The interview highlights some challenges regarding qualifications for top positions within the DOJ. While I understand the importance of the anti-trust case against Google, I found the speaker's communication skills to be somewhat lacking. It makes me curious about the level of support she receives from her staff attorneys, as she seems to struggle to navigate cases on her own.
I appreciate the background information regarding her appointment by Holder and Obama, and her subsequent work under Trump raises questions about the motivations for such career moves—often indicative of a desire to maintain a non-threatening position to both parties. This may suggest a strategy where some attorneys prioritize political alignment over individual merit and integrity.
Throughout the interview, there are moments that reflect a lack of confidence and professional polish. For instance, her comment, “There are people smarter than me who focus on political theory and political science,” seems to diminish her credibility. One might wonder about the breadth of her educational experience with subjects critical to her role. It’s essential for those in judicial positions to bring both knowledge and poise when entering the courtroom, as this influences how they are perceived by their peers. Overall, there is room for improvement in articulating her qualifications and presenting herself more effectively in such high-stakes environments.
The interview highlights some challenges regarding qualifications for top positions within the DOJ. While I understand the importance of the anti-trust case against Google, I found the speaker's communication skills to be somewhat lacking. It makes me curious about the level of support she receives from her staff attorneys, as she seems to struggle to navigate cases on her own.
I appreciate the background information regarding her appointment by Holder and Obama, and her subsequent work under Trump raises questions about the motivations for such career moves—often indicative of a desire to maintain a non-threatening position to both parties. This may suggest a strategy where some attorneys prioritize political alignment over individual merit and integrity.
Throughout the interview, there are moments that reflect a lack of confidence and professional polish. For instance, her comment, “There are people smarter than me who focus on political theory and political science,” seems to diminish her credibility. One might wonder about the breadth of her educational experience with subjects critical to her role. It’s essential for those in judicial positions to bring both knowledge and poise when entering the courtroom, as this influences how they are perceived by their peers. Overall, there is room for improvement in articulating her qualifications and presenting herself more effectively in such high-stakes environments.