Trump Denounces Leaked Questions As “Disgraceful” and Dowd Denies Being The Source

440px-Official_Portrait_of_President_Donald_TrumpPresident Donald Trump lashed out at the leaking of the questions that Special Counsel Robert Mueller wants to ask him in an interview as “so disgraceful.”  In the meantime, various news organizations (including Fox News) pointed fingers at former counsel John Dowd.  Since the New York Times said that the leak did not come from “current counsel,” Dowd instantly became the leading suspect.  Dowd however has denied the allegations and maintained “I was not the source.”

Dowd fit the profile for two reasons.  First, the motivation of the leak seemed most likely to be scuttle the interview.  You don’t poison a well that you expect to drink from.  Dowd reportedly resigned after losing an internal struggle to block the interview as against Trump’s best interest.  Second, if the leak came from former counsel, the list is limited (though ruling out current counsel would not rule out non-counsel).

If the leak was the work of the President’s current or former counsel, there could be a major ethical breach if Trump did not approve the release. This is attorney-client material prepared by Trump’s legal team.  It would constitute a violation under ethical rules.  Rule 1.6 does not allow for such a unilateral action:

Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.6–Confidentiality of Information

   (a) Except when permitted under paragraph (c), (d), or (e), a lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) reveal a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client;
(2) use a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client to the disadvantage of the client;
(3) use a confidence or secret of the lawyer’s client for the advantage of the lawyer or of a third person.
   (b) “Confidence” refers to information protected by the attorney-client privilege under applicable law, and “secret” refers to other information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested be held inviolate, or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing, or would be likely to be detrimental, to the client.
(c) A lawyer may reveal client confidences and secrets, to the extent reasonably necessary:
(1) to prevent a criminal act that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm absent disclosure of the client’s secrets or confidences by the lawyer; or
(2) to prevent the bribery or intimidation of witnesses, jurors, court officials, or other persons who are involved in proceedings before a tribunal if the lawyer reasonably believes that such acts are likely to result absent disclosure of the client’s confidences or secrets by the lawyer.
   (d) When a client has used or is using a lawyer’s services to further a crime or fraud, the lawyer may reveal client confidences and secrets, to the extent reasonably necessary:
(1) to prevent the client from committing the crime or fraud if it is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another; or
(2) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of the crime or fraud.
   (e) A lawyer may use or reveal client confidences or secrets:
(1) with the informed consent of the client;
(2) (A) when permitted by these Rules or required by law or court order; and
(B) if a government lawyer, when permitted or authorized by law;
(3) to the extent reasonably necessary to establish a defense to a criminal charge, disciplinary charge, or civil claim, formally instituted against the lawyer, based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to the extent reasonably necessary to respond to specific allegations by the client concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client;
(4) when the lawyer has reasonable grounds for believing that a client has impliedly authorized disclosure of a confidence or secret in order to carry out the representation;
(5) to the minimum extent necessary in an action instituted by the lawyer to establish or collect the lawyer’s fee; or
(6) to the extent reasonably necessary to secure legal advice about the lawyer’s compliance with law, including these Rules.


Of course, if the leak was strategic to give the President an excuse to refuse the interview (and done with his knowledge), the President’s public statements would be knowingly false.

Even in a city that floats on leaks, this one has many confused as to the motivation and the source.  If the source was a lawyer, there would be an added party of interest: the D.C. Bar.


66 thoughts on “Trump Denounces Leaked Questions As “Disgraceful” and Dowd Denies Being The Source”

  1. The Orange One, is, was and forever will be, a LIAR.
    What a pedigree.!

  2. Peter,…
    – A criminal referal was sent to the DOJ on Christopher Steele by the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Grassley.
    Co-signed by Sen. Graham. The issue is lying to,the FBI.
    Leaving aside the question of legality in using foreign sources for opposition research, there seems to be a violation of campaign finance law(s).
    It looks like Perkins Coie billed the DNC and Hillary Campaign Fund for about $10 million for “legal fees”.
    Opposition research is supposed to be reported seperately, not rolled into a “legal fees” wrapper.
    There are also a number of civil suits against Steele, Fusion GPS, Buzzfeed, the DNC, and maybe more.
    There’s no sign that Mueller is investigating the questionable activities on the Democratic side of the 2016 campaign.
    That may be one of the issues U.S.Attorney Huber is looking into.


    Mr. President, remember these words:


    “Hillary Clinton told the FBI she couldn’t recall something more than three dozen times.”

    – WaPo

    Three dozen is thirty-six.

    Hillary’s thirty-six statements of “I don’t remember” would just about cover Mueller’s forty plus questions.

  4. Yet WaPo and NYT printed it as quoted gospel. So much for the credibility of the left. What Am I Saying. That group is incredibly uncredible

  5. Face it folks, we have a real crook and con-man as President. And no matter what they find, this Congress will do nothing. Taxes?..Emoluments? Conspiracy? Treason?…. Obstruction?…He will sit in the west-wing or his golf course till 2020 as a national embarrassment and a reminder of two sets of rules.

