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?
Our FBI has been a disgrace ever since they witheld, manufactured, and suppressed evidence in the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. They were the prime perps in framing Lee HARVEY Oswald with falsified evidence. And agents in the Boston office actively protected Mafia murderers and even advanced money to one or more of them.
BTW – Lee HARVEY Oswald was an FBI informant.
Would you suggest moving the Justice department outside of the executive branch and into the Judiciary or that congress use the power of impeachment?
Our FBI has been a disgrace ever since they witheld, manufactured, and suppressed evidence in the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy.
Can’t you at least bother someone who gets paid fees to listen to you?
It seems that Tammany Hall is alive and well.
“Schneiderman’s own office issued detailed instructions for all charities warning them to make sure the total amount of contributions by government disclosed to the state is equal to what the charities report to the IRS. From 2010-2014 Schneiderman allowed the Clintons to ignore his rule, allowing Bubba and Hillary to hide $225 million in foreign government donations.”
http://lidblog.com/ny-attorney-general-allowed-clinton-foundation-to-hide-foreign-donors/
I dont want any women, non white, non Americans, non Protestants, to be President. I articulate this in tangential ways. I say “Obamacare” with disdain and it appeals to fellow bigots. This election is all about making America Great. Keep up the email racket but find something better than that. Maybe she had an affair with Monica too. Throw that around on the blog.
D.G.,
Where, other than in the posts of fellow Clinton supporters, do you see the argument being made that people don’t want any woman, non white, non Americans, non Protestants, to be president?
People have been presenting one substantive argument after another on the topic of JT’s article..
What facts in this article do you dispute? Would you actually be able to address that question?
I just cannot understand why we allow this to continue. Why millions of people polled literally do not care.
I was also disappointed to learn that, rather than cooperating fully with the FBI interview, Hillary Clinton answered “I do not recall” over and over again, even blaming her concussion from 2012 for massive “memory lapses.”
This is how a banana republic operates.
>I just cannot understand why we allow this to continue
To paraphrase Jefferson: An ignorant electorate means the United States is toast. ….
Yep! Turn out the lights, the party’s over. Even if Trump wins, we will only get a maybe 10 year respite from our decline. Our country is now composed of a majority of college educated white people who are “intellectual” drug addicts and alcoholics. They live in denial and delusion, and the only chance for change is when they hit bottom.
Which, a meteor strike, massive solar flare that knocks out the grid, a super volcano, a massive prolonged deep financial crisis, a nuclear war, or the inner city criminals busting loose of the hood – – – any of these would probably work. But without that, the mental inertia downward will continue.
Look for Third World America in the next few decades.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The slope on which we descend is not a new one. Our founders never intended we would be the global military superpower. Instead they intended we be a superpower of liberty. A beacon of hope. Whether we trace our decline to the reform era of Teddy Roosevelt, the expansionist tendencies of Wilson, The New Deal of FDR, or the expansionist platform post WW2. All these policies were antagonistic to limited government and therefore our founding principles.
Whereas, both sides complain of decline, neither side advocates the principles of our founders. Perhaps that is because few bother to understand why America was exceptional. Whether we tax to project power or to redistribute wealth, we violate the principles of private property on which our liberty was based. Both social justice and international peace are elusive objectives.
As a people and as a state we are not endowed with the wisdom to accept the things we cannot change, nor the courage to recognize our limits. In the struggle between liberty and equality, we have lost sight of the truth that freedom is our most equal state of being.
For those preoccupied with notions of justice, bear in mind. “Justice does not require power, unless it is the power to resist injustice. Therefore, those that are willing to utilize power to coerce their priorities upon others are essentially unjust.” Law to be equal, must be neutral.
Excellent post Mr. Bootz!
Our founders never intended we would be the global military superpower.
So what? The evolution of demographic flows, industrial development, and the internal political architecture have been what they have been, no matter what James Madison may (or may not) have ‘intended’.
So what, is a very interesting response, and well reasoned. I presume you feel the precepts of our founders are not important and therefore principles are not enduring. I suppose the same could be said of the Ten Commandments. Now that we have progressed it is ok to kill and covet.
My perspective however is that it is the principles of our founders that are enduring regardless of circumstance. For instance, our first amendment. Do you believe censorship and a controlled press is better for social stability? Do you also believe that the group is more important than the individual? The needs of the many negate the rights of the one? If so then you do not believe in liberty or freedom.
Are you proclaiming that the precepts of America are out of date? IF so, what changes to the Constitution do you propose?
Our country is now composed of a majority of college educated white people who are “intellectual” drug addicts and alcoholics. They live in denial and delusion, and the only chance for change is when they hit bottom.
