A small question about the Trump/Dowd tweet

[Rockfish1]

So Trump's tweet seemed to acknowledge that he knew Flynn had lied to the FBI. After controversy erupted, Trump's personal lawyer, John Dowd, came forward to say that he'd actually drafted the controversial tweet. To defend his client -- ostensibly -- Dowd thus seems to have made himself a fact witness in his client's case.

If Dowd drafted the tweet, Mueller will be up one side of him and down the other to explore his basis for suggesting that Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI. It would place him squarely in the middle of an obstruction investigation. How will he respond when the subpoena arrives? How can he continue to represent Trump if he's a material witness? The attorney-client privilege isn't nearly as strong as many believe.

If, on the other hand, Dowd is lying to cover up for Trump, then he's just sacrificed his professional reputation, probably his professional career, and if he's not careful, maybe his liberty. Why would he possibly do that? The truth of this would absolutely be known.

Maybe I'm the only one who finds this curious. Maybe I'm missing something so obvious that I'll regret starting this thread. But at least if you're John Dowd, isn't this a big deal? What in the wide world of sports is going on here?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So Trump's tweet seemed to acknowledge that he knew Flynn had lied to the FBI. After controversy erupted, Trump's personal lawyer, John Dowd, came forward to say that he'd actually drafted the controversial tweet. To defend his client -- ostensibly -- Dowd thus seems to have made himself a fact witness in his client's case.

If Dowd drafted the tweet, Mueller will be up one side of him and down the other to explore his basis for suggesting that Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI. It would place him squarely in the middle of an obstruction investigation. How will he respond when the subpoena arrives? How can he continue to represent Trump if he's a material witness? The attorney-client privilege isn't nearly as strong as many believe.

If, on the other hand, Dowd is lying to cover up for Trump, then he's just sacrificed his professional reputation, probably his professional career, and if he's not careful, maybe his liberty. Why would he possibly do that? The truth of this would absolutely be known.

Maybe I'm the only one who finds this curious. Maybe I'm missing something so obvious that I'll regret starting this thread. But at least if you're John Dowd, isn't this a big deal? What in the wide world of sports is going on here?

It's a huge boner. According to the story I read, Trump was unaware of this tweet under his name. I've written press releases for public clients, but never have I released one without the client knowledge and approval. I can't imagine what service Dowd thought he was providing by writing this anyway. It's inappropriate, ineffective, and unprofessional.

I agree, Dowd must withdraw, in fact Trump ought to make a spectacle out of firing him.

But then Dowd is even older than I am, so maybe he ought to get old white guy diminished mental capacity slack.

 

[iuwclurker1]

If, on the other hand, Dowd is lying to cover up for Trump, then he's just sacrificed his professional reputation, probably his professional career, and if he's not careful, maybe his liberty. Why would he possibly do that? The truth of this would absolutely be known.

Lawyers are constantly making public statements claiming their client's innocence. Clearly those are often lies. I've often wondered how that doesn't ruin their reputation.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I find it hard to believe Trump didn't write it. It was the usual Trumpspeak.

 

[Thyrsis]

If, on the other hand, Dowd is lying to cover up for Trump, then he's just sacrificed his professional reputation, probably his professional career, and if he's not careful, maybe his liberty.

I'm not sure I agree with this part. Reputation among those who hold to traditional norms of professional responsibility? Sure. But I'm not sure that matters in Trump's America. I guess we'll see (if he's lying) whether he'll continue to have a professional career, but I'd guess yes. As for the liberty part, I appreciate that Trump is still under scrutiny and that Flynn is being held accountable to some degree, but it sure feels like all that is slipping and that we're close to letting go of lots of those traditional norms of law and accountability. The whole thing feels like a banana republic or worse to me, so I wouldn't assume we can gauge the status quo through a truly American lens.