    1. Face it folks, we have a real crook and con-man as President.

      Clinton’s been out of office for 17 years.

      1. Is it really that easy to keep saying, “What about Bill?”. “What about Hillary?”.

        I mean, as far as comebacks go, that’s on the level of, “No, ‘you’, ha, ha, ha”.

        Can you imagine going to watch an Improv Comedy troupe where the players kept zinging each other with “No, ‘you’, ha, ha, ha”. ..The audience would demand ticket refunds.

        1. Is it really that easy to keep saying, “

          It is really that easy to go through life without a sense of humor. You’re dedicated to demonstrating that.

        2. Demonstraton fo the shallow minds of the left and the lack of constant oiling to keep The Collective from rusting. In other words Ad Hominem doesn’t work in the absence of humans there fore Ad Machina.

    2. translated. When all else fails and the party programmers are at a loss face it just repeat the same crap over and over again in hopes of getting it printed three times without objection. Radical Reasoning. Which is hard for them as you can see by the comment as reasoning requires thinking something the machine parts of The Collective of The Party are not allowed. REJECTED for boring overly rrepeated without benefit of 3 In 1 Oil.

  6. Having lost the election, the co-conspirators had no choice but to go on offense in pursuit of the Strzok/Page “insurance policy.”

    Mueller was illegally appointed. Rosenstein delineated no crime, no articulable facts and no probable cause. This is an investigation of a person not an investigation of a crime – the theoretical and fabricated political concern is counter-intelligence in nature and “collusion” is not a crime. This entire “investigation of nothing” is a deliberate criminal act of malicious prosecution and subversion of a duly elected President.

    The appropriate and constitutional response is impeachment/prosecution of the co-conspirators including, but not limited to, Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, CNN, Sessions, Rosenstein, Mueller et al.

    Obama’s coup d’etat in America must be repulsed and annihilated with extreme prejudice.




    Trump supporters who read this blog are fond of asking “What about Clinton?” How ironic then that Trump now names a former Clinton lawyer to his defense team.

      1. Fox News is carrying this same story. Are you ‘aggressively’ ignorant? Or just casually ignorant?

        1. Trump supporters are so personally invested in him that they will deny objective reality exists rather than face the truth.

  8. The sooner this whole Trump clown show ends the better. Also anyone that expects him to do a credible job with North Korea is, I believe, misguided. He thinks his con man bravado style is going to continue to work and it won’t

    1. And you base this personal and unsupported opinion on what?

  9. Professor Turley tells us that the leak most likely came from an ex-player in Trump’s legal circle. Most mainstream news accounts seemed to suggest that. But I appreciate the professor’s opinion on this matter. Trump supporters seemed to think Mueller’s camp had leaked in an effort to embarrass Trump.


    Until Donald Trump answers these questions, in some form or another, the probe is incomplete. Robert Mueller cannot seriously wrap this probe without a deposition from his main person of interest.

    1. Trump cannot a swer those questions, because our President is a moron who will surely hang himself if he opens his mouth.

      Trump is a effin’ moron (Thanks Rex!) (Thanks General Kelly!) Exhibit 1001.

      “Shocking No One, Trump’s Absurd Doctor Bornstein Now Says Trump Dictated Campaign Letter Declaring Health “Astonishingly Excellent”

      “In December 2015, as the Trump campaign surged to the front of the Republican pack, Trump’s personal physician, one shaggy Dr. Harold Bornstein, released a medical evaluation of then-candidate Trump that sounded like he got his M.D. at Trump University. “His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary,” the letter gushes. “If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.” This assessment, of course, doesn’t pass the not-being-blind test. And on Tuesday, shocking basically no one, Bornstein fessed up and revealed to CNN that Trump himself dictated the medical appraisal that declared his own test results “astonishingly excellent.”

      “He dictated that whole letter. I didn’t write that letter,” Bornstein told CNN. “(Trump) dictated the letter and I would tell him what he couldn’t put in there.” In retrospect, it’s amazing the letter didn’t mention “the wall” or any reference to making anything great again. Some real restraint there by Dr. DJT.”

      1. The first clue in that letter is the statement about physical examination and blood tests only showing “positive results”. This means not normal. A positive result means that the results are positive for some disease, abnormality or problem that needs follow-up. No physician uses the word “astonishingly excellent” when describing a patient’s physical condition, either. Those are not medical words.

        Yet another fraud in Trump World.

        1. Indeed, Natacha. Here we have a fraud completely unrelated to the Russia probe. A presidential nominee bamboozled his doctor into signing a phony medical report. And meanwhile his campaign was raising malicious allegations about Hillary Clinton’s health.

