From my own professional experience, I know that a critical skill is sensing “what isn’t there” — whether details that would have prevented structural failure, designs that would have anticipated adaptation and averted disasters, or contract clauses that would have derailed wrangling, lawsuits, and losses. Foresight is a major element of prudence. Gorelick, who presents as a rational, intelligent woman in public, seems to have a major deficiency in the foresight department, and she is far from alone.
Your post brought to mind the unexplored connections between Gorelick and Obama’s SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland, who served as a deputy to Jamie Gorelick at DoJ, with a major role in terrorism prosecutions, including the Oklahoma City bombing case. Wikipedia and other sources describe Gorelick as Garland’s “mentor”. It seems hard to imagine that Gorelick would not have run the “wall of separation” concept past her mentee and main terrorism prosecutor before launching it. We might have dodged a bullet on SCOTUS, but I remain curious about Garland’s role in Gorelick’s disastrous policy, and his evaluation of it BEFORE 9-11 and since. Did he know of it before she issued her directive? Did he recognize the fatal flaw and try to have her reconsider? Does he even criticize it in retrospect? I guess if we don’t see his role it wasn’t there.
If anyone knows of sources that point to answers, I would appreciate guidance.
I’ve heard Gorelick speak twice and she comes across as what you would expect from a Clintoid. A narcissistic ditz demonstrating the truth of the ‘Peter Principle’ but way way past he level of competence!