 

[toastedbread]

I'm not sure I agree with this part. Reputation among those who hold to traditional norms of professional responsibility? Sure. But I'm not sure that matters in Trump's America. I guess we'll see (if he's lying) whether he'll continue to have a professional career, but I'd guess yes. As for the liberty part, I appreciate that Trump is still under scrutiny and that Flynn is being held accountable to some degree, but it sure feels like all that is slipping and that we're close to letting go of lots of those traditional norms of law and accountability. The whole thing feels like a banana republic or worse to me, so I wouldn't assume we can gauge the status quo through a truly American lens.

Just a layman's opinion, but I think the US democratic experiment is on life support. The celebration of today's Supreme Court ruling by 40% of the US is frightening.

 

[Rockfish1]

It's a huge boner. According to the story I read, Trump was unaware of this tweet under his name. I've written press releases for public clients, but never have I released one without the client knowledge and approval. I can't imagine what service Dowd thought he was providing by writing this anyway. It's inappropriate, ineffective, and unprofessional.

I agree, Dowd must withdraw, in fact Trump ought to make a spectacle out of firing him.

But then Dowd is even older than I am, so maybe he ought to get old white guy diminished mental capacity slack.

I honestly don't understand this. It'd be crazy for Dowd to lie, it'd be crazy for Dowd to make himself a fact witness, and it'd be crazy for Dowd to draft tweets that he ought to strangle his client to prevent from being posted.

I don't practice in this area, and there's lots I don't know. But this all looks like there isn't any adult supervision.

But what do I know?

 

[toastedbread]

I honestly don't understand this. It'd be crazy for Dowd to lie, it'd be crazy for Dowd to make himself a fact witness, and it'd be crazy for Dowd to draft tweets that he ought to strangle his client to prevent from being posted.

I don't practice in this area, and there's lots I don't know. But this all looks like there isn't any adult supervision.

But what do I know?

I can't see what you replied to as I have that poster on ignore, but it's plainly obvious that Trump wrote that tweet. The language is identical to Trump's.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm not sure I agree with this part. Reputation among those who hold to traditional norms of professional responsibility? Sure. But I'm not sure that matters in Trump's America. I guess we'll see (if he's lying) whether he'll continue to have a professional career, but I'd guess yes. As for the liberty part, I appreciate that Trump is still under scrutiny and that Flynn is being held accountable to some degree, but it sure feels like all that is slipping and that we're close to letting go of lots of those traditional norms of law and accountability. The whole thing feels like a banana republic or worse to me, so I wouldn't assume we can gauge the status quo through a truly American lens.

I think you are right about reputation. The public doesn’t know, or wouldn’t care if it did. But if a lawyer ghostwrote the client’s statement, and lied about it in some fashion, discipline for misconduct is in order. But then big shot attorneys seem to have different rules than the rest of us.

One of the separators between us and a banana republic is law, legal ethics, and separation of law making and law enforcement. All of that has been in jeopardy years before Trump.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Just a layman's opinion, but I think the US democratic experiment is on life support. The celebration of today's Supreme Court ruling by 40% of the US is frightening.

You aren’t suggesting that 40% approval of a SCOTUS opinion is meaningful are you? If that was a meaningful point then our democracy would be in danger.

 

[Rockfish1]

I can't see what you replied to as I have that poster on ignore, but it's plainly obvious that Trump wrote that tweet. The language is identical to Trump's.

But play with me here. What if Dowd did write it? Did he try to ape Trump when he did? These are among the fascinating questions that I'd subpoena him to answer. And he'd know this scrutiny was coming.

Again, all of this is way over my head, but I'd never sacrifice myself for a client. Clients are entitled to my honesty, my loyalty, my discretion, and all my best efforts, but they aren't entitled to me. Lawyers harm all their clients if they impair their reputation for any one client. It's unimaginable to me that a distinguished establishment lawyer like Dowd would piss his reputation away on grounds like this.

Having said so, something that doesn't make sense to me absolutely happened here. Maybe Trump's team is in disarray, or maybe there's something I'm not seeing.

 

[Rockfish1]

Lawyers are constantly making public statements claiming their client's innocence. Clearly those are often lies. I've often wondered how that doesn't ruin their reputation.

I refer you back to what I posted. Dowd has created huge problems for himself and his client, notwithstanding your baseless claims about what lawyers "constantly" do.

