Quote:
Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour
Anyway, my thought on the matter is that everybody seems to be ignoring that the 'decision' made by Redford, (and I'm willing to say she did make the decision) was done in such a way as to eliminate the real conflict of interest anyway.
|
The conflict of interest is certainly an issue but it isn't the key problem. The main problem is that Redford still insists that she didn't make the decision even though the paper trail shows that she did. If she would have just admitted it in the first place then the opposition wouldn't have much to go on since it doesn't technically meet the requirements under conflict of interest legislation. She used poor judgement anyway in that she should have simply removed herself from the decision in the first place. It's quite likely that the firm chosen was the best suited, if that is the case then she didn't need to be involved. It's the lie after the fact to attempt to cover up the truth that is the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour
She has been a poor communicator about it and has not won the public to her side as Ralph would have, and as some guy on the news said, she needs to recognize that she's not making a legal argument to a judge or jury, but a political argument to the public and she's failing on that.
|
Ralph made mistakes and he was crude at times but at least he was honest, hard to believe anything that comes out of Redford's mouth.