Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWoodward's 'FEAR': On Dowd's seeming breach of attorney-client privilege/ethics (or is it?)
Laurence Tribe pointed to this article. I'm pulling out just the parts on Dowd, who seemed to me inexplicably crossing the line in the book.https://verdict.justia.com/2018/09/17/fear-itself-what-bob-woodward-finds-in-trumps-crazytown-and-what-he-doesnt-look-for
What Woodward may not realize is that for Dowd, this not an indictment. Its Trumps defense.
As always, we must ask ourselves, why is John Dowd even talking to Bob Woodward, let alone telling him that his client is a habitual liar? After all, Dowd is not just another government official with a reputation to burnish. He is, or at least was, the presidents private defense attorney. As such, he owes his client a duty of loyalty and confidentiality.
Under Rule 1.6(a) of the DC Bars Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may not reveal a confidence or secret of the lawyers client or use a confidence or secret of the lawyers client to the disadvantage of the client. A secret includes information gained in the professional relationship the disclosure of which would be embarrassing, or would be likely to be detrimental, to the client. In normal circumstances, an admission that my client lies all the time would be both embarrassing and detrimental. There are only a handful of exceptions to the confidentiality rule, such as when the client has been using the lawyers services to further a crime or a fraud. Since Dowd maintains that Trump is innocent of any crime or fraud, let alone with Dowd as his instrument, this exception would not apply. Rule 1.6 also permits disclosure when the client has granted informed consent. So, its conceivable that Trump himself has approved this disclosure as an actual defense strategy. Another possibility, albeit a riskier one, is that Dowd believes he is taking protective action for a client with diminished capacity under Rule 1.14, in which case a lawyer is impliedly authorized under Rule 1.6(a) to reveal information about the client, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the clients interests. Unless an exception to the confidentiality rule appliesand these are the only obvious candidatesneither Dowd nor anyone acting at his direction could have ethically given Woodward an account of Trumps unreliability as a witness.
And thats the real tell here. Dowd must not be so convinced of his clients innocence as he proclaims. He is, in fact, laying the groundwork for a final line of defense: that Trumps own statements are not reliable evidence of obstruction of justice or other crimes. Because Trump lies impulsively, without forethought or purpose, we should attach no importance to his words, even if they seem to condone or command illegal acts. And if Trump is just an instinctively combative man, as prone to yell at his television set as at the attorney general, should we really take his rantings seriously as crimes?
A smart lawyer like Dowd will only make his client look a fool if it will help him avoid looking like a criminal. After all, Trump will not be forced from office based on general incompetence, mendacity, or rashness. However shocking these qualities may be, we have already lived with them for 21 months. Only proof of Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors, as required by the Constitution, can realistically compel Congress to remove Trump from the presidency. If Robert Mueller, or the next Congress, produces such evidence, then we can expect a last-ditch defense along the lines previewed by Dowd and ratified by Woodward: the president is so erratic in his behavior, and so unreliable as a witness, that he can appear to implicate himself in non-existent crimes.
The alternative explanationthat the president is a serial liar, but is also guilty of serious felonies, knows it, and acts accordinglyis much simpler. And yet Woodward not only fails to reach that conclusion, he declines (as yet) to even consider it as a possibility. We can only wonder how an investigative journalist of his pedigree missed the story. With Manafort now pleading guilty and cooperating with Muellers investigation, Woodward may finally be asking himself the same question.
--more--
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 995 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Woodward's 'FEAR': On Dowd's seeming breach of attorney-client privilege/ethics (or is it?) (Original Post)
hlthe2b
Sep 2018
OP
I think Woodward was simply reporting what people were telling him,
The Velveteen Ocelot
Sep 2018
#1
yes.. agree. His critique of Woodward is not what I found interesting, but rather the Dowd issue.
hlthe2b
Sep 2018
#2
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)1. I think Woodward was simply reporting what people were telling him,
and not trying to draw conclusions - leaving those to the reader.
hlthe2b
(102,357 posts)2. yes.. agree. His critique of Woodward is not what I found interesting, but rather the Dowd issue.
shanny
(6,709 posts)3. Interesting.
But would also imply that this one of preznit's lawyers is more competent than any of the others have demonstrated: what are the odds?
MaryMagdaline
(6,856 posts)4. I don't approve of Dowd's telling anyone his client is a liar
Unless it was to another lawyer also representing trump or to trump himself. Even scum bags get to have lawyers.
hlthe2b
(102,357 posts)5. which makes the possible (pre-approval by Trump or the other possibilities discussed) all the more
intriguing, IMO. Dowd had to know he was coming perilously close to disbarment level complaint for this kind of thing. There has to be an explanation.
MaryMagdaline
(6,856 posts)6. Agree
33taw
(2,447 posts)7. He knew the consequences and risked them.