The Curious Role Of Cheryl Mills As Both Witness and Lawyer In The FBI Investigation

cheryl_d-_mills136px-US-FBI-ShadedSeal_svgWe previously discussed the problematic role of all of the Clinton staffers speaking with FBI being represented by the same lawyer despite potential conflicts of interest. The release of material from the FBI has revealed an even more troubling role of a Clinton lawyer. In an accommodation that would have been refused in most criminal investigations, the FBI allowed Cheryl Mills to sit in on the interview of Hillary Clinton on the email scandal even though Mills is a witness and a key figure in the scandal. The FBI still allowed her to advise a witness who could have opposing or conflicting accounts to her own prior statements. It is a dual role that is frowned upon by bar rules and would likely draw intense objections in most cases. The accommodation reinforces the view that Clinton received extraordinary accommodations by the FBI in its consideration of criminal charges.

FBI notes refer to Mills being present at the interview. Clinton was not short of counsel. She had multiple lawyers as well as State Department and Justice Department counsel involved in the investigation. I cannot imagine most agents agreeing to a material witness jumping the table to serve as counsel on the very same controversy.

Mills did not serve as counsel to Clinton at State but “counselor”, which is more of an advisor. She later did serve as her personal lawyer and dealt with the disastrous email record, including a role in the deletion of thousands of emails (many of which were later found to contain not personal but official communications). Indeed, critics have long identified Mills as the central figure in the scandal among the Clinton staff.

The role of lawyers as witnesses most often arises in trial conflicts and are covered by Rule 3.7(a) in D.C. which provides that “A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness. . . .” The D.C. Rules also contains a standard expression of the bar on conflicts of interests:

Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.7–Conflict of Interest: General Rule
(a) A lawyer shall not advance two or more adverse positions in the same matter.
(b) Except as permitted by paragraph (c) below, a lawyer shall not represent a client with respect to a matter if:
(1) That matter involves a specific party or parties and a position to be taken by that client in that matter is adverse to a position taken or to be taken by another client in the same matter even though that client is unrepresented or represented by a different lawyer;
(2) Such representation will be or is likely to be adversely affected by representation of another client;
(3) Representation of another client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by such representation;
(4) The lawyer’s professional judgment on behalf of the client will be or reasonably may be adversely affected by the lawyer’s responsibilities to or interests in a third party or the lawyer’s own financial, business, property, or personal interests.
(c) A lawyer may represent a client with respect to a matter in the circumstances described in paragraph (b) above if
(1) Each potentially affected client provides informed consent to such representation after full disclosure of the existence and nature of the possible conflict and the possible adverse consequences of such representation; and
(2) The lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client.
(d) If a conflict not reasonably foreseeable at the outset of representation arises under paragraph (b)(1) after the representation commences, and is not waived under paragraph (c), a lawyer need not withdraw from any representation unless the conflict also arises under paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(4).

It is hard to see how Mills’ personal interests are not affected by a potential criminal investigation into her role in the destruction of the emails and other potential charges.

What do you think?

98 thoughts on “The Curious Role Of Cheryl Mills As Both Witness and Lawyer In The FBI Investigation”

  1. This Hillary Clinton killed people destroyed highly classified documents, lied repeatedly about her actions and eveything else we all no she did and can still be President!!!!! I got in trouble when i was younger and got a felony on my record and can’t find a job that pays more than minimum wage and thats working threw a temp service!!!!!! I didn’t kill anyone or harm anyone i was desperate for money so i can eat and pay bills, life was tuff and i took FULL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR MY ACTIONS DID MY PUNISHMENT PAYED BACK DOUBLE WHAT I TOOK and now a background check dosen’t allow me to work a job for at least 9 dollars an hour if i get lucky, and she gets away with murder and can Still be president, even after they said she cant be trusted with highly classified douments!!!!! Its a shame a person who makes a mistake on hard times has to remain living in hard times for the rest of their lives!!! While we allow illegal immigrants to come to america and give them checks over $2500.00 dollars each, give them the best housing, health insurance and help them open small businesses tax free for at least 5 years!!!!!! The America Dream is long gone unless your come from immigration!!

