President Trump can’t find a top law firm that wants to represent him. He and his top aides have tried. They’ve looked around. They’ve had conference calls. But they got zip, nada, bupkis. The top litigators and their firms have various reasons why they won’t agree to represent the president of the United States. Here are some of them:
1. They won’t get paid.
2. Their client wouldn’t follow their advice.
3. They represent clients who have been or might be subpoenaed in money laundering aspects of the case.
4. It would destroy the image and reputation of their firm.
5. It would ‘kill’ efforts to recruit top lawyers to their firm.
6. They’ll be washing their hair that year (“I’m too busy to represent the POTUS.”)
7. He can’t be saved.
To me, that’s a damning list. Under ordinary circumstances, I can’t think of anything more prestigious for a law firm than to be able to say that when the shit hits the fan, they’re the ones who take the call from the president. But, with this president, they’re not even confident that the client won’t stiff them on their bill. They’re also savvy enough to realize that the Trump Organization is up to its ears in money laundering and that this will create a conflict with the large banking institutions they represent. And Trump is so toxic, guilty, and unsympathetic that simply advocating on his behalf would cause people to shun and disdain their whole organization. Plus, they’d lose the case anyway in part because their advice wouldn’t be followed.
The result is that Trump is trying to use his divorce attorney Marc Kasowitz to represent him in a counterintelligence investigation that has the highest political stakes. And that’s an eighth reason why the big firms won’t touch the case. Mike Allen explains:
With CNN’s clock already counting down to fired FBI Director Jim Comey’s testimony on Thursday morning, where’s the White House war room? Remember the scandal-containment unit that was supposed to quarantine the rest of the White House from Russia questions, so that President Trump could pursue a positive agenda, with the Clinton-style scandal machinery handling the investigations?
- I’m told that the inside-outside machinery, as envisioned by aides who frantically planned it while Trump finished his overseas trip, may never exist. Top Republicans say the White House has been unable to lure some of the legal and rapid-response talent they had been counting on.
- White House Counsel Don McGahn had drawn up an org chart that Trump’s team liked. But Game Day is 48 hours away, and the boxes aren’t filled.
- A person involved in the conversations said: “They had a pretty good structure, but they’re not able to close the deal.”
- Reasons include some power lawyers’ reluctance to work with/for lead Trump lawyer Marc Kasowitz; resistance by Kasowitz to more cooks in his kitchen; and lack of confidence that Trump would stick to advice. Some prospects worry about possible personal legal bills, and are skeptical Trump can right the ship.
I’m not sure what Allen means there by “possible personal legal bills” but fear of not getting paid was mentioned in Michael Isikoff’s piece as a recurring theme. Do lawyers also fear that they’d open themselves up to legal jeopardy by representing the president? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
In any case, they wanted to build a giant war room to fight back against the coming allegations of obstruction of justice and who knows what else, and they completely failed because no one wants to take Trump’s side in this dispute. Forget the State Department, Trump can’t even staff up a legal defense team.
He’s stuck with a guy who specializes in pre-nuptial agreements and who represented him in his Trump University fraud cases.
The president’s chief lawyer now in charge of the case is Marc E. Kasowitz, a tough New York civil litigator who for years has aggressively represented Trump in multiple business and public relations disputes — often with threats of countersuits and menacing public statements — but who has little experience dealing with complex congressional and Justice Department investigations that are inevitably influenced by media coverage and public opinion.
Now, Mr. Kasowitz may be a “tough New York civil litigator” but he’s probably not quite as tough as Trump’s other more infamous lawyer Michael Cohen. You might remember that Michael Cohen made news during the campaign when he wanted to push back against the revelation that Ivana Trump once gave a deposition accusing the future president of marital rape. Cohen insisted that marital rape is impossible and told reporters that he’d deal with them harshly if they wrote about it.
First, Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen told the Daily Beast that marital rape is perfectly legal A-OK. Then, in the same disastrous interview, he told Daily Beast reporter Tim Mak he’d “destroy your life,” the way he said he had done to a former Miss USA contestant.
…
“I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know,” Cohen said. “So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?”
“You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up… for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet… you’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it,” he added.
Unfortunately for Trump, he can’t retain Michael Cohen to represent him in this case because Cohen has been subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee.
Cohen has acknowledged meeting in January with Felix Sater, a Manhattan real estate developer who worked on several projects with Trump, and a Ukrainian lawmaker who asked them to bring the White House a pro-Russian peace deal for Ukraine.
Cohen was quoted in the New York Times in February saying he gave the envelope containing the proposal to Flynn, but Cohen later denied delivering it to the White House.
At this point you might want to review my April piece: Trump, Felix Sater and the Mob. It might help you understand why this happened:
In a separate development, a senior Justice Department lawyer and FBI veteran with experience in complex financial fraud investigations has agreed to join the special counsel’s investigation.
Andrew Weissman has led the fraud section at the Justice Department, where he oversaw investigations into corporate wrongdoing at Volkswagen and Takata. He is the highest-ranking Justice Department official to join Mueller’s team.
