"It absolutely matter where the money came from. "
Really?
See my note above about Loretta Lynch and her 10 years at a high powered DC Law Firm. She was likely paid millions by very powerful interests.
Were you up in arms to see her client lists, how much she was paid before she was Att. Gen.?
Again - I don't like this new guy - but the double standard on this is very hypocritical.
People are allowed to work in private and have private transaction and none of it really matters unless there is some kind of predicate knowledge.
Again - during his time at this fund, nobody on planet earth could have known this guy was going to be Attn. General so the suggestion that he was being paid to alter the law is a little bit out there.
Loretta Lynch faced extensive questioning in the Senate and long, contentious hearings about her background and clientele during a nearly six month nomination process. She was heavily vetted by both parties and eventually gained enough votes to move forward, including by McConnell and Graham. Yes, she was vetted publicly. No, this acting AG has not been. Not for a moment, which is why the free press is so important in an appointment like this.
I'm not saying anything about this particular case or others, I'm saying that transparency is key to avoiding corruption. If you don't want the public to know about your large financial transactions, you're free to not work for the government. You don't have to agree, but time and time again have we seen how money flows to those who will make decisions that benefit the the source of the money.
b) The commenters are clearly holding him to a totally different standard
c) Unfortunately - there'd be no public servants if everything had to be disclosed. It'd be impossible. There'd be conflicts of interest. For Attorney General ... these folks are lawyers! How much information can they give about previous clients! Probably not much! :)
So yes, transparency. Tax returns, donations, relationships with foreign nationals, public officials from other countries, persons of interest ... but there's only so much that someone can reasonably give up.
I agree that it wouldn't be reasonable to include everything in the past, but anything for a period up to, during, and for a grace period after, should be disclosed.
Really?
See my note above about Loretta Lynch and her 10 years at a high powered DC Law Firm. She was likely paid millions by very powerful interests.
Were you up in arms to see her client lists, how much she was paid before she was Att. Gen.?
Again - I don't like this new guy - but the double standard on this is very hypocritical.
People are allowed to work in private and have private transaction and none of it really matters unless there is some kind of predicate knowledge.
Again - during his time at this fund, nobody on planet earth could have known this guy was going to be Attn. General so the suggestion that he was being paid to alter the law is a little bit out there.