Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
HokieDan95
Posts: 1294
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:35 pm
Contact:

Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by HokieDan95 »

"What's best in life?","To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by ip_law-hokie »

Actions can be unnecessary yet proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by cwtcr hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:Actions can be unnecessary yet proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
except if you read the article it very plainly and easily states why the recusal was a mistake
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by ip_law-hokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Actions can be unnecessary yet proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
except if you read the article it very plainly and easily states why the recusal was a mistake
I disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by cwtcr hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Actions can be unnecessary yet proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
except if you read the article it very plainly and easily states why the recusal was a mistake
I disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
bless your heart
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by ip_law-hokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Actions can be unnecessary yet proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
except if you read the article it very plainly and easily states why the recusal was a mistake
I disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using
bless your heart
Generally in these matters, if there is any doubt that recusal is proper, then one should recuse. The general rule is set forth in Canon 9, EC 9-1.

You are incorrect.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by cwtcr hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Actions can be unnecessary yet proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
except if you read the article it very plainly and easily states why the recusal was a mistake
I disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using
bless your heart
Generally in these matters, if there is any doubt that recusal is proper, then one should recuse. The general rule is set forth in Canon 9, EC 9-1.

You are incorrect.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and according to the article you are incorrect. bless your heart
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by ip_law-hokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Actions can be unnecessary yet proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
except if you read the article it very plainly and easily states why the recusal was a mistake
I disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using
bless your heart
Generally in these matters, if there is any doubt that recusal is proper, then one should recuse. The general rule is set forth in Canon 9, EC 9-1.

You are incorrect.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and according to the article you are incorrect. bless your heart
What passage are you referring?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by 133743Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:Actions can be unnecessary yet proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From a perception perspective, given the climate and vitriol being spewed, it was appropriate. But legally it wasn't. More importantly it wasn't necessary to appoint a special counsel for an intelligence investigation as that isn't their role.
User avatar
RiverguyVT
Posts: 30268
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by RiverguyVT »

Sessions may have had his reasons... the expression "with a ten foot pole" comes to mind
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by ip_law-hokie »

133743Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Actions can be unnecessary yet proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From a perception perspective, given the climate and vitriol being spewed, it was appropriate. But legally it wasn't. More importantly it wasn't necessary to appoint a special counsel for an intelligence investigation as that isn't their role.
Based on your own first sentence, the recusal was proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by 133743Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Actions can be unnecessary yet proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
except if you read the article it very plainly and easily states why the recusal was a mistake
I disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using
bless your heart
Generally in these matters, if there is any doubt that recusal is proper, then one should recuse. The general rule is set forth in Canon 9, EC 9-1.

You are incorrect.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It wasn't a criminal investigation, it was an intelligence one, so there is no possible conflict.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by ip_law-hokie »

133743Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Actions can be unnecessary yet proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
except if you read the article it very plainly and easily states why the recusal was a mistake
I disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using
bless your heart
Generally in these matters, if there is any doubt that recusal is proper, then one should recuse. The general rule is set forth in Canon 9, EC 9-1.

You are incorrect.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It wasn't a criminal investigation, it was an intelligence one, so there is no possible conflict.
Unnecessary does not equal improper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by 133743Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Actions can be unnecessary yet proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From a perception perspective, given the climate and vitriol being spewed, it was appropriate. But legally it wasn't. More importantly it wasn't necessary to appoint a special counsel for an intelligence investigation as that isn't their role.
Based on your own first sentence, the recusal was proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was a political move, not an ethical one. The DOJ/FBI should have performed the intelligence investigation. If anything illegal involving someone from the Trump campaign was uncovered then a criminal investigation could have been opened and Sessions recuses himself and a special counsel brought in to assure impartiality. THAT's how this should have been handled. By the book. But partisan politics got in the way.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by ip_law-hokie »