 

[toastedbread]

But play with me here. What if Dowd did write it? Did he try to ape Trump when he did? These are among the fascinating questions that I'd subpoena him to answer. And he'd know this scrutiny was coming.

Again, all of this is way over my head, but I'd never sacrifice myself for a client. Clients are entitled to my honesty, my loyalty, my discretion, and all my best efforts, but they aren't entitled to me. Lawyers harm all their clients if they impair their reputation for any one client. It's unimaginable to me that a distinguished establishment lawyer like Dowd would piss his reputation away on grounds like this.

Having said so, something that doesn't make sense to me absolutely happened here. Maybe Trump's team is in disarray, or maybe there's something I'm not seeing.

I don't think there is anything normal about this administration or cast of characters surrounding trump. Kasowitz resigned because even he couldn't handle Trump after 17 years. (that was some weeks after he sent some insane emails). We've read reports that leading firms wanted nothing to do with trump due to his reputation and fear of being shortchanged monetarily. My opinion is there a bunch of people working there who will bow down to trump no matter the potential cost. Perhaps they believe in the worst case they will be pardoned. I have no idea what their logic is. There is no way anyone other than Trump wrote that Tweet. The language is too Trumpian. I suppose Dowd is trying to protect Trump out of some personal loyalty he won't receive in return.

 

[iuwclurker1]

I refer you back to what I posted. Dowd has created huge problems for himself and his client, notwithstanding your baseless claims about what lawyers "constantly" do.

lol

 

[Rockfish1]

I'm not sure I agree with this part. Reputation among those who hold to traditional norms of professional responsibility? Sure. But I'm not sure that matters in Trump's America. I guess we'll see (if he's lying) whether he'll continue to have a professional career, but I'd guess yes. As for the liberty part, I appreciate that Trump is still under scrutiny and that Flynn is being held accountable to some degree, but it sure feels like all that is slipping and that we're close to letting go of lots of those traditional norms of law and accountability. The whole thing feels like a banana republic or worse to me, so I wouldn't assume we can gauge the status quo through a truly American lens.

I hear what you're saying, but I think this could destroy Dowd's reputation among those who'd conceivably hire him, and he's an old dog to learn new tricks. This could kill him among those he self-regardingly considers his peers. I don't carry that kind of weight, but if I did, I wouldn't throw it away to no purpose. I really don't get this.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I honestly don't understand this. It'd be crazy for Dowd to lie, it'd be crazy for Dowd to make himself a fact witness, and it'd be crazy for Dowd to draft tweets that he ought to strangle his client to prevent from being posted.

I don't practice in this area, and there's lots I don't know. But this all looks like there isn't any adult supervision.

But what do I know?

I think you know enough to point out Dowd's faux pas which you did. In addition to everything you've noted I think Dowd blew a hole in attorney client privilege.

 

[UncleMark]

I honestly don't understand this. It'd be crazy for Dowd to lie, it'd be crazy for Dowd to make himself a fact witness, and it'd be crazy for Dowd to draft tweets that he ought to strangle his client to prevent from being posted.

It's been proven time and time again that anyone who chooses to associate or align himself to Trump will soon be forced to publicly humiliate him/herself. See Spicer, Tillerson, Pence, and Sanders on a daily basis. That you are so incredulous that Dowd would find himself in this same position is what's amazing to me.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Does has to be covering. I cannot believe Trump hands out the Twitter password to anyone.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I hear what you're saying, but I think this could destroy Dowd's reputation among those who'd conceivably hire him, and he's an old dog to learn new tricks. This could kill him among those he self-regardingly considers his peers. I don't carry that kind of weight, but if I did, I wouldn't throw it away to no purpose. I really don't get this.

I've been trying to craft a response to this thread for a while, and I can't get past this: Dowd's explanation was that it was sloppily written. He could have just said Trump misspoke. Why insert himself into the debacle?

 

[UncleMark]

I've been trying to craft a response to this thread for a while, and I can't get past this: Dowd's explanation was that it was sloppily written. He could have just said Trump misspoke. Why insert himself into the debacle?

Trump made him.

