Ruth Marcus, Washington Post; No, President Trump, Sessions’s recusal is not ‘very unfair’ to you. This is Ethics 101.
"So Sessions’s situation and the question of whether he could oversee the Russia investigation doesn’t present a close call. As Sessions told the Senate Intelligence Committee last month, “That regulation states, in effect, that department employees should not participate in investigations of a campaign if they have served as a campaign advisor.” In other words, it’s a no-brainer, at least if you understand basic concepts of conflict of interest. What Trump perceives as betrayal is Ethics 101."
Showing posts with label US Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Show all posts
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
Dan Simpson: Ethics, schmethics; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, March 8, 2017
Dan Simpson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette;
Dan Simpson: Ethics, schmethics
"The idea that the president’s choice to be U.S. attorney general, the nation’s top law enforcement official, would lie under oath to the Senate committee considering his nomination — people who were his colleagues as senators for 20 years — is stunning and possibly a sign of just how far down the standard of ethics in Washington has descended.
Nonetheless, that is exactly what Jefferson B. Sessions, who went on to be voted into office as attorney general, did. Asked a direct question about the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russian officials, he replied, “I did not have contact with the Russians.” It turns out subsequently, after the Senate had approved his nomination, that he did, on two occasions, once in his own office.
One of the problems of the descent of a nation, particularly one as large and important as the United States of America, is that the fall can occur, step by step, in the form of death by a thousand cuts. I am not saying that it is all over for us yet, but I am saying that Mr. Sessions’ lie to the senators, the position he was being considered for and the subsequent so-far refusal of President Donald Trump to fire Mr. Sessions for what he did, are grave evidence of the low state of ethics at the very top of our government."
Monday, March 6, 2017
Following Sessions’ Mar-a-Lago appearance, new ethics questions arise; Rachel Maddow Show, MaddowBlog, MCNBC, March 6, 2017
Steve Benen, Rachel Maddow Show, MaddowBlog, MCNBC;
As we discussed a couple of weeks ago, we’re looking at an ethical nightmare. A president who refuses to divest from his many business ventures still owns a for-profit enterprise, in which undisclosed people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for exclusive access – and the facility itself openly acknowledges the financial benefits of exploiting Trump’s presidency.
How many lobbyists or agents of foreign governments are signing up to take advantage? We don’t know – because Mar-a-Lago doesn’t disclose its membership list."
Following Sessions’ Mar-a-Lago appearance, new ethics questions arise
"If you voted Republican because you were worried about Hillary Clinton and pay-to-play controversies, I have some very bad news for you. Trump is profiting from the presidency in ways no one has been able to credibly defend.
As we discussed a couple of weeks ago, we’re looking at an ethical nightmare. A president who refuses to divest from his many business ventures still owns a for-profit enterprise, in which undisclosed people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for exclusive access – and the facility itself openly acknowledges the financial benefits of exploiting Trump’s presidency.
How many lobbyists or agents of foreign governments are signing up to take advantage? We don’t know – because Mar-a-Lago doesn’t disclose its membership list."
Thursday, March 2, 2017
Why Jeff Sessions is in deep trouble; Washington Post, March 2, 2017
Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post; Why Jeff Sessions is in deep trouble
"There are two issues here: Must Sessions recuse himself, and did he mislead the Senate?
As to the first, he cannot be both a subject of inquiry and the investigator. His own conversations are of material interest to the investigation. He has no choice but to recuse himself. “He clearly has to recuse,” Larry Tribe told me. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee (and is a former prosecutor), succinctly told me, “Attorney General Sessions should recuse himself from investigations related to Russian interference in our democracy. He said he would if there was a conflict of interest, and it is clear that there is.”
At least one conservative legal scholar agrees. “It seems to me that he has to recuse himself from the decisions about the investigation into Russian efforts to influence our elections — at the very least to avoid the appearance of a conflict even if nothing untoward happened,” says John Yoo, former Justice Department lawyer in the George W. Bush administration."
"There are two issues here: Must Sessions recuse himself, and did he mislead the Senate?
As to the first, he cannot be both a subject of inquiry and the investigator. His own conversations are of material interest to the investigation. He has no choice but to recuse himself. “He clearly has to recuse,” Larry Tribe told me. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee (and is a former prosecutor), succinctly told me, “Attorney General Sessions should recuse himself from investigations related to Russian interference in our democracy. He said he would if there was a conflict of interest, and it is clear that there is.”
At least one conservative legal scholar agrees. “It seems to me that he has to recuse himself from the decisions about the investigation into Russian efforts to influence our elections — at the very least to avoid the appearance of a conflict even if nothing untoward happened,” says John Yoo, former Justice Department lawyer in the George W. Bush administration."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)