Tuesday, June 06, 2017

"I would, but I'm washing my hair that night...."

No, that would be your staff, and the lawyers still willing to work for you....

If it's obvious to us, it's obvious to the "smartest people in the room*":

Top lawyers with at least four major law firms rebuffed White House overtures to represent President Trump in the Russia investigations, in part over concerns that the president would be unwilling to listen to their advice, according to five sources familiar with discussions about the matter.
“The concerns were, ‘The guy won’t pay and he won’t listen,’” said one lawyer close to the White House who is familiar with some of the discussions between the firms and the administration, as well as deliberations within the firms themselves.

Other factors, the lawyer said, were that it would “kill recruitment” for the firms to be publicly associated with representing the polarizing president and jeopardize the firms’ relationships with other clients.

Another lawyer briefed on some of the discussions agreed that the firms were worried about the reputational risk of representing the president. One issue that arose, this lawyer said, was “Do I want to be associated with this president and his policies?” In addition, the lawyer said, there were concerns that if they took on the case, “Who’s in charge?” and “Would he listen?”
Usually the reason to be associated with the President is reputation:  only the best, presumably, represent the White House.  But now, the best consider the White House toxic.  That has been raised to nearly the level of objective fact.

I do wonder why no lawyer would want to represent Trump:

“I was just talking to some White House officials this morning and their view is that the president himself wants to be the messenger, his own warrior, his own lawyer, his own spokesman,” [Washington Post reporter Robert]  Costa explained. “Some outside people, some surrogates will be available.”

“But the president is expected to be tweeting on Thursday in response to Comey, not to stay quiet during the testimony,” he added. “Because he himself wants to be the one driving the process.”
By "driving the process" Trump apparently means driving the get-away car straight to the penitentiary gates.


And I'll just add this here:  Charlie Pierce has a succinct rundown of all the things Trump hasn't done (just this week!), with copious quotes from real news services (i.e., not cranky observations from bloggers like yours truly) that Trump really isn't doing anything.  There is no arms deal with Saudi Arabia, there is no law privatizing air traffic control, Qatar, home of 10,000 U.S. service people and a huge airbase, is not the HQ of World Terrorists, Inc.; but Trump behaves in public as if all these things are true.

Pierce says his staff is creating a Potemkin presidency; I'm left wondering why.  What does that accomplish?  At least W. had Cheney and Rumsfeld to actually get things done; Trump has Bannon and Priebus, and he wants to get rid of Priebus and Jeff Sessions, if he could find replacements (a whole other story).

Does Trump have the first clue what the President's duties and obligations are?  He's going to live-tweet Comey's testimony?  Does he have nothing better to do?  Have we really elected the Stupidest Man in America to be our President?

*credit where it is due.  You don't become a "top lawyer" by being a Donald Trump.


  1. I, for one, welcome his incriminating tweets on Thursday...

  2. Me too. I might finally be motivated to learn how to read Twitter just so I can read him commit political seppuku without even knowing he's done it.

    I don't know whether to focus on Pence yet or not, or Ryan. I can imagine if Trump goes down he'll bring whoever is standing hear him as well.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.