 

[toastedbread]

Does has to be covering. I cannot believe Trump hands out the Twitter password to anyone.

Dan Scavino, Trump's director of social media has his password. The WH is conveniently claiming that Dowd orally passed this tweet to Scavino, who then tweeted it and that there is no written record of the draft, even though it was previously suggested there is a written record.

 

[Bill4411]

Trump made him.

It would have been better to claim Melania wrote it and posted it under his Twitter account.

 

[Rockfish1]

It's been proven time and time again that anyone who chooses to associate or align himself to Trump will soon be forced to publicly humiliate him/herself. See Spicer, Tillerson, Pence, and Sanders on a daily basis. That you are so incredulous that Dowd would find himself in this same position is what's amazing to me.

I hear you, Mark, and maybe I haven't accommodated to just how outrageous this all is. I agree that Trump tars all who touch him. But this seems notable to me, and though I don't watch TV news, I don't see it being reported. Mostly I'm incredulous that no one is paying attention to what a shit show Trump's legal team is.

 

[UncleMark]

I hear you, Mark, and maybe I haven't accommodated to just how outrageous this all is. I agree that Trump tars all who touch him. But this seems notable to me, and though I don't watch TV news, I don't see it being reported. Mostly I'm incredulous that no one is paying attention to what a shit show Trump's legal team is.

You're a lawyer, so you notice shit like this. But it's a bit too nuanced for TV news, and doesn't make for compelling headlines.

Bottom line is Dowd is no different from all the others who have sold their souls, their professions and reputations notwithstanding.

Edit to add: I'm no lawyer, but kind of a jailhouse lawyer wannabe, and am probably more knowledgeable and interested in the legal angles than most. My reaction was "Aw c'mon, you didn't write that. Don't make an ass of yourself." I didn't think of the more technical legal aspects until reading your post. Not surprising that it's not getting much coverage.

 

[iuwclurker1]

It's been proven time and time again that anyone who chooses to associate or align himself to Trump will soon be forced to publicly humiliate him/herself. See Spicer, Tillerson, Pence, and Sanders on a daily basis. That you are so incredulous that Dowd would find himself in this same position is what's amazing to me.

I see two possible hooks. Either Trump's money draws them or their alpha self-confidence lures them into a false sense of security that others get screwed by Trump but he can't screw me. Then he screws them either way. He's known to have underpaid and sued his own lawyers, a fact that long since led me to wonder why any lawyers would ever consider representing him any more.

There's something really hard up about Trump's lawyers.

 

[Rockfish1]

You're a lawyer, so you notice shit like this. But it's a bit too nuanced for TV news, and doesn't make for compelling headlines.

Bottom line is Dowd is no different from all the others who have sold their souls, their professions and reputations notwithstanding.

Edit to add: I'm no lawyer, but kind of a jailhouse lawyer wannabe, and am probably more knowledgeable and interested in the legal angles than most. My reaction was "Aw c'mon, you didn't write that. Don't make an ass of yourself." I didn't think of the more technical legal aspects until reading your post. Not surprising that it's not getting much coverage.

I'm trying to infer what's happening in a mostly subterranean investigation, based on isolated public data points. This makes me cautious about what the facts are.

Having said so, I'd thought of Dowd as the sort of old, rich, accomplished, establishment lawyer who wouldn't need or want this crazy shit. Obviously I've got something wrong, but I'm not convinced you appreciate the legal and ethical jeopardy Dowd may have taken on here. He wouldn't in his life and career have time to recover if this went wrong for him. This would be how he's remembered and how he finished.

Possibly I'm over-reacting, but I don't think so.

 

[IUPaterade724]

How about the fact his twitter account has been labeled as "official statements from the president" so said Spicer and so says Sanders. Now we are to believe his lawyer is behind this tweet? So are these official statements or aren't they and can Mueller use this in his investigation?

 

[UncleMark]

Obviously I've got something wrong, but I'm not convinced you appreciate the legal and ethical jeopardy Dowd may have taken on here. He wouldn't in his life and career have time to recover if this went wrong for him.

