It’s the nominee who knows whether they will need to recuse themselves or not. The person nominating them is not a mind reader, into what the person feels they must do.
It’s simple, Can you perform the duties as AG? Yes, accept for XYZ, which I will need to recuse myself from having any involvement with.
I do not find it tenable for the nominee to list out every single thing they have ever done in their entire public and professional lives for the hiring manager, for which an issue may or may not arise in the future. That seems like an inefficient process. When it would be much more efficient and in line with typical hiring manager procedure for the person making the selection to request all details that would lead them to make an informed decision. The onus is on the boss, where the buck stops. Not the people applying for the position.
I have a tingle up my spine today-I can’t wait to see Hillary indicted, Obama indicted, Lerner indicted, and the cover blown off Obama spying on Trump.
I believe the only dripping left at this point is the tears of the conspiracy theorists who thought Huber was going to blow the lid off the Clinton Foundation, or Uranium One, or emails, or something.