We 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?
coconuts,
There is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing. It’s just being ignored by the “justice” system. That is one of the scariest things about US society at this time. The powerful, such as Bush and Obama can commit torture and assassinate at will (as did Clinton). There is massive, blanket surveillance. There is theft in office. These are only a few of the heinous actions taken by our “dear leaders”. Yet, no legal action is taken, even though, in some cases such as torture, legal action isn’t optional, it’s mandatory.
I understand you want Clinton to be elected but there is a much deeper issue here than having your favorite candidate elected. We have lost the rule of law. This is dangerous to every citizen, no matter who you vote for. As citizens, if we do not stand up for our Constitution and demand the rule of law apply even to the powerful, we are allowing our own govt. to crumble. We will all rue this, even supporters of Hillary. You will only be in favor as long as you serve. The moment you do not serve well you will be expendable along with those who dissent injustice.
Join with those who want justice and a functioning democracy!
Two years of investigative reporting by the WAPO led to Nixon’s resignation after the Watergate burglary.
Thirty years of going after the Clintons with far more ammunition and all they got was lying under oath about adultery?? Even the lengthy Benghazi committee, headed by a republican in a majority republican committee, came up with “no new evidence of specific wrongdoing.”
Some may think it shows how devious and clever the Clintons are but after 30 years that dog don’t hunt. And I am NO fan of theirs; I think they are brilliant and opportunistic lawyers who know how to skate on the edge of the law.
Still, after 30 years, the republicans and their minions have come up with basically nothing. If there is something there, then they are pathetically incompetent. If there is nothing there [other than ubiquitous corrupt politics], then they need a massive injection of anti-psychotic meds to counter their collective paranoia.
coconuts, there is something there. It has been plainly exposed for all to see. The problem is that the Justice Department is filled with cronies so nobody is prosecuting. If Hillary Clinton was just a low level employee, she would have been fired and prosecuted immediately. No doubt about it. Unfortunately, we have the best legal system that money can buy. Justice is no longer blind.
It seems prudent to point out that the WAPO is now run by Jay Carney. Perhaps we should stop ignoring that the press is now more a less state run media.
Enclosed please find a link to the Benghazi Committee, if you would care to read through their reports:
http://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/select-committee-on-benghazi-releases-final-report-urges-obama-administration-to
You may find it distressing that they discovered that during the attack, the majority of discussions centered on getting the video off line before they would send in any rescue efforts, or how the rescue teams were told to wait, and changed in and out of their gear repeatedly.
Meanwhile, those who actually did rescue the survivors were part of a regime we ousted earlier.
Don’t just believe what you’re told. That they found nothing wrong. Read for yourself. The reports are not that long. It will give you a very jaded view of how we handled a predictable crisis. After all, Libya was a hot zone and they had received many threats before.
People see the system is rigged for this Royal family. We’ll be done w/ them soon. Chelsea is a mope and will not go far if she chooses politics.
It’s very true that Hillary supporters want no action by the lower orders to demand the rule of law apply to all!
Distraction by any other means can be inaction.
when the action cannot be defended, the remaining option is distraction.
I am interested in the non-substantive defenses of Clinton I see here and elsewhere. Is there racism against Obama? Yet Bet! Is there sexism against Hillary? You bet. As a person of conscience I condemn these slurs. They have absolutely nothing to do with either persons’ illegal and heinous actions.
I see many of these attempts to call out racism and sexism as a technique to draw focus away from actual wrongdoing by both people. The reason that I think this is that the sexism and racism remarks, while true, are used to try to shut up criticism of Obama and Clinton.
The only honest way to approach this situation is to condemn the sexism and racism, while still being able to confront and honestly grapple with criticism which is not based on sexism and racism. For example, JT’s post and many of the comments here don’t have anything to do with race or gender. They have to do with a really fishy looking action by Clinton and her staff.
Screams of racism, sexism and Hitler/Trump comparisons cannot erase what is actually happening with Clinton. She and her minions are above the law. Let’s regret and condemn that as well.