I do, actually, thanks you your succinct OP. Makes it perfectly clear to me how badly he may have fscked up.

I just turned on MSNBC after the ball game, and they're all over this right now.

 

[UncleMark]

How about the fact his twitter account has been labeled as "official statements from the president" so said Spicer and so says Sanders. Now we are to believe his lawyer is behind this tweet? So are these official statements or aren't they and can Mueller use this in his investigation?

And if I'm in the WH press corps, I'm going to ask Sarah who wrote every tweet from now on.

edit spelling

 

[Rockfish1]

I don't think there is anything normal about this administration or cast of characters surrounding trump. Kasowitz resigned because even he couldn't handle Trump after 17 years. (that was some weeks after he sent some insane emails). We've read reports that leading firms wanted nothing to do with trump due to his reputation and fear of being shortchanged monetarily. My opinion is there a bunch of people working there who will bow down to trump no matter the potential cost. Perhaps they believe in the worst case they will be pardoned. I have no idea what their logic is. There is no way anyone other than Trump wrote that Tweet. The language is too Trumpian. I suppose Dowd is trying to protect Trump out of some personal loyalty he won't receive in return.

There's no doubt that Trump must choose from a tiny subset of the "talent" who will work for him. This is a big problem, and it will likely become an increasingly difficult problem after the current crop of advisers turns over to people even less qualified but even more obsequious to the emperor with no clothes.

Some of Trump's enablers extolled his supposed transferrable skills, but he seems to have only transferrable pathologies.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I don't think there is anything normal about this administration or cast of characters surrounding trump. Kasowitz resigned because even he couldn't handle Trump after 17 years. (that was some weeks after he sent some insane emails). We've read reports that leading firms wanted nothing to do with trump due to his reputation and fear of being shortchanged monetarily. My opinion is there a bunch of people working there who will bow down to trump no matter the potential cost. Perhaps they believe in the worst case they will be pardoned. I have no idea what their logic is. There is no way anyone other than Trump wrote that Tweet. The language is too Trumpian. I suppose Dowd is trying to protect Trump out of some personal loyalty he won't receive in return.

I actually know someone that did legal work for him in NY. They didn't last too long because of exactly what you mentioned.

 

[sglowrider]

 

[toastedbread]

There's no doubt that Trump must choose from a tiny subset of the "talent" who will work for him. This is a big problem, and it will likely become an increasingly difficult problem after the current crop of advisers turns over to people even less qualified but even more obsequious to the emperor with no clothes.

Some of Trump's enablers extolled his supposed transferrable skills, but he seems to have only transferrable pathologies.

Just throwing it out there, but I wouldn't be shocked if the "Publicity Hound" aka Alan Dershowitz signs up to assist team Trump.

What I'm most disturbed about is not even Trump himself, but the normalization and institutionalization of authoritarianism/fascism and racism. You have a party who would support interment of brown people if given a chance. The state department is being gutted. We have no ambassador to SK at a time of high drama. Politicization of the CIA with Pompeo. Just absolute madness at every level and this will have catastrophic long term effects.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

You have a party who would support interment of brown people if given a chance.

Stop the bull shit.

 

[toastedbread]

Stop the bull shit.

It's 100% true. 81% of your party hates Muslims and would deport/intern if given the chance. Look at what they post on social media. They are celebrating the supreme court decision because it keeps Muslims out. They want him to ban all Muslims from every country. They want to deport the Muslims here. It's so blatantly obvious. You are in complete denial about where your party currently resides. How do you think Roy Moore manages to win a primary and will probably serve as a Senator?

http://time.com/4140050/donald-trump-muslims-japanese-internment/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...or-wall-mulling-muslim-registry-idUSKBN13B05C
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-internment-muslim-registry.html

I'm sorry to say, but you and Jeff Flake are the 2 outsiders. It's no longer your party. The Republican party is no longer a conservative party, but instead a nationalist movement.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Just throwing it out there, but I wouldn't be shocked if the "Publicity Hound" aka Alan Dershowitz signs up to assist team Trump.

