called a fact, but rather a belief.
Is Wayne pissed off because he feels the need to defend this utter and complete FUBAR?
You are stuck on the belief I am pissed, which I clearly am not. It may be a case of projection due to the fact the legal filings do not correspond to the information/timeline presented in the story.
I sure would be pissed if I were saddled with this difficult task
So it may be projetion after all.
Okay. Wayne I forgive you. You don’t know any better.
You mean like claiming one thing in this story and writing another in the legal documents filed with the courts? I do know better than that. Evidence is important especially where political agenda may be involved.
You’re a leftist drone.
No, but it does show the nature of your argument.
A very intelligent drone, but drone non-the-less. I understand now and won’t task you any more. You don't know any better, and it certainly is no intellectual exercise for me.
Then why did you not at least check to see the documents supported your story? Not much intellectual in that exercise. More couch potato-ish if you ask me.