,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
(PLEASE RT) Can we talk about the fact that we just learned that Trump's lawyer, John Dowd—a top defense attorney who'd had *many* conversations with Trump—called Flynn's lawyer having *no idea* whether his own client, the POTUS, was implicated in crimes that put America at risk?
1/ If Trump's criminal defense lawyer has *no idea*, after speaking with Trump *many times*, whether Trump committed crimes that presently endanger America's national security, why isn't that the top story—with a flashing-red BREAKING NEWS graphic—on every TV station in America?
2/ Dowd was on a call he thought no one would ever hear, and he was asking—or *begging*—Flynn's lawyer to *please* tell him if Flynn knew of crimes Trump had committed, because if so, it was a matter of national security that needed to be addressed for the sake of "the country."
3/ A president who is a national security risk by a "preponderance of the evidence" ("more likely than not") can be impeached on those grounds. If after working with Trump for *five months*—June to November 2017—Dowd had *no idea* if Trump was a national security risk, how do we?
4/ Media is right: the Dowd call *could* be evidence of a crime. But put that aside for a moment. How is it *not*—far more *urgently*—evidence that Dowd had *enough* reason to think Trump committed crimes threatening national security that he had to *ask*? cnn.com/2019/05/31/pol…
5/ A related note: if the DOJ thinks Dowd's call may have been an act of obstruction, how does that not pierce attorney-client privilege under the "crime-fraud" exception, allowing investigators—or Congress—to *ask* Dowd what conversations he'd had with Trump to prompt that call?
6/ I practiced criminal defense for years. You don't make a call like Dowd did to Flynn's counsel: period. But Dowd having done so, it means either he *knew* his client had committed crimes or strongly suspected it. If he knew Trump *hadn't*, he wouldn't have implied he might've.