As we speak, about 43% of a typical age cohort are awarded baccalaureate degrees. About 60% of these degrees are in occupational subjects (business, teacher training, nursing). North of 80% of all post-baccalaureate degrees are in such subjects.
Clinton’s Mind-Boggling FBI Interview – What Was Cheryl Mills Doing There?
Andrew C. McCarthy September 2, 2016 7:13 PM
Finally, something else about those lawyers. I nearly fell out of my chair upon reading the very first paragraph of the notes of Clinton’s interview, which identifies the lawyers for Clinton who were permitted to be present for the interview. Among them is Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s longtime confidant and chief-of-staff at the State Department. Readers may recall that I suggested back in May that “the fix” was in in the investigation of the Clinton emails. The reason was that the Justice Department was allowing Cheryl Mills – a witness, if not a subject, of the investigation – to invoke attorney-client privilege on behalf of Mrs. Clinton in order to thwart the FBI’s attempt to inquire into the procedure used to produce Clinton’s emails to the State Department. Mills was a participant in that procedure – and it is the procedure in which, we now know, well over 30,000 emails were attempted to be destroyed, including several thousand that contained government-related business. When she worked for Clinton at State, Mills was not acting in the capacity of a lawyer – not for then-Secretary Clinton and not for the State Department. Moreover, as Clinton’s chief-of-staff, Mills was intimately involved in issues related to Clinton’s private email set up, the discussions about getting her a secure BlackBerry similar to President Obama’s, and questions that were raised (including in FOIA requests) about Clinton’s communications. That is to say, Mills was an actor in the facts that were under criminal investigation by the FBI. Put aside that she was not Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer while working for the State Department; as I explained in the May column, Mills, after leaving the State Department, was barred by ethical rules from acting as Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer “in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee.” There is no way Mills should have been permitted to participate as a lawyer in the process of producing Clinton’s emails to the State Department nearly two years after they’d both left. I thought it was astonishing that the Justice Department indulged her attorney-client privilege claim, which frustrated the FBI’s ability to question her on a key aspect of the investigation. But it is simply unbelievable to find her turning up at Mrs. Clinton’s interview – participating in the capacity of a lawyer under circumstances where Clinton was being investigated over matters in which Mills participated as a non-lawyer government official. According to the FBI’s report, Mrs. Clinton had four other attorneys (one whose name is deleted from the report for some reason) representing her at the interview. She clearly did not need another lawyer. And it is Criminal Investigations 101 that law enforcement never interviews witnesses together – the point is to learn the truth, not provide witnesses/suspects with an opportunity to keep their story straight, which undermines the search for truth. Why on earth was Cheryl Mills permitted to sit in on Hillary Clinton’s FBI interview?
Cheryl Mills served as Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff.
—Cheryl Mills served as Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff.
New York Post, by Paul Sperry, Sept. 4, 2016:
Newly released FBI documents detailing the bureau’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails reveal the aide who would likely follow her into the White House as chief counsel was central to a cover-up of evidence sought by investigators.
Yet despite signs Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills obstructed efforts by investigators to obtain Clinton’s emails, the FBI invited Mills to attend Hillary’s interview at FBI headquarters as one of her lawyers.
“It’s absolutely outrageous,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.
“The FBI saw massive document destruction and clear intent to withhold material evidence,” he added, “and they just ignored that obstruction, and even let her sit in on the interview.”
The smoking gun is on page 16 of the FBI’s 47-page report. It details how Mills ultimately made the determinations about which emails should be preserved before she and Clinton decided to delete the rest as “personal.” Clinton conducted both government and personal business using a personal email account — clintonemail.com — tied to an unsecured server set up in the basement of her New York home.
The FBI makes clear the procedure Mills used to sort out the emails was suspicious.
For starters, Mills was the one who ordered the server host to move the emails from the server to a laptop where she could screen them. She told investigators she could “not recall” if emails with non-gov addresses were included in the transfer. It’s unlikely they were, because an aide who helped her search told the FBI she only screened for emails sent to or from Clinton with .gov and .mil — not .com — addresses.
That means messages involving government business between Clinton and her then-deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin — the only aide who had an email account on theclintonemail.com system— were not likely captured. Nor were messages sent between Clinton and Mills and other aides using personal email addresses.
Correspondence between Clinton and Abedin (who regularly emailed her boss from huma@clintonemail.com and HAbedin@hillaryclinton.com) is crucial, Fitton says, because Abedin acted as the go-between on requests for access to Clinton from shady foreign Clinton Foundation donors. He says the mushrooming “pay-for-play” scandal is the real reason the former secretary of state set up a private email system in the first place.
