Gates hired Jake Greenberg, who was the oversight panel’s chief investigative official until December, to help him prepare for the appearance, the New York Times reported on Tuesday. A committee spokesperson told Reuters the panel has not worked with Greenberg since his departure.
Hey, so I spent the past few months preparing that big investigation into that one scandal of yours, but now that I’ve made a career change can I interest you in some interview prep?
I can’t tell if you’re joking, but it reads like you’re asking sincerely. It would be like hiring a divorce lawyer that your spouse already consulted with before hiring someone else. The reason that’s not permitted is that your lawyer might now have inside imformation on what the case your spouse will make against you could look like. You cannot hire that specific lawyer to help you in court, you have to find another one. I don’t think that requirement is unreasonable.
It’s even worse here because with Gates, the guy prepping him definitively does have inside information about what the case against him will look like, because he oversaw the team building that case. You don’t think it’s at all suspicious that Gates has the finances to hire literally anyone he wants and he chose this guy specifically?
But it wasn’t a court case. It was an inquiry is all. There isn’t any legal ramifications to it. So it’s more like you hired the guy that they used to help write the questions you were going to be answering on jeopardy.
I was replying to a comment that said it’s analogous to hiring a lawyer for a court case, but I do think that’s more accurate than jeopardy. If there actually are zero potential ramifications as long as you’re not lying under oath in a private testimony, are there any reasons to hire this guy other than making sure you’ve got your story straight and won’t be caught provably lying? I’ll give you that the argument against allowing the hire is much less clear-cut in that case, but it’s not any less sketchy for his situation.
I mean it’s a pretty common theme to be able to hire somebody to be able to help you prepare for any sort of important testimony any sort of important court case any sort of important meeting etc. It’s really not out of the ordinary for somebody to do this especially so many that’s running business and been involved with politics and other things for such a long time.
How is this allowed
Hey, so I spent the past few months preparing that big investigation into that one scandal of yours, but now that I’ve made a career change can I interest you in some interview prep?
You won’t believe the job offer I just got, I’m going to be set!
Money.
The people with all the money make the rules
Why wouldn’t it be? The guy doesn’t work for them anymore. It’s like hiring a lawyer to help you in court.
I can’t tell if you’re joking, but it reads like you’re asking sincerely. It would be like hiring a divorce lawyer that your spouse already consulted with before hiring someone else. The reason that’s not permitted is that your lawyer might now have inside imformation on what the case your spouse will make against you could look like. You cannot hire that specific lawyer to help you in court, you have to find another one. I don’t think that requirement is unreasonable.
It’s even worse here because with Gates, the guy prepping him definitively does have inside information about what the case against him will look like, because he oversaw the team building that case. You don’t think it’s at all suspicious that Gates has the finances to hire literally anyone he wants and he chose this guy specifically?
But it wasn’t a court case. It was an inquiry is all. There isn’t any legal ramifications to it. So it’s more like you hired the guy that they used to help write the questions you were going to be answering on jeopardy.
I was replying to a comment that said it’s analogous to hiring a lawyer for a court case, but I do think that’s more accurate than jeopardy. If there actually are zero potential ramifications as long as you’re not lying under oath in a private testimony, are there any reasons to hire this guy other than making sure you’ve got your story straight and won’t be caught provably lying? I’ll give you that the argument against allowing the hire is much less clear-cut in that case, but it’s not any less sketchy for his situation.
I mean it’s a pretty common theme to be able to hire somebody to be able to help you prepare for any sort of important testimony any sort of important court case any sort of important meeting etc. It’s really not out of the ordinary for somebody to do this especially so many that’s running business and been involved with politics and other things for such a long time.