          On just this matter alone Trump deserves to be impeached.

          1. A presidential nominee bamboozled his doctor into signing a phony medical report.

            The doctor didn’t say the report was false, just that he’d taken dictation. By the way, the doctor issuing statements after HRC’s collapse on 11 September 2016 did not actually examine her. No way to get from her office to Chelsea’s digs within the time alloted.

            On just this matter alone Trump deserves to be impeached.

            Are you planning to impeach him for unsatisfactory PR brochures as well?

            1. Hillary had pneumonia which was probably related to exhaustion. But she made a full recovery and continued her campaign. The media accounts seemed to all be accurate. So what’s the scandal with her doctor?? It sounds like one of those ‘scandals’ known only to consumers of right-wing media.

              1. Peter Hill – she had pneumonia, collapsed, went to her daughter’s, recovered and was fine? BS. I had pneumonia, collapsed, was in the hospital for a week with antibiotics being pumped into my system. Even then it took 2 months to recover.

                1. Paul, you pretty much have it right here. That’s what we all heard. But Hillary was back on the campaign trail within a week, or two. She probably shouldn’t have been, but she was. And as far as we know Hillary hasn’t been hospitalized since.

                  1. @Peter Hill May 2, 2018 at 3:35 PM

                    Yes, with a little help from her friends in the totally non-partisan Corporate Media, Hillary just “powered through” that pesky pneumonia like the Wonder Woman she is: 🙂

              2. See the annotated video by Dr. Ted Noel on Hillary’s performance in Manhattan. May not be true, but it’s a viewpoint that requires some engagement.

              1. Which NBC got from who got it from who got ifrom….. any credible sources. I think that one was started by WaPo.

        2. And your source for that information including speaking for the entire medical world?


          How expected.

          Yet another stupid programmer and broken machine part.


      2. Whcih slate got from NYT and thus ends the conversation. Rejected.

    2. The only mainstream sources now are Fox and occasionally AP. The rest shifted to the lame left stream extremie as out and out propagandists. They post here on occasion.

    3. The question is why the investigation hasn’t started yet now that everone except the self confessed guilty parties have been interviewed. However the answer PH fails to provide is where can so many left wing extremist comrades get such fat paychecks to answer a simple question to which the rest of the world is simply. Colusion is not a crime.

      1. Michael, where are you coming from? The McCarthy era?? What’s with this “left wing extremist” nonsense? Have you noticed how many Republicans are “retiring” from Congress? They’re retiring because they think Trump is leading the party to disaster. And they don’t want to be around when that happens. To say that only ‘left wing extremists’ are leery of Trump is completely ignoring all those retirements.

        1. It’s nice to know where people are coming from, and with Michael, science still needs time to find his origins.

  10. What is making more and more sense is that Trump is orchestrating this whole mess. Trump has been the consummate cheat, crook, liar, and victimizer just about his whole life. He has created stuff, made billions, employed thousands and made a lot of people rich. However, Trump is an oligarch, now the head oligarch. His tax moves have resulted in no increase in jobs, raises in pay, or any of the other promises. The globally oriented for stock’s advantage corporations are buying back stock, expanding factories in other countries with cheaper labor, and all of the stuff that Trump said he will stop. But that’s Trump the liar. Trump the con artist is taking the focus off of this and other travesties for which he is responsible by keeping this Russia thing going. Now, Trump is the victim instead of the victimizer. It is all a witch hunt. He manages to get Mueller to agree to a list of questions instead of a face to face(s) and then his mob leaks them. What leak? The questions would be made public eventually. This is nothing more than a game show with Trump banging the drum. He is good at that. Perhaps given this shameful travesty of a system we call government and elections or leadership, the most we can expect is to be entertained. This leaks routine is getting diluted, however.

    1. I really learned not to read past Comrade Canadian first name which is after all only The Collective of The Party.

    2. Isaac said, “Now, Trump is the victim instead of the victimizer. It is all a witch hunt. He manages to get Mueller to agree to a list of questions instead of a face to face(s) and then his mob leaks them. What leak? The questions would be made public eventually. This is nothing more than a game show with Trump banging the drum. He is good at that.”

      There’s an old saying: You can’t cheat an honest man. Isaacbasonkavich cannot be cheated. Who will draw the necessary inference?

  11. Hard to find an honest lawyer most are liars. They write the rules and then break them.

    1. But their definition of honest is different than ours. For example. Witness swears to ttell ‘the truth the WHOLE truth and NOTHIING but the truth. When was the last time a lawyer let that happen. But in doing so does the Judge fine or discharge the witness?

    1. It’s not that confusing. Trump’s lawyers know he cannot possibly answer these questions without perjuring himself or incriminating himself. And that should tell you something.