“The whole thing was designed to keep Clinton Foundation emails away from investigators,” he said.
And Mills may have been a key player in the game of hide-and-seek.
“It was clear they did not want non-.gov related emails picked up in their search, so they said, let’s search in a way that those emails won’t be picked up; and if they are picked up, we’ll have Mills come in and shred them,” Fitton said.
Indeed, the FBI said Mills “shredded” any copies of emails she “deemed not to be work-related” before they were turned over to State in response to requests for information from Judicial Watch, the media, Congress and the FBI. The laptop hardrive was later wiped clean using a computer program called BleachBit.
The FBI said it was “unable to obtain a complete list of keywords or named officials searched,” because Mills asserted that such information was “privileged.” In fact, when agents pressed her, Mills stormed out of the room and ended the interview. Curiously, the FBI honored her claim of privilege and did not pursue the matter.
“Mills did not do a proper search of the server,” Fitton asserted. “The evidence was just essentially shredded.”
He added that Mills and a State aide who assisted her in conducting the dubious search — Heather Samuelson, a loyal Clinton campaign worker — had a vested interest in covering up email evidence.
“They were State Department employees and were completely conflicted in conducting that search,” he said.
As participants in the activities under investigation, Mills and Samuelson should have been key FBI targets, yet both appeared at Hillary’s FBI interview with her phalanx of lawyers, allowing them insights into the investigation.
Fitton said their attendance was highly unusual, but not surprising. He said it was just one more sign the fix was in with the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s emails: “It’s the Keystone Kops approach to investigating.”
I keep thinking of Chelsea Manning and all the terrible damage she did to National Security. So deserving of a life of solitary confinement…
HE is not a woman. He is just a stupid screwed-up dude who wants to be a woman, so he has cosmetic surgery and takes hormones. After his “change”, he will still be a stupid screwed-up dude. Just one who has to sit down to go tinkle.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
His father is a capable man (though not warm n’ fuzzy) who turned his life around as a young man by joining the Navy. So, he got the idea that having his difficult post-adolescent son join the Army might be what he needed. What he did not realize was that his son was quite hopeless and is given to damaging everything he comes into contact with.
Brian Manning’s 2d wife adjudged her stepson a self-indulgent attention whore. She had his number.
The scandal is that the military prison system will be paying for his ‘medical treatments’. This administration never passes up an opportunity to be disgusting.
In December 2014 Hillary Clinton decided she “no longer needed access” to emails older than 60 days. (See the FBI papers on her email, p. 18)
What does that mean?
Cheryl Mills then directed the unnamed tech at PRN to modify the email retention policy on the clintonmail account.
What does it mean to modify the email retention policy?
For Google Mail, here is what it means:
“Email retention settings apply to messages in the user’s inbox and archived messages. They also apply to messages added using the Email Migration API. Migrated messages older than the specified retention period are deleted unless they are tagged with a label to exclude them from deletion.”
https://support.google.com/a/answer/151128?hl=en
So, Clinton did not want access to any of her emails older than 60 days. If the retention policy is modified to reflect that desire (and if PRN’s system works like Google), then the emails were deleted (or were supposed to be, except, well, for the “oh, sh!t” moment by the PRN tech).
The Federal Government’s email retention, as far as I could find, was 3 years and is now 6 years. I am not sure if that also applies to cabinet or elected officials (is theirs’ longer?). There is a law regulating this retention.
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/12/04/2015-30460/federal-acquisition-regulation-retention-periods
So, even if it was 3 years and not longer, she unilaterally decided to make inaccessible records that should have been retained.
CNN Says:
Trump tops Clinton 45% to 43% in the new survey, with Libertarian Gary Johnson standing at 7% among likely voters in this poll and the Green Party’s Jill Stein at just 2%.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/_politics-zone-injection/trump-vs-clinton-presidential-polls-election-2016/
As with Benghazi, the right-wing predictably glides past facts because conservatives don’t like it when the facts interfere with their opinions. JT posted everything and anything about Benghazi until after 12 hours of so-called hearings, what was his postings after? His vacation in Alaska………..So my question Professor is….Where ya heading next?
Are you implying that progressives, or liberals, rely on facts? If so please give one example of Liberal fact.
This reminds me of when Dick and George had to go together to testify about 9/11.
That way, when George couldn’t keep the story straight, Dick was right there to give him a swift kick in the leg!
Oh how things change for Democrats when the “their” party is do’in the kicking!!!
Except that Dick and George got to testify with no swearing in, off the record, and no record made of what they said. Other than that, it’s pretty much identical!