  2. I would like to post an Older Comment cause I am a younger guy than most guys my age. But I can’t find my Younger Comment cause things are not in order on the comment list here on this dumb blog. Why can’t they just be from new down to old or vice versa? Putting Vice First: I want to see a new candidate step forward and regurgitate an old party called The Whig Party. It has to be a “he” and he has to wear a wig. He has to be for war and he has to be for peace. If he substitutes the word “piece” for “peace” then we know he has a Monica. This week wikileaks is coming out with the Hillary and Monica story. It was a three way triangle and not a two way street.

  3. @phillyT

    Nope. Not leaving or renouncing citizenship. As usual your shrill postings in defense of HRC fall flat. Looking forward to getting rid of the horrid corporate control exemplified by HRC. Jill not Hill 2016.

  4. Folks I know in the FBI say Comey is facing a mutiny. That’s why he penned that very defensive memo. You can tell it’s slipping away for Hillary. Her dull/normal sycophants are putting on the faux air of inevitability. Just like they did in 2008. LOL.

  5. “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
    (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”

    Unapproved private server used for official business and which only became known after Guccifer discovered it via a hack of Sid Blumenthal’s email. Concealment of records.

    Informing Cheryl Mills that she no longer wanted access to any emails (any would mean official or otherwise) older than 60 days, leading to a change in the already nongovernmental email retention policy. Emails older than the set policy are deleted. Deletion is destruction of records. BleachBit is obliteration.

    I cannot get over the willful disregard for the law. His transparency laid out a case worthy of prosecution and then he said it was not worthy of prosecution. Truly, the king has no clothes on.

    1. Wouldn’t it be nice if Wikileaks blew a hole through Clinton’s next week?! She’ll blame it on Russia, of course. She’s cried wolf one time too many.

  6. @phillyT

    I know you need to continue making money for Correct the Record. BUT dude, it’s game over. The people are uniting from various fronts and we will NOT accept HRC in the WH

    1. Well Autumn, I suppose you could always renounce your US citizenship and move somewhere more to your liking. Other than that, Hillary Clinton IS going to be the next US President. Better get used to it.

  7. Once again, for ALL those people who jus CANNOT get over it, here’s the core of that memo from James Comey to his FBI staff and subordinates:

    ‘You may be sick of this, but let me leave you with a few words about how I have been describing the email investigation in private to our former employees as I meet them around the country. I explain to them that there are two aspects to this: (1) our judgment about the facts and prosecutive merit; and (2) how we decided to talk about that judgment. I tell them that the difficult decision was actually the second part, not the first. At the end of the day, the case itself was not a cliff-hanger; despite all the chest-beating by people no longer in government, there really wasn’t a prosecutable case. The hard part was whether to offer unprecedented transparency about our thinking.


    ‘I explain to our alums that I’m okay if folks have a different view of the investigation (although I struggle to see how they actually could, especially when they didn’t do the investigation), or about the wisdom of announcing it as we did (although even with hindsight I think that was the best course), but I have no patience for suggestions that we conducted ourselves as anything but what we are — honest, competent, and independent. Those suggesting that we are “political” or part of some “fix” either don’t know us, or they are full of baloney (and maybe some of both).

    ‘I will try not to bother you with this any longer.’

    It’s over. Julian Assange has gone round the bend. Just remember when you were thinking we should send a team in to grab him and now you think he’s a hero. He wasn’t then and he isn’t now.

  8. @davidm2575

    Damn super proud of Jill Stein for actually traveling out there to be with the Standing Rock protesters. HELL yes!! Obama has said or done nothing – just like the Flint/Cleveland water debacle. I WANT a president who actually interacts with the people.

    Jill not Hill 2016

  9. @”dr green”

    The fact of the matter is that WE the PEOPLE, whether cheetoh or sushi eaters, are uniting to ensure that HRC never gets near the WH. Jill Stein is a woman btw but you Hilbots demean her as well as the MSM. And we would rather see Trump in office over her. Good riddance MSM and HRC.

    1. Autumn,

      They most certainly do show contempt for a female presidential candidate. And they showed contempt for a
      black, female presidential candidate in 2008.

      And the Democratic followers never once stop to ponder the implications of why it is fine to show that contempt! Hmmm….maybe it means they don’t really value women or black people except if they are lackeys for the oligarchy?

      Some women and black persons are more equal than others!

  10. “I don’t recall”, 1990’s. “I don’t recall”, 2000’s. What a difference 20 years makes, no ash trays in the White House.

Comments are closed.