Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP here.
I feel for this woman. I find it completely possible she is trying to follow the law, and that there is no precedent that allows her to violate established precedent. I could fully see her being in a no-win position.
And it doesn't help that she's being pilloried now, and will be pilloried by the other side if she releases the funds.
It is probably terrifying to be her right now.
And the slams on her appearance are completely inexcusable.
It really isn't a no-win situation. You do your job and follow the law. If your boss is telling you to do otherwise, you send the letter and then resign. It really isn't that hard.
What is the precedent for ascertainment when the opponent has not conceded and the states have not yet done their certifications? Yes, we all know what the math is for the projections that are widely accepted, but what is the clear standard she is supposed to apply. All the rest of government is waiting for her to sign on the dotted line because we know what we can do then, but what is her basis for action?
I am a democrat and on team Biden here but the above poster is not crazy that the GSA Administrator is in a no win situation. I have dealt with Administrator Murphy and she is generally reasonable and an advocate for good government and she received bi partisan approval during her confirmation.
Anonymous wrote:NP here.
I feel for this woman. I find it completely possible she is trying to follow the law, and that there is no precedent that allows her to violate established precedent. I could fully see her being in a no-win position.
And it doesn't help that she's being pilloried now, and will be pilloried by the other side if she releases the funds.
It is probably terrifying to be her right now.
And the slams on her appearance are completely inexcusable.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP here.
I feel for this woman. I find it completely possible she is trying to follow the law, and that there is no precedent that allows her to violate established precedent. I could fully see her being in a no-win position.
And it doesn't help that she's being pilloried now, and will be pilloried by the other side if she releases the funds.
It is probably terrifying to be her right now.
And the slams on her appearance are completely inexcusable.
It really isn't a no-win situation. You do your job and follow the law. If your boss is telling you to do otherwise, you send the letter and then resign. It really isn't that hard.
What is the precedent for ascertainment when the opponent has not conceded and the states have not yet done their certifications? Yes, we all know what the math is for the projections that are widely accepted, but what is the clear standard she is supposed to apply. All the rest of government is waiting for her to sign on the dotted line because we know what we can do then, but what is her basis for action?
I am a democrat and on team Biden here but the above poster is not crazy that the GSA Administrator is in a no win situation. I have dealt with Administrator Murphy and she is generally reasonable and an advocate for good government and she received bi partisan approval during her confirmation.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP here.
I feel for this woman. I find it completely possible she is trying to follow the law, and that there is no precedent that allows her to violate established precedent. I could fully see her being in a no-win position.
And it doesn't help that she's being pilloried now, and will be pilloried by the other side if she releases the funds.
It is probably terrifying to be her right now.
And the slams on her appearance are completely inexcusable.
It really isn't a no-win situation. You do your job and follow the law. If your boss is telling you to do otherwise, you send the letter and then resign. It really isn't that hard.
Anonymous wrote:NP here.
I feel for this woman. I find it completely possible she is trying to follow the law, and that there is no precedent that allows her to violate established precedent. I could fully see her being in a no-win position.
And it doesn't help that she's being pilloried now, and will be pilloried by the other side if she releases the funds.
It is probably terrifying to be her right now.
And the slams on her appearance are completely inexcusable.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP here.
I feel for this woman. I find it completely possible she is trying to follow the law, and that there is no precedent that allows her to violate established precedent. I could fully see her being in a no-win position.
And it doesn't help that she's being pilloried now, and will be pilloried by the other side if she releases the funds.
It is probably terrifying to be her right now.
And the slams on her appearance are completely inexcusable.
It really isn't a no-win situation. You do your job and follow the law. If your boss is telling you to do otherwise, you send the letter and then resign. It really isn't that hard.
Anonymous wrote:NP here.
I feel for this woman. I find it completely possible she is trying to follow the law, and that there is no precedent that allows her to violate established precedent. I could fully see her being in a no-win position.
And it doesn't help that she's being pilloried now, and will be pilloried by the other side if she releases the funds.
It is probably terrifying to be her right now.
And the slams on her appearance are completely inexcusable.
Anonymous wrote:F**king B. Its complete crap that she's sitting on the transition while looking for a new job because guess what - the man she insists is President for another four years is going to be JOBLESS.