133743Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Actions can be unnecessary yet proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From a perception perspective, given the climate and vitriol being spewed, it was appropriate. But legally it wasn't. More importantly it wasn't necessary to appoint a special counsel for an intelligence investigation as that isn't their role.
Based on your own first sentence, the recusal was proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was a political move, not an ethical one. The DOJ/FBI should have performed the intelligence investigation. If anything illegal involving someone from the Trump campaign was uncovered then a criminal investigation could have been opened and Sessions recuses himself and a special counsel brought in to assure impartiality. THAT's how this should have been handled. By the book. But partisan politics got in the way.
It's not the Attorney General's job to protect the president.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by 133743Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Actions can be unnecessary yet proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From a perception perspective, given the climate and vitriol being spewed, it was appropriate. But legally it wasn't. More importantly it wasn't necessary to appoint a special counsel for an intelligence investigation as that isn't their role.
Based on your own first sentence, the recusal was proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was a political move, not an ethical one. The DOJ/FBI should have performed the intelligence investigation. If anything illegal involving someone from the Trump campaign was uncovered then a criminal investigation could have been opened and Sessions recuses himself and a special counsel brought in to assure impartiality. THAT's how this should have been handled. By the book. But partisan politics got in the way.
It's not the Attorney General's job to protect the president.
Tell that to Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.

And it's not his job to bow to political and media pressure. As the top law enforcement official he needs more backbone than he showed to stand up and do what is right, regardless of pressure. He didn't follow the appropriate processes put in place. He isn't allowing the proper course of justice to occur. He's intervened, which is inappropriate.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by ip_law-hokie »

133743Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Actions can be unnecessary yet proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From a perception perspective, given the climate and vitriol being spewed, it was appropriate. But legally it wasn't. More importantly it wasn't necessary to appoint a special counsel for an intelligence investigation as that isn't their role.
Based on your own first sentence, the recusal was proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was a political move, not an ethical one. The DOJ/FBI should have performed the intelligence investigation. If anything illegal involving someone from the Trump campaign was uncovered then a criminal investigation could have been opened and Sessions recuses himself and a special counsel brought in to assure impartiality. THAT's how this should have been handled. By the book. But partisan politics got in the way.
It's not the Attorney General's job to protect the president.
Tell that to Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.

And it's not his job to bow to political and media pressure. As the top law enforcement official he needs more backbone than he showed to stand up and do what is right, regardless of pressure. He didn't follow the appropriate processes put in place. He isn't allowing the proper course of justice to occur. He's intervened, which is inappropriate.
it's tough to objectively analyze if you are a partisan.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by awesome guy »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote: From a perception perspective, given the climate and vitriol being spewed, it was appropriate. But legally it wasn't. More importantly it wasn't necessary to appoint a special counsel for an intelligence investigation as that isn't their role.
Based on your own first sentence, the recusal was proper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was a political move, not an ethical one. The DOJ/FBI should have performed the intelligence investigation. If anything illegal involving someone from the Trump campaign was uncovered then a criminal investigation could have been opened and Sessions recuses himself and a special counsel brought in to assure impartiality. THAT's how this should have been handled. By the book. But partisan politics got in the way.
It's not the Attorney General's job to protect the president.
Tell that to Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.

And it's not his job to bow to political and media pressure. As the top law enforcement official he needs more backbone than he showed to stand up and do what is right, regardless of pressure. He didn't follow the appropriate processes put in place. He isn't allowing the proper course of justice to occur. He's intervened, which is inappropriate.
it's tough to objectively analyze if you are a partisan.
Ironically correct.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by ip_law-hokie »

Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety.
Impropriety is a higher standard than simply “obeying the law”; the phrase “appearance of impropriety” is an even higher standard than that. The Model Code is silent on who defines impropriety or who determines the appearance of it.

Examples of impropriety: Having a personal relationship with a process server, or serving alcohol at a social event to already inebriated individuals.

https://nacmnet.org/canon-12-avoiding-impropriety.html
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by awesome guy »

ip_law-hokie wrote:Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety.
Impropriety is a higher standard than simply “obeying the law”; the phrase “appearance of impropriety” is an even higher standard than that. The Model Code is silent on who defines impropriety or who determines the appearance of it.

Examples of impropriety: Having a personal relationship with a process server, or serving alcohol at a social event to already inebriated individuals.

https://nacmnet.org/canon-12-avoiding-impropriety.html
Criminal is the key word you're missing.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by ip_law-hokie »

awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety.
Impropriety is a higher standard than simply “obeying the law”; the phrase “appearance of impropriety” is an even higher standard than that. The Model Code is silent on who defines impropriety or who determines the appearance of it.