Testify where? And what criminal inquiry do you fancy was taking place concerning them?
On come on, Cheryl just happens to be ambidextrous!
The wisdom of the founders, which should not be questioned, has been lost. We seldom speak in terms of freedom and liberty today. Government once feared is now adored. This quote from John Adams seems appropriate to the subject at hand.
“Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all his laws.”
– John Adams
Our history provides another guide as to how far we have strayed from the ideas of our visionary founders.
“A government of laws, and not of men.”
– John Adams, Novanglus Essays, No. 7.
At least in a monarchy it is known by the populace that there is a ruling class. A class that makes laws they are not forced to abide by.
Our institutions have become so deceitful, our press so complicit, and the public so disaffected, that a basic premise of the preservation of liberty has been forgotten.
“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.”
– John Adams
We the people tolerate the abominable acts of government and have only ourselves to blame.
The biggest issue in the 2016 presidential election is restoring America’s constitutional “rule of law”. A young adult graduating from college today thinks gulags, kangaroo courts, warrantless spying, warrantless searches and guilt-by-association is something good Americans do. Their leaders, parents and many Press organizations support this unAmerican model also.
We are literally one generation away from a Cold War style “Stasi” in the United States. Both parties are distracting us from the really important issues. Warrantless domestic spying is the first phase, punishment by the state for legal First Amendment activities is the second phase (Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street and other legal exercises). In the final phase, anyone that “legally” goes against the Stasi is deemed an official “Enemy of the State” – the next generation thinks these communist style tactics are normal for Americans.
Neither Trump nor Hillary are talking about it!
I agree totally except on one point. We are not one generation away from this. We have been turning into a police state since 9/11. As I watched the infrastructure [physical, virtual, psychological] being methodically put into place, I wondered how long it would take for America to either elect our first dictator or have him/her installed for us.
OF COURSE, neither Trump nor Clinton is talking about this. This descent into totalitarianism is living history and they are as much a part of it as are their supporters and detractors.
Due to age and health issues, I suspect this may be the last election I vote in. I despair every day as I think of how I will vote or whether I will vote at all. If I totally rely on conscience, then I absolutely would stay home. If I think practically about which of these two awful choices might be slightly better for my family, I feel reassured by my thinking, even as I recognize the false hope in that option and therefore I fail a larger test. The option to vote third party, which I’ve done for decades, is not an option for me this time. Sometimes, I pray that my swing state will swing so far to one side or the other by election day that my staying home won’t matter, but that is a coward’s way out.
I am grateful, though, to both candidates for forcing me to go far deeper into my thinking and my conscience than I have ever had to go before as I contemplate my vote.
COCONUTS
Didn’t they tell you that only conspiracy theorists (and people that have studied the evidence) believe that 9/11 was a false flag, inside job, and not the work of a CIA asset whose home was in a mountain cave in Afghanistan – until he died in December, 2001.
I have heard that before, can you please outline it for me?
Didn’t they tell you that only conspiracy theorists (and people that have studied the evidence) believe that 9/11 was a false flag, inside job,
The people who promote that idea have an emotional commitment to utter and demonstrable nonsense.
coconuts,
It’s too late. The rule of law is broken and this govt. is in a state of armed resurrection against our people (see Occupy, Black Lives Matter and The Dakota Access pipeline Native American protesters to name only a few instances of this). There is blanket surveillance of our population including any group, no matter how small, who works for peace and justice. Protesters have been arrested, disappeared and killed. We have mass incarceration of black men and women and incarceration and starvation of people who are poor. The president believes he may torture and murder anyone, anywhere on his own say so. The president doesn’t even bother with Congress while he’s busy making war across the world. Congress is mostly corrupt. Our courts are mostly corrupt. The DOJ and FBI do not enforce the law as the Constitutional oaths they took require. The powerful are running roughshod against this earth and its life. Really, it’s too late.
Either major party candidate will continue all of this and make it much worse. It will be just like Obama who ran with the policies of Bush and tripled down on them. Neither of these people will save us. We have to save ourselves (if that is even possible).
What I see that has happened is Democrats are the larger political party in our nation. Democrats, due to propaganda and for other reasons that may not be very admirable, refuse to come to grips with the actions of the “leadership” of their party. Practically overnight, Democrats reversed their stances on issues such as torture, presidential assassination, wars, poverty, banking bailouts, environmental destruction, imprisonment of whistleblowers, free speech and so on. I never saw anything like this in my life. I had assumed (wrongly) that people were actually against these heinous crimes. It turns out they are only against them based on which party is engaged in the heinous actions. These means there is no underlying ethics to these ideas.
Because Democrats are a larger percentage of our population, they have been the largest group ushering in corporate totalitarianism. They will be the largest group to applaud when that totalitarianism comes completely out in the open, as it is in the process of doing.
I am hoping that people will have a true ethical awakening in their lives. I hope we will mean it when we say certain actions are wrong– that these choices will no longer be deemed “right or wrong” depending on having “our” party in power, but that they are in fact, true, ethically based choices to work for justice no matter who is committing the wrong doing. If we want true change, it’s not coming from false “leaders”, it’s coming from real knowledge and real ethics and a real desire for goodness in our world.
What Doglover wrote!
As for adverse interests, the language Prof Turley has cited with regard Mills not being able ethically to represent Clinton are:
(a) A lawyer shall not advance two or more adverse positions in the same matter.
(b) [A] lawyer shall not represent a client with respect to a matter if: . . . (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 . . . the lawyer’s own financial, business, property, or personal interests.
This language requires that: (1) Mills not assert adverse positions in the same matter; and, (2) her professional judgment as Clinton’s attorney not be adversely affected by her own interests, unless Clinton waives the conflict after full disclosure under (c)(1).
Clinton will waive her rights to repentenance if it will provide wiggle room, so the second problem isn’t one.
The first, with regard to bringing adverse positions doesn’t appear to be a barrier either. If Mills is called as a witness and contradicts what Clinton testifies to, she’s not asserting two adverse positions. She’s asserting Clinton’s position and hopefully telling the truth when called to testify even if it conflicts with Clinton’s testimony. In other words, arguing Clinton’s position and testifying to (i.e., providing facts which reflect) another is not advancing two adverse positions.
Many rules of professional responsibility are worded so poorly that I find they are tacked onto allegations of criminal conduct as afterthoughts in many if not the majority of ethical inquiries by the bar. Additionally, informed consent on full disclosure of adverse consequences is nearly impossible to achieve. There are just too many scenarios that a lawyer cannot foresee, let alone describe in writing to a potential client to satisfy the full-disclosure requirement before commencing representation.
If Clinton can skate on clear gross recklessness in the email investigation, my opinion is that Mills can escape a spanking after DC bar inquiry. And even if she is disciplined, the financial dividends will probably set her up for a life of leisure.
Remember Billo, “the petty opportunist politician,” according to VP candidate Ajamu Baraka, was suspended from practice by the Arkansas bar for five years for lying under oath at deposition and then went on to amass a fortune as a trendy New England multimillionaire. How’s that for justice? Stlll like these two major parties?
The press was warranted in hating Nixon, BTW.
NICK S said “The press was warranted in hating Nixon, BTW.”
No they weren’t. Bob Woodward & John Dean acted as CIA assets in what unformed people call
a “Silent Coup”..The aptly titled book of the same name is the most respected book on the subject of why and how Nixon was done in.
Right you are!
Nixon was judge your basic unindicted felon. A racist paranoid bigot who conspired to break the law at least a dozen times and then covered it up. Really, just your average Joe.
Nixon was judge your basic unindicted felon. A racist paranoid bigot who conspired to break the law at least a dozen times and then covered it up. Really, just your average Joe.
The notion that Nixon was clinically paranoid was promoted by people like Fawn Brodie who had no clinical traning and did not know him from a cord of wood. Nixon had no inter-communal resentments of consequence and never promoted such things in his public career, the nonsense memes of partisan Democrats notwithstanding. (btw, Nixon’s three best friends were Charles Rebozo, Robert Abplanalp, and Walter Annenberg; none of these men came from a cultural background similar to his own; the three subordinates of his closest to being his personal friend were John Mitchell, Henry Kissinger and Leonard Garment).
Bob Woodward & John Dean acted as CIA assets in what unformed people call
The real John Dean was a low-rent Washington lawyer who’d had a career crash in February 1966 when he was fired from a communications law firm for cause. He was 26 years of age at that time. He managed somehow to land a job on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee and attached himself like a remora to Richard Kleindienst and others in the circle around Barry Goldwater. It was as Kleindienst’s protege that he was hired for a position in the Justice Department in 1969. He got to be friends with John Ehrlichman’s protege Egil Krogh, who recommended him to his boss for the position of White House counsel.. Dean never had military service (which was quite common among the 1939 birth cohort), much less something more exotic like employment by the intelligence services.
Why was the press ‘warranted’ in ‘hating’ Nixon? Nixon was a critc of the press, but he did them no injury.
coco, Nixon was reviled by the press. The Clinton’s are adored by the press. If you can’t see that you are blind, stupid, or a hybrid of the two.
Reblogged this on Matthews' Blog.