The resignation of Donald Trump’s chief personal lawyer, John Dowd, brings to mind an aphorism often discussed, but rarely publicly acknowledged, among lawyers: “You can lead a client to the courthouse, but you can’t make him think.”
Dowd, it appears, grew weary of preaching prudence to a man who views impudence as among the cardinal virtues.
Trump is at the center of more than the usual firestorm of controversy. As president, he has legal counsel intended to protect the interests of the presidency as an institution. He also has personal counsel, lawyers focused on protecting his individual interests. What’s lacking in his legal team is any sense of coherence. That is no doubt a function of the fact that Trump brings the ethos of an entertainer to the task of governing.
The president needs to be careful. Few really care about what a television celebrity does. But a president is supposed to be more than a celebrity. A president is supposed to lead his party, and the nation. Everything a president does has political, and legal significance. Rather than looking for a lawyer to serve as his cheerleader, Trump needs to learn to listen to counsel with the courage to tell him “no.”
But the Donald doesn’t listen. He seems incapable of doing so.
A lawyer’s job is to provide advice and counsel to a president. A good lawyer works with a client to identify the client’s interests, and then helps devise a strategy to best accomplish satisfy those interests within the confines of the law. A great lawyer understands the law’s rhythm and can be the difference between success and failure.
But clients set the tone for the attorney-client relationship. A lawyer advises, the client decides. You can’t make a client listen. A man bent of self-destruction can always find the means to succeed.
John Dowd has apparently had enough of the Donald. When the president last week hired another lawyer, Joseph DiGenova, a brash loudmouth who brays on Fox News about the Justice Department’s and FBI’s “manufacturing” of evidence against the president regarding Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election, one suspects Dowd had his fill. Yes, Dowd called last weekend for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to end the Russian investigation; but it seemed that Dowd was mouthing lines he’d been told to mutter.
So Dowd is out.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see Ty Cobb be the next lawyer to decide enough is enough. Cobb has advised that Trump cooperate with Mueller’s investigation. That won’t satisfy DiGenova, who prefers conspiracy theory and “deep state” drama.
As another tumultuous week ends in the Trump’s latest reality show, the president is surrounded by growing, and increasingly complex, legal problems: Mueller wants to chat – the president and his advisers need to take a position of the scope of executive privilege, and to develop a coherent litigation strategy. The president’s incessant Twittering suggests he is incapable of doing so.
Claims of sexual misconduct haunt the man who boasted, and then denied boasting about, his celebrity status and grabbing women by the, well, you know. Claims against him for defamation over his calling accusers liars will advance to discovery and further litigation. His business affairs in Russia are under scrutiny. The extent to which he has, or has not, obstructed justice remains an open question.
The Donald will be lucky to escape impeachment, and, perhaps even prison. He appears to be unacquainted with the concept of truth, and regards inconvenient facts as fake news. He cannot control his temper, his mouth, and his appetites. Wise lawyers would shudder at the thought of putting him under oath. It’s most likely impossible to counsel a man about the dangers of perjury or false statement prosecutions when the keel that anchors a man to common sense and a world of values shared by reasonable people is broken.
Yes, Donald Trump is president. He was elected, whether fairly or not. Some report he was surprised he actually won the election. Perhaps he’d prefer not to govern. Certainly his irrationality and inability to follow the advice of reasonable lawyers suggest that being president of the United States is not among his top priorities.
I know Donald Trump only reads what he agrees with. And I’d wager all I own he does not read this blog. But if anyone has his ear, they ought to whisper, no shout, the following into it: The law is not a game of chance. Good lawyering matters. Find a lawyer you trust then learn to take advice and counsel.
Or just keep running reckless and find yourself out of a job, and, perhaps, in a cell.
We’re growing weary of Donald drama.
Burdens of proof matter in the criminal justice and the civil justice systems. In the criminal courts, the state must prove its allegations by the law’s highest standard: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In the civil system, there is a lesser standard, what the law call’s preponderance of the evidence. No one walks into court, by virtue of merely making an allegation, and gets special status.
Not even people accusing others of sexual assault.
Hence, it makes no sense to call a person a victim merely because they’ve made an accusation. A person claiming rape is an accuser; they become a victim by proving their claim.
That doesn’t satisfy some folks.
Consider Zerlina Maxwell. She believes that “we should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.” She wrote these words for The Washington Post. I doubt it: a victim gets sympathy, a secondary gain; rapists are scorned.
In Ms. Maxwell’s mind every man, woman and child who cries rape is a victim. I suspect that it is thinking like this that yields statistics about a “epidemics” of rape and “rape culture.”
Ms. Maxwell should know better. She’s trained as a lawyer, after all. But she’ll defend her position by saying, as she did in her article for the Post, “This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what should happen outside the legal system.”
This is the sort of thinking that spawned the #MeToo movement.
Ms. Maxwell is a lawyer. She was graduated from the Rutgers University law school. She now works as Director of Progressive Programming for Sirius XM, and was director of Progressive Media for the Hilary Clinton presidential campaign; she worked for Obama, too. Chartwell Speakers Bureau lists her a speaker. You can pay her to listen to her speak on such things as “Rape Culture and Victim-Blaming.”
People are free to reject the criminal law’s presumption of innocence. And no one is required in their private affairs to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither are folks required to require any standard of proof at all.
But I find it difficult to comprehend how someone can claim that it is moral to say that it is somehow less harmful to call someone a rapist than it is to “wrongfully disbelieve” an accuser.
Not long ago, my office tried a campus sexual assault case involving two Yale students. The jury found my client not guilty of all charges. Interviews after trial report that jurors did not find the accuser credible; in other words, she wasn’t a victim.
In the days following the verdict, we received hate mail from around the country and were excoriated in publications and social media throughout the United States. How dare we attack a victim; we are scum for defending a rapist! Not one of these outraged souls were at trial.
They all, each and every one, indulged Ms. Maxwell’s presumption of victimhood.
There is no mob quite so dangerous as a self-righteous mob.
It is defamatory to call a person a rapist, if the claim is false. The law says our reputations matter. Should those quick to call a man a rapist be held to account?
I’d like to see a few defamation claims brought against those who rally behind unfounded claims of accusers. I’m wondering why more of those held to scorn by waves of #MeToo groupies crying foul don’t hold accountable those who bring these claims to the press. Yes, rape is a violent crime; ambiguous sex is not. Neither is boundaryless flirtation.
Legal standards matter, even in civil discourse. A person making an accusation is entitled to respect, not belief. Belief should be a product of proof. It makes no sense to claim, as Ms. Maxwell does, that we should default to belief. How can we know whether we are, as Ms. Maxwell puts it, “wrongfully believing” someone if we can’t test the accusations?
Mae West had it right: “Men are like linoleum floors. Lay 'em right and you can walk all over them for years.” My hunch is that a fair number of the surfeit of sexual assault claims now almost daily appearing in the press are false. I don’t know that, of course. But I think those raising the claims should be required to prove them.
Crying rape doesn’t make you a victim; it makes you an accuser with the responsibility to prove your accusation. If you don’t want to assume that responsibility, then don’t raise a hue and cry. The possessors of the reputations you seek to ruin are required to respect, too.