I’m beginning to believe while Clinton might be the top name on the Democratic ticket, she in no way will be “the” President. She’s a teflon prop with name recognition and it will be those like Mills that will follow in the footsteps of Valerie Jarrett.
I am for any Republican nominee for President. This goes back to Herbert Hoover before he founded the Boys Club. That shows how old I am. I don’t like any Democrat. That was the party for slavery. I was a bit mad at Lee Atwater, Nixon, and Reagan for the Southern Strategy. I don’t like aligning with bigots. But now with Trump maybe the Southern Strategy is going away. Pick on Hillary in any way you can. It is kind of like Obama. If you don’t like him cause of his dad’s ancestry you can throw rocks at him for other reasons. If you don’t want a woman President you can throw rocks at Hillary and they will hit. Keep it up.
Today I’m studying the wicked queens of Israel. Here’s one named Athaliah, Wicked Queen of Judah
Athaliah was the daughter of King Ahab of Israel and her name means “the Lord is exalted”. King Ahab was a corrupt ruler who led the people of Israel into the false worship of Baal and other idolatrous practices. Queen Athalia forced her way on the throne of Judah and ruled the land for six years.
She was married to one of Judah’s kings, and became queen by slaughtering the rest of the royal family, including her own grandchildren, after her husband and son died.
Her stepdaughter Jehosheba hatched a conspiracy right under the queen’s nose by hiding one of Athaliah’s grandsons in the temple. (Apparently the queen had forgotten about that little baby). When the boy turned seven, a coup was launched and he was crowned king.
When this vilest of queens discovered the plot, she screamed, “Treason! Treason!” But it was too late. No one paid any attention to her. She was executed outside the gate of the temple in Jerusalem.
What’s new. The Clintons both expect and receive special dispensation regardless of the issue. Even after being caught in a lie they continue to deny it and expect us all to believe the current rendition. This deal with Cheryl Mills only shows that the “Clinton Shield” often extends to those that work to protect them.
Thanks for the ethno-bashing BLM dog. Good that you show yourself for what you are. Kraut-Jew here signing off…
Gus here. From Cloud 8. I am an internet dweeb. Most of us use internet “servers” who employ a bounce off of Cloud 9, Internet for the U.S. Government is not like the old days when they sent written messages in a leather pouch by hand delivery and if they went overseas then the pouch went onto a boat or plane and thence was delivered to an Embassy of the U.S. or to a foreign government recipient. That was days of old. Some of us in the internet computer world are of the opinion that the “government email server” of the recent years may not have been as “secure” as a diplomatic pouch method and not as secure as a “private server”. Most emails go off planet Earth to Cloud 9. The government email system when Hillary was Secretary of State did so. Some experts thought that was not as secure as bouncing off of another Cloud. Hillary was informed by a computer and email expert that a “private server” might be more secure than the “government” one.
Meanwhile, Putin, the mafia, the Chinese, and many others, have technical experts trying to spy on the government email system which worked off Cloud 9. Putin may have his folks collaborate with the mafia or the Chinese or others to find things and invade the emails of the government or others. Fox News tries to avoid detection.
Hillary’s private email service was likely more secure than the government one used by the State Department back then.
The arguments, such as on this blog, that Hillary is unfit because she listened to sound advice and got off Cloud 9 for her email service need to examine the holes in your heads. The author of this blog is a Trumpster. Y’all know what that is?
What you don’t seem to understand, Gus, is the problem was that she kept the government’s information secure from the government. The federal government had no access to her records. It is analogous to her taking all her file cabinets home with her everyday. That is not allowed by federal law. Neither FOIA requests nor Congressional Subpoenas could get access to the government records before they were deleted. You don’t see a problem with that?
“The arguments, such as on this blog, that Hillary is unfit because she listened to sound advice and got off Cloud 9 for her email service need to examine the holes in your heads.”
