Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
And I read somewhere that Cote and Bromwich are long time friends (since the mid 80's) and that Cote wrote Bromwich a nice letter of recommendation to get him a job with the Government. The difference is that Cote's letter of recommendation for Bromwich in 1994 is recorded in the Senate hearings for Bromwich's confirmation, ( http://www.archive.org/stream/confir...3unit_djvu.txt ) while you are discussing internet speculation. |
So you think it's wrong for her to appoint someone who she has gone on record to say
Quote:
Soon after Michael joined the United States Attorney's Office,
I supervised one of his first trials. It was immediately apparent
that Michael was going to be an exceptional Assistant. As I got to
know him better over the next few years, this view was confirmed.
He is intelligent, hard working, organized, analytical,
responsible, and ethical. He also uses extremely good judgment to
resolve difficult problems. And not least of all, he is a
thoroughly decent human being.
...
I realize that the position of Inspector General requires a
person of absolute independence and integrity. Michael is such a
person. All of his colleagues from over the years share the same
view of him. He is an honest, ethical, decent human being. He
always understood that the only obligation of a prosecutor is to
do justice — to do the right thing. I am confident that he would
bring the same high standards to bear on his job as an IG.
|
While he hasn't been a monitor for a company convicted of an anti-trust case, this wasn't his first time as a monitor for a company.
Everything we say about Apple's motivations for appealing this monitoring is internet speculation, and for the most part, it's based on our opinions of Apple, the DOJ, the court system, and various internet or news commentators. Everything Apple does here has both stated motivations and unstated ones, and it's quite possible that the primary motivations are the unstated ones.