This is good. I am stealing it.
Turns out I’m not the only one to think of it–this meme is a week old.
How can you be sure?
At the moment he uses it, he’ll know.
I gotta wonder what fortune 500 companies you have experience with, or what your experience is with them. That is not how it works, not at all. People may reference a policy on a matter by an ambiguous name sometimes, but all policies have some sort of identifier to make them unique, even if it just a name and date.
Funny you should mention professional dog-walkers, though, as I am in the dog grooming business, I have many clients ask me about dog walking services. I have a few that I refer clients to, depending on their location, and you know what, they all actually have written policies concerning dog handling, client interactions, waste removal, inter-dog interactions, how many dogs an individual may handle at a time, as well as your general basic employee policies all contained in an employee handbook.
There are also some amature hour dog walkers out there that have as much sense of what a policy is as our attorney general, but I don’t refer clients to them.
So yeah, if your point is that we hold dog-walkers to a higher standard than we do our attorney general of the united states, then you are certainly doing a good job of making that point.
Well, he’ll either know where he’s using it or who he’s saying it to. Not both.
Wait, that’s Heisenberg’s Privilege.
FWIW, I have a couple decades experience in government work, and policies are all numbered here. And the policy that Sessions was referencing (although not, apparently, following) was easily identifiable by the memo Reagan wrote in the eighties, or the clarifying memo Obama’s administration wrote in 2009. It would have helped if, during the testimony, he’d been more specific, and he easily could have done so.
C’mon - most people don’t carry that level of detail around with them. It’s not like he’s some kind of lawyer or…oh.
As I’ve noted, those previous members were not in the situation Sessions was in.
As I’ve noted, he probably didn’t expect that he would need to do this, what with the policy being both long-standing and bipartisan.
[BTW, does the policy have a #?]
Sorry, I thought you were a dog-walker yourself. Same basic point applies.
He should have expected he would need to do that, seeing as how the hearing was his idea.
Which part of the situation is relevantly dissimilar? As I’ve noted, the most relevant dissimilarity seems to me that previous presidents were willing to have the buck stopped with them: prior to the testimony of their subordinates, they either invoked or waived EP. As I’ve noted, Sessions has decided to work for the sort of scam artist who sees advantage in taking neither path.
Other than that dissimilarity, the situations seem pretty similar to me.
As I’ve noted, he didn’t actually follow the long-standing, bipartisan policy. As I’ve noted, he departed from it to such a degree that nobody was clear exactly which policy he was talking about. As I’ve noted, had he clarified which policy he was claiming to follow, it would have been obvious the ways in which he wasn’t following it. As I haven’t noted, that may be the reason he didn’t clarify.
OK, I’m not going to keep repeating myself here. I don’t think there’s anything legitimately unclear, at this point.
Much appreciated!
Sure thing. Anything else I can help you with, just let me know.
This was an argument that a law or rule can be invoked prospectively and without citation? Laws and rules ***are ***citations.
I’m assuming that’s meant in the same way that (in theory) you can’t arrest someone for generally “breaking the law”; you have to have a specific law in mind that they’ve broken and at least an idea of how they may have broken it, and be able to articulate this.