If you believe this is solely an information security issue then Cloud 8 is clearly not the place for you either. There is no defense for her or ANYONE that believes the rule of law is merely a script for good governance open to the “creativity” of the actor. While Clinton’s ‘body of work’ is on the cutting room floor, it’s her off-script outtakes that is being panned by everyone. She is a hideous character actor at best that should be in prison and no where near the head of one branch of our government. We have many of these characters acting as public servants across the political spectrum and if we don’t get them off the stage we will have front-row seats to the final act of this constitutional republic.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
@BLM Dog
Please knock off the ignorant Hitler commentary in regards to the Donald. I am all about Jill not Hill but I do not fear a Trump presidency. Hitlery is WAY worse than Trump is. She has destroyed Western Europe.
Paul says it all.
BLM D, the real issues? Good idea. The Clinton money laundering pay to play foundation. HRC’s streak of lies, why she couldn’t answer ‘the phone’ for more security in Benghazi, then lying to the families of the dead with a crock about a video. The “I took sniper fire” sympathy lie ploy. Signing off on Russia getting a deal on a uranium mine. That HRC hired PIs to intimidate & threaten the victims of Billy Goat’s sexual proclivities thus enabling Goat’s sexual ‘advances’ on these poor women.
Those would all be good starts if we want “to stick to the issues”.
Uhh MR. Dog, HRC has been defaming HERSELF for decades & now you wanna defend that witch? Go ahead & defend that thang. You B duh 1 lookin like da fool!
SamFox
I normally don’t respond to low life krill on web sites but BLM D really needs to get a life.
I think that this article is a crock of itShay. You want to beat Hillary in the election by defaming her. Stick to real issues. Who is best Commander in Chief? Who is best to help control the economy?
Germany went through this in the early 1930s. These are the 1933 Parallels. Your Hitler is on the Republican ticket. Go ahead and elect him like the Krauts elected Adoph. Donald Hitler will be just as bad.
Just out of curiosity, what part of the article do you believe to be factually incorrect?
I could be wrong, but I read the comment as mocking the pro Clinton commenters here. It’s how BLM thinks the pro Clinton side will react.
Who is best Commander in Chief? Who is best to help control the economy? Jill Stein, by far.
The role of US President seems to have become nothing more than a PR frontman, a shield, protecting wealth accumulation for the war industry. Trump and Hillary are both able to fill that role. If you want an independent, strong, wise visionary President, Jill Stein is the only choice.
I echo Barbara’s question: Which part of the information in JT’s post do you find factually incorrect?
You want a vandal for President?
Green Party’s Jill Stein to face charges after North Dakota protest
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/jill-stein-to-face-charges-north-dakota-227826#ixzz4Ja9D3UXB
davidm2575, don’t believe everything you read, especially from politico.com.
Here’s more information: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/09/06/us/politics/ap-us-oil-pipeline-protests-the-latest.html?_r=0
“A spokeswoman for Stein says that activists invited her to leave a message at the protest site. She says Stein wrote ‘I approve this message’ in red spray paint on the blade of a bulldozer.”
She’s such a naughty physician, out there supporting environmental and ethnic causes.
Steve, thanks for the Times link, but she is very naughty for spray painting somebody else’s property. I believe in free speech activism, but you cross the line when you damage another person’s property or if you become violent. She should have just held a sign or raised her voice if she wanted to protest, not become like a gang thug with a can of spray paint. Not Presidential at all.
Steve, from your link:
“A protest of the $3.8 billion oil pipeline from North Dakota to Illinois turned violent on Saturday.”
People also brought weapons and chained themselves to construction equipment. They stopped 700 people from working.
Jill Stein wrote that she approved this message. Not very Presidential at all.
David, here’s Jill on site:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEDtzjgg4og
She also approved this message.
If she was any other person, these shenanigans would not be allowed.
I think Mills is OK under The Clinton Exception. That is a broad-based exception to laws and rules which kick in any time a Clinton or their minions are involved.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Well said.