Separately, the Senate Intelligence Committee has asked for information from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, a division of the Treasury Department that focuses on complicated or suspicious financial transactions: “Investigators are interested in companies that have done business with Mr. Trump or have connections with him, said people familiar with the matter. That could include businesses associated with members of Mr. Trump’s family, such as Jared Kushner…”
When former FBI director James Comey testifies on Thursday, he’ll probably talk freely about his personal interactions with the president and, thus, about aspects of the case that pertain to obstruction of justice. On the counterintelligence and money laundering and fraud elements of the case, I expect he will be tight lipped.
The cover-up can sometimes sink you even if the underlying case is not proven, so the focus on obstruction isn’t unwarranted. But the meat and potatoes of the investigation is still Trump’s relationship with Russian intelligence, the Russian mob, money laundering operations and outright business fraud.
For a while at least the communications strategy for Trump was to deny there is any definitive proof that Russia was behind the hacks, and The Intercept was all-too-happy to amplify that message. Yesterday, however, The Intercept published an internal classified report from the National Security Agency (NSA) that fingers the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) as both being one of the culprits and as having gone much further than previously disclosed.
Another defense was that there has been absolutely no proof whatsoever of actual cooperation or collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, but that has been steadily crumbling as well. Not only have the congresspeople who’ve seen the classified evidence been telling us that there is evidence of collusion, but now the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner is under investigation for trying to set up a secret back channel to the Russians and meeting with a trained Russian spy who runs a sanctioned Russian bank.
Under the circumstances, it won’t be enough to push back against clear evidence of obstruction of justice. The top lawyers in Washington DC can suss out the landscape here and see where it’s going. It’s not a surprise that they want no part of defending the president, but it does tell us something. It tells us how low the office of the presidency has sunk. It used to be a prestigious office. It’s now more like a SUPERFUND site.
I guess that’s what happens when you dump coal ash in the swamp.
that’s the last story that will ever be leaked to the Intercept, since they printed enough details to get the source identified and arrested within hours.
They know on which side their bread is potentially
battered…errr, ahhh, I mean buttered, of course.AG
Feel real sorry for her.
Not just what they printed. They shared a pdf image of the original document with the NSA that quickly allowed them to identify the identity of the person that printed it via security markings. Absolute morons.
Regarding all of this frenzied Trump hunt, I find myself wondering…
Remember that anti-Trump meme? The one about the dog actually catching the car but having no idea what to do afterwards?
It was very accurate, apparently.
But…does it also apply to the centrist forces that are out to get rid of that dog by any means necessary?
I mean…what if Trump is forced out somehow? Impeached, resigned, whatever…
Never mind the succession possibilities, because the net being thrown over rump is bound to catch a whole lot of his fellow hustlers, right up through the White House and into congress.
What happens then?
His voters will be furious, just for starters. The RatPublicans will try to calm them down of course, but I don’t think that they will succeed in doing so. Much of the Trump vote was as anti-Republican as it was anti-Dem. Anti-government, to put it bluntly. When they see the same centrist alliance of Dems and Rats against which they voted pulling down their Big Little King?
UH oh!!!
Talk about disgruntled!!!
May you be born(e) into interesting times.
AG
P.S. After they’re through with Trump, his cronies and their many crimes, how’s about they put the same magnifying glass on each and every member of Congress.
Just for starters!!!
And then on to Wall Street.
Oh.
Silly me!!!
Never happen.
Never has happened.
Never will happen.
Nevermind.
Yore freind…
Emily Litella
SHORTER: arglebargle.
Oxford definition of “argle bargle”:
This definition could be applied equally well if not better to the millions of words written in the centrist media about “Russiagate” before any hard evidence whatsoever has been presented to the public.
Again…I do not in the least bit doubt that Trump has dirty hands.
But neither do I doubt the dirt on the rest of the government’s hands, and that dirt has been copiously proven since at least the Vietnam debacle if not before.
Dems and Rats alike.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and even less do 5,678,233.6 wrongs. (Just rounding off the count, actually…) There will be negative payment for this particular action…taken in the name of “the country,” just as it has always been taken…and either remaining in ignorance of that one simple fact (or even worse, feigning ignorance of it) will be no excuse when the hands of blind justice take their measure.
That sword that she is always pictured carrying?
That’s not metaphor, it’s the edge of the arc of the moral universe of which Martin Luther King spoke.
Ignore this fact at your own peril.
AG
Jesus Christ!
I’ve had a little experience with conflicts of interest from lawyers. They take it very seriously since it is the one single thing that will get them disbarred … FAST. It can be a very convenient excuse, but the fact is this Russia thing is cycling out of control, and the implicated players have ties to damn near everything on Earth. Currently, the Trump Org is into Deutsche for over $300M. So far, so good but Deutsche Bank has its fingers in practically every pie conceived in Western Europe. If Deutsche Bank gets burned because of Trump so do a bunch of others.
Practically speaking, any action by a law firm that COULD lead to hardship for a client bank to collect on a defaulted or confiscated load would be considered a conflict of interest. It is axiomatic that in any legal action concerning more than one entity, there WILL BE a conflict of interest. And once there, it’s too late to back out.
