They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Sessions vs Trump, a Management Issue
Department of Justice regulation, 28 CFR 45.2
C. DOJ-Specific Conflict of Interest Regulation: No DOJ employee may participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or who would be directly affected by the outcome. 28 CFR 45.2
Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, candidate, political party or campaign organization arising from service as a principal advisor or official; personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality.
D. Impartiality in Performing Official Duties
1. An employee may not participate in a particular matter involving specific parties affecting the financial interests of a member of his household, or when a person with whom he has a covered relationship is, or represents a party.
2. A covered relationship includes one involving:
a. Someone with whom he has or seeks a business relationship; b. A member of the employee's household; c. A relative with whom the employee has a close relationship; d. A present or prospective employer of a spouse, parent or child; and e. An organization in which the employee serves or has served in the past year as an employee, attorney or active participant.
3. The employee may disqualify himself or he may be authorized in writing to participate in the matter if the interest of the Department outweighs the appearance of a conflict. The determination should be based on: a) the nature of the relationship; b) the effect of the resolution of the matter on the financial interest; c) the nature and importance of the employee's role; d) the sensitivity of the matter; and e) the difficulty of reassigning it.
Sessions was confirmed early February and recused himself early March. He may have been unaware of the implications of the above.
Given the above regulation, did he have any choice in the matter but to recuse? I suppose so, but there would have been ramifications. Only Trump could excuse him per the above reg.
Sessions was not issued the Pass that all Democrat presidents issue to subordinates (such as Holder and Lynch). So why is Trump treating Session the way he is? Better minds than I have not explained it. In the right book, this would end with an announcement of a large bust of leakers/spies who were indicted because Trump and Sessions had engaged in a charade to make them feel confident in exposing themselves somehow. In reality, it's probably just petulance, stress, poor management technique.
Good managers have private (usually documented) corrective action meetings with subordinates. I've done it and had it done to me.
Sometimes it's just an effort to get you to quit so your boss doesn't have to fire you. Maybe so you are not fired for your sake, or because he can't bring himself to do it for his sake. We'll know soon enough. Maybe.