Seth Abramson (@🏠)+ Your Authors @SethAbramson Attorney. @Newsweek columnist. Proof of Corruption (preorder: amzn.to/2TcvDsH) and NYT bestseller Proof of Conspiracy (amzn.to/2sQBWYL). Professor @UofNH. Jun. 02, 2019 1 min read + Your Authors

(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*?  https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/politics/michael-flynn-john-dowd-voicemail/index.html 

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.


You can follow @SethAbramson.



Bookmark

____
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.

Enjoy Threader? Sign up.

Since you’re here...

... we’re asking visitors like you to make a contribution to support this independent project. In these uncertain times, access to information is vital. Threader gets 1,000,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Your financial support will help two developers to keep working on this app. Everyone’s contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support Threader by becoming premium or by donating on PayPal. Thank you.