Todd Blanche absolutely has a prohibitive conflict of interest acting as a lawyer for the United States of America and talking to Ghislaine Maxwell. Donald Trump is a very recent criminal defense client. The interests of Donald Trump and the United States are in conflict in questioning Maxwell./1JMM:
/2 Now, this MIGHT be resolved by an informed written waiver by both Donald Trump as a criminal defendant individual and by the United States. Unfortunately the United States, though separate by law and tradition, under these circumstances IS Donald Trump — he dominates the Department of Justice.
/3 To understand this, imagine this analogy: a mafia don is elected the District Attorney. He hires his personal defense lawyer as his first assistant. When he is implicated in a murder from before his term as DA, he sends his personal lawyer/first assistant to talk to one of the gunmen.
/4 The personal attorney/first assistant will talk to the gunman to “investigate” and “clear up” who was behind the killing, and is authorized to offer any deal or immunity necessary to secure the gunman’s testimony.
/5 There’s a conflict of interest between the People of the State, whom the First Assistant represents, and the DA/mafia don, whom the First Assistant recently represented, but that’s OK — the mafia don, acting as both himself and as the DA, waives that conflict for himself and for the People.
/6 That’s what’s happening here. It’s transparently lawless and corrupt. And, likely, it’s going to be done in secret, with no reliable record of what is discussed between Blanche and Maxwell — and certainly no record of what is privately discussed with Maxwell’s lawyer.
/7 This administration, from top to bottom, is ABSOLUTELY capable of getting Maxwell to clear Trump and implicate Trump’s political enemies in exchange for some commutation or pardon of her sentence. If you say otherwise you’re a liar or a fool.
/8 Moreover, the political and intellectual leadership of the Right is divided among people who enthusiastically support that, people who will not oppose it because they seek power, and a shrinking group of principled people who will decry it.
/9 My question is: in the face of such open, contemptuous lawlessness and corruption, why is anyone offering any presumption of good faith, of regularity, of decency? Why does anyone think these people are entitled to the benefits of the rule of law they scorn?
/10 (Incidentally, DOJ has occasionally flirted with the position that it’s not bound by state Rules of Professional Conduct, which would no doubt be part of their response here.)
Given apparent plan with Ghislaine, have to figure that if Epstein himself were alive and in the slammer the plan wld be for Trump to pardon him, have Epstein's story be that he was undercover the whole time to expose the pedophiles and that Trump was his ally in bringing the pedophiles to justice.The legal ethics of this are of critical importance, but the selling of the story is another matter. That is, how do you sell Maxwell’s story to the public, whatever it is, as legitimate and not purchased? It’s rotten without the legal analysis or analogies. If Trump buys what Maxwell has to sell, who won’t suspect (at least) that she improved the merchandise? In the end, it’s her credibility that has to be purchased, and purchased as a reason to forget the Epstein files.
And I don’t think she has that much credibility. She’s certainly not going to acquire it by suddenly exonerating Trump, especially when her statements have been purchased.
There is, I should add, speculation that Trump will offer her a pardon, to be granted near the end of the term. The Wimpy offer, IOW: Trump will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. And you can trust Trump. Has he ever broken a deal, or told a lie, or reneged on a promise?
Yeah, I think she’s going to want something more concrete and immediate. And I still don’t think she has anything to sell that will pull Trump’s fat out of the fire. So the negotiations between them are going to be…interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment