With The Departure Of John Dowd, Trump’s Legal Team And Strategy Could Be In Flux

160px-Official_Portrait_of_President_Donald_Trump_(cropped)Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the changes to the Trump legal team, including the departure of John Dowd who was the lead counsel in dealing with the Special Counsel investigation.  While it is still not clear what role Joe diGenova will play, there is concern that Trump is considering a more combative approach.  Adding more lawyers does not necessarily translate to strengthening a case. Indeed, if you add lawyers used to being lead counsels, the result can be confusion and conflicts in getting them to work together. What Trump needs is greater control and continuity as he enters the most risky stage of the Special Counsel investigation.

Here is the column:

John Dowd’s resignation as personal counsel to President Donald Trump sent shivers across Capitol Hill today. The reaction was not necessarily due to faith in Dowd but, rather, fear of the unknown. Dowd was known as someone who favored a cooperative posture toward special counsel Robert Mueller (though he was reportedly leery of Trump sitting down for an interview).

The combination of Dowd’s resignation and the addition of attorney Joseph E. diGenova is taken as a sign of a more confrontational, combative approach by Trump. If true, things could get demonstrably worse for the president. The greatest danger of a scorched-earth approach is when you are standing on that earth at the time.

Dowd’s resignation alone should not necessarily come as much of a surprise. Dowd has had his share of serious missteps, as have some of his former colleagues. Dowd recently issued a statement in the president’s name, calling for an end to the Mueller investigation. He was then corrected publicly and had to issue an embarrassing statement that he was speaking only for himself. It is not clear if the original statement was issued at Trump’s direction or with his approval. However, it does suggest an obvious lack of communication and trust in the attorney-client relationship.

This is not the first such confusion over who Dowd was speaking for in the litigation. Previously, there was an outcry after the president sent out a tweet responding to the plea agreement by former national security adviser Michael Flynn: “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the vice president and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!” Since Flynn was “fired” on Feb. 13, 2017, it was viewed as confirmation that the president knew of Flynn lying to the FBI before he reportedly asked then-FBI Director James Comey to go easy on Flynn. (Trump denied ever asking Comey to drop the investigation against Flynn.) Dowd later fell on a knife publicly and said he wrote those words, insisting that he was clumsy in using social media.

Dowd was involved in an equally clumsy controversy at a lunch with Trump personal lawyer Ty Cobb. A New York Times reporter sitting at the next table heard them complain about White House counsel Don McGahn withholding in a White House safe “a couple documents” in the investigation.

Other Trump lawyers have faced the same missteps, in addition to Cobb. Trump personal counsel Jay Sekulow was criticized for going on the air to insist that the president “didn’t sign off” on Donald Trump Jr.’s misleading statement about his meeting in Trump Tower with Russian representatives; it turned out that Trump dictated the statement on Air Force One.

CNN and other networks have unfairly characterized diGenova as a “television lawyer.” He is one of the most accomplished, skilled lawyers in the city, including prior service as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. He also is someone who has denounced the Mueller investigation as an effort to frame Trump.

The greatest concern is that Trump may be yielding to his own inclination for full-contact litigation at an extremely precarious time. Trump was influenced in his view of lawyers by his interaction and representation by Roy Cohn in New York. Cohn remains a dark figure among lawyers; he was the key aide to Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.) during his 1950s anti-American investigations of writers, actors, political dissidents and government figures as alleged communist spies. Cohn was later accused of a variety of unethical and criminal acts in threatening witnesses and other parties; he was disbarred for professional misconduct, including perjury and witness-tampering.

 

Despite that infamous reputation, Trump appears to still view Cohn favorably. In March 2016, Trump reportedly asked in frustration, “Where’s my Roy Cohn?” Eventually, Trump seemed to find a replacement for Cohn in the representation of Michael Cohen; Cohen has been repeatedly accused of threatening and bullying anyone who stood against Trump. Cohen has caused more harm than good for Trump in scandals like the one surrounding Trump’s alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels.

Cohn may have left an even deeper impression than simply his style of lawyering. Cohn once said, “I bring out the worst in my enemies and that’s how I get them to defeat themselves.” Trump has shown the same ability and inclination; the latest example was former Vice President Joe Biden’s juvenile taunt that he would beat down Trump in a fight. Comey leaking FBI memos after being fired and then attacking Trump on Twitter is another example.

However, there is a difference between litigation styles in New York and D.C. It is not always easy to make the transition like a southpaw boxer learning to hit with your right hand.

Trump needs to shake any lingering lessons from Roy Cohn, who once said, “I don’t write polite letters. I don’t like to plea-bargain. I like to fight.” In the end, that style did not pan out for Cohn any more than it did for his clients: He died in 1986 as a disbarred lawyer owing the IRS millions in unpaid taxes. And Robert Mueller is not the type of lawyer who will respond well to aggression. It is hard to spook a guy with a desk full of criminal subpoenas.

Trump has some good D.C. lawyers, including diGenova, but no lawyer is better than the case or the client. The investigation is now in its critical stage, and Trump needs more finesse than another fight.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

150 thoughts on “With The Departure Of John Dowd, Trump’s Legal Team And Strategy Could Be In Flux”

  1. Thanks, L4D, for bringing attention to his blog. I had never seen it and, besides the fact he is serving JT by rebloggijng Res Ipsa, his own blog looks truly fascinating! Love it. Adam, you now have a new reader! Thanks!

    “About Adam Smith 1922”

    “Wellington based, have worked in many countries, avid reader. Consider myself liberal on social issues, but tend to the right economically.

    Abhor extremes, especially the xenophobia so often encountered in Australasia.

    Would regard myself as rational on most issues, but others could well disagree.

    Like travel, cricket, cinema, food (meat, veg, Chinese, Indian, English, French – not fusion) , wine, and music (folk, rock, jazz, blues, opera)

    English, my wife the sensible one, is Kiwi.

    Why did I start to blog. Well firstly I started reading other blogs, then I was drawn to commenting. Finally, I thought I needed to show I had a mind of my own and should reflect my own personality. In addition, Mrs Smith thought it would stop me shouting at the TV and kicking the cat.

    Amongst my ambitions are the following:

    to attend the Boxing Day Cricket Test in Australia
    to attend any Cricket Test at the Bridgetown Oval in Barbados
    drink only quality red wine
    work hard
    have fun
    visit Prague again
    Have a sense of humour

    I have a weakness for cartoons, especially political cartoons

    Likes political and legal thrillers

    Film noir

    Am not a green, nor an environmentalist, but am increasingly concerned about food security, governance and potential global conflict”

    https://adamsmith.wordpress.com/about/

    1. Well, then, I must now officially retract the part where I accused The Inquiring Mind of being sanctimonious about its superior sanity. Self-effacing humor is notoriously incompatible with sanctimony and makes superior sanity far more genteel than it otherwise would have been. Cricket, you say? I have reason to believe that the Rules of Cricket are almost anything but rational. But that could be a prejudice. Do you still have Wobblies down under?

        1. And a pound of N. Z. Goldings hops. O! The shipping charges. Post a picture, instead. We’ll use our imaginations.

    1. adamsmith1922, I strongly suspect that you keep reblogging Res Ipsa Loquitur on The Inquiring Mind for the express purpose of making your preferred blog feel saner than ours. If so, then be advised: The Inquiring Mind would still be sanctimonious even if its blawg hounds truly were saner than we.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.