Examples of impropriety: Having a personal relationship with a process server, or serving alcohol at a social event to already inebriated individuals.

https://nacmnet.org/canon-12-avoiding-impropriety.html
Criminal is the key word you're missing.
The standard set forth above is not limited to criminal proceedings.

You guys can have the opinion that Sessions shouldn't have recused himself, but you can never characterize a circumspect, even arguably overly cautious approach to possible ethical pitfalls as being objectively improper. Even the RW article that was originally posted does not make this claim.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by awesome guy »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety.
Impropriety is a higher standard than simply “obeying the law”; the phrase “appearance of impropriety” is an even higher standard than that. The Model Code is silent on who defines impropriety or who determines the appearance of it.

Examples of impropriety: Having a personal relationship with a process server, or serving alcohol at a social event to already inebriated individuals.

https://nacmnet.org/canon-12-avoiding-impropriety.html
Criminal is the key word you're missing.
The standard set forth above is not limited to criminal proceedings.

You guys can have the opinion that Sessions shouldn't have recused himself, but you can never characterize a circumspect, even arguably overly cautious approach to possible ethical pitfalls as being objectively improper. Even the RW article that was originally posted does not make this claim.
Partisans think it's suspect. Enjoy your witch hunt.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by ip_law-hokie »

awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety.
Impropriety is a higher standard than simply “obeying the law”; the phrase “appearance of impropriety” is an even higher standard than that. The Model Code is silent on who defines impropriety or who determines the appearance of it.

Examples of impropriety: Having a personal relationship with a process server, or serving alcohol at a social event to already inebriated individuals.

https://nacmnet.org/canon-12-avoiding-impropriety.html
Criminal is the key word you're missing.
The standard set forth above is not limited to criminal proceedings.

You guys can have the opinion that Sessions shouldn't have recused himself, but you can never characterize a circumspect, even arguably overly cautious approach to possible ethical pitfalls as being objectively improper. Even the RW article that was originally posted does not make this claim.
Partisans think it's suspect. Enjoy your witch hunt.
I agree with your first sentence. Your second sentence does not make sense to me.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by cwtcr hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety.
Impropriety is a higher standard than simply “obeying the law”; the phrase “appearance of impropriety” is an even higher standard than that. The Model Code is silent on who defines impropriety or who determines the appearance of it.

Examples of impropriety: Having a personal relationship with a process server, or serving alcohol at a social event to already inebriated individuals.

https://nacmnet.org/canon-12-avoiding-impropriety.html
Criminal is the key word you're missing.
The standard set forth above is not limited to criminal proceedings.

You guys can have the opinion that Sessions shouldn't have recused himself, but you can never characterize a circumspect, even arguably overly cautious approach to possible ethical pitfalls as being objectively improper. Even the RW article that was originally posted does not make this claim.
Partisans think it's suspect. Enjoy your witch hunt.
I agree with your first sentence. Your second sentence does not make sense to me.
Well so far all Mueller has found after a year of spending huge amounts of taxpayer dollars is Obummer and Hillary both used gov. agencies to do unethical and illegal actions, so who is Sessions protecting? Obummer?
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: Sessions recusal unnecessary?

Post by TheH2 »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety.
Impropriety is a higher standard than simply “obeying the law”; the phrase “appearance of impropriety” is an even higher standard than that. The Model Code is silent on who defines impropriety or who determines the appearance of it.

Examples of impropriety: Having a personal relationship with a process server, or serving alcohol at a social event to already inebriated individuals.

https://nacmnet.org/canon-12-avoiding-impropriety.html
Criminal is the key word you're missing.
The standard set forth above is not limited to criminal proceedings.

You guys can have the opinion that Sessions shouldn't have recused himself, but you can never characterize a circumspect, even arguably overly cautious approach to possible ethical pitfalls as being objectively improper. Even the RW article that was originally posted does not make this claim.
Partisans think it's suspect. Enjoy your witch hunt.
I agree with your first sentence. Your second sentence does not make sense to me.
Well so far all Mueller has found after a year of spending huge amounts of taxpayer dollars is Obummer and Hillary both used gov. agencies to do unethical and illegal actions, so who is Sessions protecting? Obummer?
indicted several people with a few guilty pleas. Right?
People who know, know.
Post Reply