fandoms collide

[deird1]

Recently been refreshing my knowledge of Watergate AND rewatching the West Wing.

Just hit the episode where White House Counsel Oliver Babbage finds out about Barlet having MS. And he goes "Right. Well, tell your staff, tell the public, and appoint a Special Prosecutor who hates you, with an unlimited budget and a gigantic staff. If you ever withhold evidence from him or plead Executive Privilege, I will walk."

I've seen it before. But this time, my immediate thought was "So... you've clearly been to John Dean's course on How Not To End Up Like John Dean, then."

Comments

[rydra_wong]

*follows you back, hopefully not creepily*

But this time, my immediate thought was "So... you've clearly been to John Dean's course on How Not To End Up Like John Dean, then."

I must geek out here, because post-Watergate (and then post-Enron), there were significant reforms in legal ethics, including revising and clarifying various rules about required professional behaviour, what is and isn't covered by confidentiality, and what to do when you know your client is engaging in criminal behaviour (and who your client is when you represent an organization -- the White House counsel does not in fact work for the individual who is President at that moment).

So the Watergate CLE's part of a bigger attempt to teach lawyers not to fuck up like that, basically.

There's an interesting panel from the Chapman U Watergate Symposium where panelists including Jill Wine-Banks and Jim Robenalt (who co-teaches the Watergate CLE) discuss the ethical dilemmas faced by lawyers involved in Watergate, and the post-Watergate reforms of the rules:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?306027-4/legacy-watergate (also on iTunes as a podcast)

[deird1]

You know, you keep linking me to interesting things to watch, and now I spend all my free time watching them rather than rewatching geeky television. Not sure whether or not this is a good thing...

So the Watergate CLE's part of a bigger attempt to teach lawyers not to fuck up like that, basically.

Much like, in Engineering, we spent several weeks looking at every major engineering fuck up of the last century, just so we can get a good basis for WHY WE DO NOT ENGINEER LIKE THIS.

and who your client is when you represent an organization -- the White House counsel does not in fact work for the individual who is President at that moment

Possibly I'm misreading Wikipedia, but am I correct in thinking that the WHC works for the abstract, non-personal figure of "the President", without working for the guy who happens to be that person right now? Or something?

[rydra_wong]

Possibly I'm misreading Wikipedia, but am I correct in thinking that the WHC works for the abstract, non-personal figure of "the President", without working for the guy who happens to be that person right now? Or something?

My (strictly amateur and somewhat vague) understanding is that it's supposed to be something like that, yeah. They serve the office of the Presidency, rather than being a personal lawyer for the individual.

Needless to say, this is not something Trump can comprehend at all:

From an NYT article:

It is not clear that Mr. Trump appreciates the extent to which Mr. McGahn has cooperated with the special counsel. The president wrongly believed that Mr. McGahn would act as a personal lawyer would for clients and solely defend his interests to investigators, according to a person with knowledge of his thinking.

And another:

But Mr. McGahn, who as White House counsel is not the president’s personal lawyer, has repeatedly made clear to the president that his role is as a protector of the presidency, not of Mr. Trump personally.

[deird1]

Needless to say, this is not something Trump can comprehend at all

Excuse me while I fetch my popcorn...

*munches*

[rydra_wong]

For bonus popcorn points, there are huge hazards for Trump's lawyers if Trump perjures himself and they know it -- Erlichman's lawyer weighed in on this.

[rydra_wong]

ou know, you keep linking me to interesting things to watch, and now I spend all my free time watching them rather than rewatching geeky television. Not sure whether or not this is a good thing...

But this is geeky television! *g*

Much like, in Engineering, we spent several weeks looking at every major engineering fuck up of the last century, just so we can get a good basis for WHY WE DO NOT ENGINEER LIKE THIS.

Yup, and Watergate involved a lot of lawyers going to jail and more getting disbarred -- many of the people involved had law licenses even if they weren't being employed as lawyers at that point.