>>/175185/, >>/175186/, >>/175187/, >>/175188/, >>/175189/, >>/175190/, >>/175191/, >>/175192/, >>/175193/, >>/175194/, >>/175195/, >>/175196/, >>/175197/, >>/175198/, >>/175199/, >>/175200/, >>/175201/, >>/175202/, >>/175203/, >>/175204/, >>/175205/, >>/175206/, >>/175207/
James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII - When I look at a transaction, I look at who stands to gain.
The political prosecutions will return with a vengance when the pendulum swings. Innocent people will go bankrupt, families destoryed, millions in fees for each indictment.
Do you know who stands to gain?
Lawyers.
https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/2018900056745914463
JD Flynn @jdflynn - @catholicpat Can you explain the scandal to me, but with the presumption that I the only influencer I’ve heard of is @MrsRuvi
https://x.com/jdflynn/status/2019096556205679031
JD Vance @JDVance - Memo to the press: When a president is elected by the People and then does what he promised to do, that’s democracy. When a president is thwarted by unelected bureaucrats, that’s oligarchy. President Trump refuses to bend the knee to that oligarchy. Buckle up!
https://x.com/JDVance/status/1885855078633857107
Jeff Clark @JeffClarkUS - This is correct and very perceptive for a “momma bear constitutionalist” observer. @DiehlsaSteph.
Yes, this government lawyer Le does not understand the job and, worse yet, misconceives the job.
Note as well that this issue arose during my bar trial. Despite the Hearing Committee and Disciplinary Counsel knowing full well that in response to all questions (just as I did to the illegitimate J6 Committee), I would assert the applicable privileges (executive privilege, law enforcement privilege, deliberative process privilege, lawyer-client privilege, etc.), I was forced to take the stand and invoke the privileges on a question-by-question basis.
I answered only one question substantively. That question was — for purposes of lawyer-client privilege, who did I consider my client to be. Because it was logically prior to the invocation of the privilege (and because I wanted them to change course and respect that privilege, which they did not do), I answered essentially “Donald Trump in his official capacity as President of the United States.”
From body language, this appeared unsatisfactory to and to distress the Hearing Committee Member. She was a lay person (marking out how odd the DC process is — why should a non-lawyer — especially one with no experience at DOJ — be sitting unconstitutionally in judgment of my advice as a lawyer?).
But more importantly for your purposes below, the Hearing Committee Member was confused because she had long ago improperly decided in her own mind that the client of a DOJ lawyer can never be the President in his official capacity, despite the fact that the Executive Branch is one person — the President of the United States.
Lastly, the purpose of those who tried in ethics law to morph the client away from being the President is to fuzz up accountability. If a vague abstraction is the “client,” then the wishes of the client can be conceived of as whatever the individual lawyer thinks is for the best. Or, perhaps worse, a body second guessing such a decision can substitute their own view of the good. This cannot happen when a real, living being is the client and their true wishes are individually known and knowable.
Quote
steph @DiehlsaSteph
Exhibit du jour of a government attorney operating as if they are devoid of a Client and thus relieved of the duties an attorney owes to their Client. An attorney in private practice would never utter words like this (if they did, they wouldn’t have/keep many clients…). The “client” of government attorneys has been redefined into something intangible: it is the organization, institution or the public itself—entities that have no face/can’t be conferred with to confirm the lawyer is in fact advocating per their wishes/direction and that astonishing loophole functionally operates to relieve govt attorneys of the most basic client duties/obligations that constrain/guide how lawyers perform their role.
23