Conflicts are fairly easy to work around. Your firm might do corporate work for an entity like Deutsche but not criminal work, for example, and so you could have a criminal attorney who is uninvolved in that corporate work represent Trump without major conflict issues. Assuming that there was a more direct conflict, you could also always get both the party currently represented and the party to be represented to sign a waiver allowing both to be represented.
Putting conflicts aside, it still might upset the existing client to take Trump on as a new client, especially if Trump creates headaches for that existing client. And, it might be more valuable to the firm to have an entity like Deutsche as a long-term client than having Trump as a short-term client.
sorry,but i think you are wrong. Explain to BOA (who paid you 20M) that your defense of Trumps criminal actions resulting in the loss of 45M because of a default to Deutsche was NOT a conflict of interest.
I’m not sure I follow your example, but in my experience there are very few irreconcilable conflicts. A firm that employs hundreds or thousands of attorneys, as is the case here, should not have too much difficulty finding an attorney who isn’t conflicted out under whatever state’s ethical guidelines apply. Pissing off existing clients is a different story.
Of course, Trump wouldn’t settle for just any lawyer, no matter how prestigious the firm; nope, he’d have to have the BEST, the top lawyer(s), for whom a conflict might be more likely. (I mean, can you see our god-emperor agreeing to be represented by a two-year associate?)
Current buzz…the donald plans to live tweet Comey’s testimony. Well, lets see how that works out.
I guess this could fall under #4, but there is also the very real possibility that Trump throws the law firm/lawyer under the bus on Twitter or in some other public forum, also causing significant reputational injury.
A good rebuttal today by Billmon of The Intercept’s article and of The Intercept itself.
I can’t always catch ’em all when I should, but I have a few dozen plates I’m trying to keep spinning here. And so the info about Intercept’s curious backers came as a surprise.
Also Jeremy Scahill, one of the Intercept’s editors, has tweeted today cautioning readers further about what is and is not in their article.
Looks like another nothingburger to me. Wake me up when you guys finally have the goods on Russian interference or collusion, etc.
Meanwhile, looking forward to the Ollie Stone interview of Putin on Showtime June 12, 9 pm et. Will be shown in segments over four consecutive nights.
For the last time, that is not billmon. It is a racist and antisemitic conspiracy website that toes the Russian imperialist line. Amazing. Remember when you said you want more than “anonymous sources”. And I said that nothing wil ever be enough? Evergreen, baby.
Correction, Bernhard. Still the message stands. It’s a nothing story as it offers no evidence, no data to assess independently, just assertions and conclusions to feed the anti-Russia/Putin narrative.
Zerohedge also has been skeptical in their reporting on this story.
Btw, what’s the basis for your charge that MoA is a “racist and antisemitic conspiracy website”?
Also to note that MoA has some of the best detailed reporting on the complicated war situation in Syria that I’ve seen. And, unlike nearly all our MSM, it is honest reporting and analysis not put through the severe editorial filters of the US IC/Pentagon.
In the meantime, I’m still waiting on the actual evidence in Russiagate. Last I heard, even neocon Dianne Feinstein admits she hasn’t seen it yet. And Adam Schiff has been rather dodgy about that question.
And if they have seen evidence, they need to release it to the public, toot sweet. This nonsense has been going on for nearly a year now, with nothing to date to show for it — except unnecessarily deteriorated relations with an important world power which, unlike the US, has no imperialist intentions towards the world.
I was wondering when the Putin-loving Islamaphobes would come out of hiding.
The useful idiots were parroting Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept for months and now they try to discredit their own work.
Nonsense. I agree with Greenwald a high % of the time, but not always.
And I don’t read every article posted at The Intercept.
Also, neither Greenwald nor Jeremy Scahill reported this latest non-story, and, to their credit, both have been cautioning on Twitter about reading too much into it.
Btw, you Russophobe conspiracists here: do you merely parrot what you read in the NYT and on this blog and dailykos, and what you hear on CNN and NPR?
Shall I call you the useful idiots of the MSM? Cokie?
Felix Sater’s more than a simple target or defendant:
Before this is over watch Trump claim entrapment. A messy business which may expose muddled motives among Trump’s circle, the expatriate Russian mob and the aspirations of federal intelligence agencies. This might go a long way to explain some of the reticence we are experiencing regarding revelations of what the intelligence community ‘knows’.
I’m confident Trump’s ’empire’ and associates are a fat RICO target and a criminal enterprise and I wouldn’t even doubt half the GOP has been accepting faintly laundered Russian money for years but when this rock is overturned there will be more creepy things than we might have imagined.
I’ve been warning for quite some time that there has been a lot of Putin’s money sloshing around in the Western media and politics generally. The time to pay the piper will soon come but it is going to be rough and perhaps erode our confidence in our institutions even further.
The original claim in the Steele dossier regarding Russian émigrés:
Pension disbursements, you say?
Follow the money but be prepared for where it might lead. Also, if Trump’s ‘organisation’ was spying on naturalised Americans for a foreign power that is deep espionage doo-doo.