What I'm most disturbed about is not even Trump himself, but the normalization and institutionalization of authoritarianism/fascism and racism. You have a party who would support interment of brown people if given a chance. The state department is being gutted. We have no ambassador to SK at a time of high drama. Politicization of the CIA with Pompeo. Just absolute madness at every level and this will have catastrophic long term effects.

That’s inaccurate. They wouldn’t all “support internment of brown people”. The “reasonable” ones out there would speak out against it, they just wouldn’t vote for anyone who could actually keep it from happening. There’s a difference.

Biggest fan in 3...2...1...

 

[UncleMark]

Either Trump's money draws them or their alpha self-confidence lures them into a false sense of security that others get screwed by Trump but he can't screw me. Then he screws them either way.

I suspect there's a lot of this, people who have always been among the smartest in the room thinking they'd never allow themselves to be put into such a position, then find themselves there. Dowd falling on his sword (I'm convinced Trump wrote the Tweet, not Dowd) seems to me to be a panic move. I have to believe the chaos of the current White House makes people react blindly and without thinking things through well. Deliberation is not this administration's strong suit, and the lack thereof is contagious. "Ready, Fire, Aim" might make for an interesting business strategy, but the stakes are far too high to operate the Presidency that way.

 

[MrBing]

It's 100% true. 81% of your party hates Muslims and would deport/intern if given the chance. Look at what they post on social media. They are celebrating the supreme court decision because it keeps Muslims out. They want him to ban all Muslims from every country. They want to deport the Muslims here. It's so blatantly obvious. You are in complete denial about where your party currently resides. How do you think Roy Moore manages to win a primary and will probably serve as a Senator?

http://time.com/4140050/donald-trump-muslims-japanese-internment/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...or-wall-mulling-muslim-registry-idUSKBN13B05C
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-internment-muslim-registry.html

I'm sorry to say, but you and Jeff Flake are the 2 outsiders. It's no longer your party. The Republican party is no longer a conservative party, but instead a nationalist movement.

I have brown skin and I don't think the Pub party wants put me and all others like me into prison. I think it's silly to say what you said and I think you piss off a lot of reasonable Pubs with your broad brush. I don't think it is. I work with a lot of Pubs as a member of the military and they're genuinely good people just like most of us Dems are. Why piss them off by claiming they're racists? I think you just harden their resolve against ever being a Dem and I'd like to win some over and not push them away. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[toastedbread]

I have brown skin and I don't think the Pub party wants put me and all others like me into prison. I think it's silly to say what you said and I think you piss off a lot of reasonable Pubs with your broad brush. I don't think it is. I work with a lot of Pubs as a member of the military and they're genuinely good people just like most of us Dems are. Why piss them off by claiming they're racists? I think you just harden their resolve against ever being a Dem and I'd like to win some over and not push them away. That's my opinion anyway.

I'm sensitive to your overall point, but do you honestly believe any of your colleagues would ever actually vote for a Democratic?

Do you believe the republican soldiers you work with in a diverse military are reflective of republican party as a whole?

Lastly, are you Muslim?

I'm not claiming all Republicans are racist, I'm stating a majority of Republicans are racist, most specifically against Muslims. This is borne out by poll numbers. And if you happen to wonder onto Twitter, you will discover that the reaction to the supreme courts injunction was totally racial in nature. In addition, I linked to the president's statement on interment camps, along with a call by one of his advisors for the reinstatement of internment camps.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

It's 100% true. 81% of your party hates Muslims and would deport/intern if given the chance. Look at what they post on social media. They are celebrating the supreme court decision because it keeps Muslims out. They want him to ban all Muslims from every country. They want to deport the Muslims here. It's so blatantly obvious. You are in complete denial about where your party currently resides. How do you think Roy Moore manages to win a primary and will probably serve as a Senator?

http://time.com/4140050/donald-trump-muslims-japanese-internment/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...or-wall-mulling-muslim-registry-idUSKBN13B05C
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-internment-muslim-registry.html

I'm sorry to say, but you and Jeff Flake are the 2 outsiders. It's no longer your party. The Republican party is no longer a conservative party, but instead a nationalist movement.

Total nonsense.