Everyone has some conflicts. Just depends if they will ever experience them.
There is no such thing as a person with zero conflicts.
1 Like
Dunno, what was the outcome of the investigation by the House Intelligence Committee? Is she in jail? Is she in trouble? Are the people she unmasked in trouble? Did they do something bad?
That’s the problem. When the mods delete a post, they do not bother telling us the specific reason why they did so, and we are left wondering why. So it’s trial and error.
Was it a specific word or phrase we may have used that was in violation, or did some few people just complain about it?
Did people take what we said out of context, and complain about it?
We are never told, specifically, even if we ask politely.
You have to prove it. Conspiracies aren’t enough. And if there’s enough, then the people in charge should be doing something about it. No excuses.
I’m not sure why you have such a poor view of Sessions other than the fact he revised himself from one aspect of his job as AG. Every single other thing he did as AG was exactly in line with what a lifelong Republican/conservative would have done in the role. It seems to me that emotion is shaping your opinion of him.
With all due respect… I’m not speaking to possible, theoretical conflicts, that might, maybe, could possibly arise in some unforeseen scenario in the future.
If a person being nominated to a high level federal government position, knows about an ongoing investigation, and they know they would be in conflict with it, and they would need to recuse themselves from being involved with it, then they have a moral and ethical obligation to inform the president, who is nominating them to that position.
It’s not rocket science
I meant to say recused himself. I’m not sure how to edit my post. Sorry about any confusion.
Let me break it down so you understand.
President: “I’d like to nominate you to the position as US Attorney General.”
"Nominee: “I’m flattered, but I do need to warn you I will have to recuse myself from ongoing investigation concerning XYZ.”
President: "Hmmm, well I am going to require an AG who will be able to fulfill all their duties. I need an AG who does not already see themselves as having conflicts, so I withdraw the nomination. Do have a nice day, Senator.
While you place the blame on the nominee, I would argue it is the responsibility of the person nominating them, in this case President Trump, to perform the due diligence necessary to ensure that the person they are nominating is going to meet all of the criteria they desire in the role. It is standard procedure for hiring managers. Perhaps your gripe here is with President Trump and his vetting skills, or lack thereof. He should have asked all appropriate questions and received all appropriate answers he felt necessary to then nominate his choice for the position. Why do you believe he failed to do such?
Click the “…” just to the left of the Reply arrow, below your post. Select the wrench, the “make wiki” then wait til the screen refreshes and select edit.
Don’t forget to go back and select the wrench, then remove the wiki, or anyone will be able to edit your post.
Thanks. I tried that but there is not a wrench icon to choose. Only hyperlink, flag, bookmark, and trashcan.
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.
Hmm, maybe its related to how long you have been a member?
1 Like
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.
Could be. In a sports forum I’m on, you had to be a member for 6 months before you held all special privileges. Which is fine by me.
Here’s two important questions: why did Sessions need to be involved with the Russia investigation? What harm came from his recusal?
Way ahead of you.
You can’t find a republican ag who was more effective at imposing his will than sessions.
Y’all are so blinded by him following correct procedure with regards to his recusal that you ax’d The best guy you’ll find for the role.
1 Like
Bingo
10elfs
1 Like
Shouldn’t the President know that his AG has a conflict? Why did he need Sessions to explain it to him. As you say, it’s not rocket science.
1 Like