      1. Abdolutely true. Trump’s stupidity and loose lips are bound to sink him.

        1. Prove your asserted truth. No Facts, cites, sources? Self appointed opinion? No just regurgitating the programming of The Collective. Dead Giveaway.

      2. Peter Hill – it’s a joke you nimrod. Geez, lighten up. Mueller is looking for a perjury trap, it is all he has.

        1. Paul, I think you were honest in expressing confusion. Yesterday Trump mislead everyone by suggesting that said questions were leaked by the Mueller camp. And I suspect ‘you’ were inclined to believe him.

          Yet here we have Professor Turley agreeing with every mainstream media account that the leaked questions more than likely came from Trump’s legal team, or an ex-memeber.

          if Trump is clean of any collusion, it shouldn’t be too hard for him to answer basic questions. But there are matters where we know he’d stumble all over the place.

          Trump obviously had some knowledge of that meeting with the Russian lawyer at Trump tower. He was ‘in’ the building during that time span. How would he not know??

          1. Peter,..
            – I don’t know if Trump knew about the meeting, of if there is proof that he knew.
            Assuming that he did know beforehand about the objectives of the meeting (getting dirt on Hillary from Veselnitskaya)and it’s proven, he can borrow a page from the Democrats when proof surfaced that they funded the Steele Russian Dossier Project.
            Once caught, their line was that it was vital to the national interest to get the dirt on Trump from the Russians.
            Now the Trump camp, if necessary, can use the same line; if Hillary was receiving illegal campaign contributions that the Russians knew about, it was vital that the information be obtained.
            The Trump camp was not as slick about it as the Dems were in getting the Steele Russian Dossier.
            If something like this comes up again, maybe Trump Jr., Kushner etc. will just funnel a payment to>a law firm to> hire a firm like Fusion GPS >to hire a a firm like Orbis which then >used contacts to get the Dossier Dirt.
            That’s smart and slicker than the do-it- yourself, direct approach when using Russian ( or any foreign) opposition research.

            1. Tom, even Steve Bannon was shocked by that meeting at Trump Tower. And word emerged last week that that female Russian lawyer was more connected to Putin than originally thought.

              And though you’re being cynical, the Trump campaign would have been correct to commission a report as the Democrats did. That’s how those things are done in the world of big league campaigns. The Democrats weren’t doing anything improper. Nor was Christopher Steele.

              1. Peter,..
                I’m not sure what Steve Bannon’s game is, but his behaviof after getting bounced from the Trump White House has been strange.
                There is no indication that the meeting at Trump Tower resulted in any useful opposition research for the campaign, so
                it’s not like it was an extented project resulting in “a dossier” or a report.
                I think it was known at the time that Veselniskaya was working on behalf of Russian companies and Russian interests.
                It’s odd the the New York U.S. attorney strongly recommended that she not be admitted into the U.S.
                His decision was evidently overruled by the DOJ, so somebody pulled some strings to get her admitted.
                Her meetings with Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, right before and right after the Trump Tower meeting, are curious.
                I’ll concede that the Democratic foreign opposition resulted in a l ot of damaging allegations against Trump & co., while the Trump Tower meeting looked more like a farce.
                As I stated earlier, campaigns can use the Democratic model of using multiple intermediaries to scour foreign countries for opposition research.

                1. that was settled in several forums months ago. This is just repeating PCRap to see if it will stick this time and stil with nothing to back up the fairy tail part. Stupid Party collective doesn’t get tired of being made to look stupid because after it’s just a machine party and a defective one at that.

                2. Tom Nash said, “There is no indication that the meeting at Trump Tower resulted in any useful opposition research for the campaign, so it’s not like it was an extented project resulting in “a dossier” or a report.”

                  There’s no indication yet that the Trump Tower meeting resulted in Julian Assange acquiring the stolen DNC emails that Wikileaks published on July 22nd, 2016, in exchange for promises of sanctions relief for Russia.

                  Stay tuned for further details.

                  1. There’s no indication that the Trump Tower meeting resulted in a plot to rig voting machines; stay tuned for details.
                    As long as we’re playing guessing games, we can imagine anything we want to, without evidence.
                    For some, it just depends largely on the need to construct the imaginary outcome that they desire.

                    1. There’s no evidence that Hillary, Podesta, DW Schultz, Donna Brazile, etc. knew exactly what Steele was doing with Russian opposition research.
                      They all deny it, but “stayed tuned for details”.

          2. Did you not understand it’s a joke? All program to prove your programmer is a numbskull. Not one fact or credible source.

      3. Not confusing at all PH take the role of GOD and speaks for the entire planet wthout explaining why and expects people to believe him. Ad Machina The Programmer of the Colelctive struck out again.

    2. Not confusing just regard it another attack from guess who the same sources who proved incredibly uncredible before. The programmers of the progressively regressive socialist left. The bimbo split so here we are with one more dreary piece of nothing especially not backed up factually…. crap.

Comments are closed.