5 ms·
Yes, I agree with you - but: a) We are talking about a specific guy b) The commenters are clearly holding him to a totally different standard c) Unfortunatel
by sonnyblarney 8y ago
Yes, I agree with you - but:
a) We are talking about a specific guy
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.
- hvidgaard 8y agoI 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.
- lawlessone 8y ago>We are talking about a specific guy A specific guy that got a lot of money anonymously and is an acting AG
- tremon 8y ago> I'm not referring to this guy specifically. You, 4 posts up. Please stop moving the goalposts.
- sonnyblarney 8y agoMy original comment was about the right for people to have private groups and do as they please. Everyone else's comments were about 'this specific guy' - which I was responding to.