McCain’s Lawyer Shell Game

In today’s conference call, John McCain was represented by John Dowd, of Akin Gump.

You might remember Dowd. He was the guy who made sure Monica Goodling got immunity before she confessed to the way she had politicized DOJ.

But more interestingly John Dowd helped Cindy McCain avoid all legal consequences for stealing drugs from her own medical charity (in the process, Dowd attacked the whistleblower who came forward to expose Cindy’s law-breaking).

How curious, don’t you think, that John Dowd after all these years has returned to defend McCain? (Greg Sargent notes that last year, John Dowd was mourning the John McCain he used to know.)

It’s particularly curious given that McCain had already retained a lawyer back in December to fight charges that he abused power: Skadden Arps partner Bob Bennett. Back then, Bennett was arguing that the stories showing McCain had intervened for Vicki Iseman’s clients improperly were part of a smear job.

A spirited defense of McCain was already being mounted on television Thursday by Robert Bennett, who has, according to the Drudge Report, been on this case for McCain since December 2007, when the high-profile lawyer (and Democrat brother to Republican Bill) was brought on to pressure the Times to kill the story:

Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!

McCain has personally pleaded with NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish the high-impact report involving key telecom legislation before the Senate Commerce Committee, newsroom insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Bennett still insisted overnight that the story was nothing more than a "smear campaign,"

Bennett was using precisely the same language Dowd is using today–calling the exposure of McCain’s favors for Iseman a "smear campaign."

Now that’s where we come full circle. 

It was Bob Bennett, of course, who recommended the Senate Ethics Committee investigation drop McCain (and John Glenn). But in the final report, he stated that McCain had exercised "bad judgment" for meeting with Senate regulstors about Keating’s interests. 

So what’s it say about McCain, that he had to ditch the last lawyer who was screaming "smear campaign" about his participating in influence peddling because he was precisely the lawyer that conducted what his new/old lawyer now screams was a "smear campaign," and because he was the attorney that certified that McCain had, in fact, exercised bad judgment the last time he was significantly engaged in influence peddling. Even his "smear campaign" criers come with built-in conflicts of interest!

What’s it say about the guy that he’s had to create a small sub-specialty for DC’s top lawyers to cry "smear campaign" in efforts to dismiss his repeated participation in DC’s influence peddling racket?

Update: the Obama campaign just sent out a reminder of two of the things Bennett said while he was presiding over the Senate inquiry:

Bennett: McCain Had Closest Relationship to Keating. During his opening statement of the hearings, Bennett said, “Of the five senators here before you, Senator McCain had the closest personal friendship with Charles Keating.  Their friendship pre-dated Senator McCain’s political career.  Senator McCain also was the only one who received personal as well political benefits from Charles Keating.” [Senate Ethics Committee, 11/15/90]

Bennett: McCain’s Vacations with Keating Were “Troubling Evidence.”  During the opening statement, Bennett also said, “When John McCain was a member of the House, he and his family vacationed with the Keatings at the Keating home in Cat Cay, the Bahamas… This was troubling evidence to counsel, and we investigated.” [Senate Ethics Committee, 11/15/90]

image_print
  1. scribe says:

    Speaking as a lawyer:

    How do you know it’s McCain doing the dumping, here?

    How do you know it’s not the lawyers dumping the client?

    Speaking very generally, lawyers are under a duty to represent their clients’ interests zealously, but that duty reaches its limits when carrying it out becomes repugnant to the lawyer, when it becomes unduly burdensome (financially, morally, or professionally) to the lawyer, or when it would require the lawyer to compromise his professional ethics, judgment or honesty.

    The one thing a lawyer has going for him/herself is reputation. Reputation translates directly into credibility. Shoot that, and you might as well head off to the takeout window and “would you like fries with that?”

    So, coming back to my initial question, how do you know it’s not the lawyers doing the dumping? The one might be in (story one), and then out (story two) and then back in again (story one, again), because the story the client wants pitched changes too radically (between stories one and two) for the lawyer to be able to do so and simultaneously maintain his/her credibility. If the story the client wants pitched changes back from story two to the original story one, and the lawyer got out of the way when it was story two, then he can look dumb and say “I’ve only ever said story one. If someone else was saying story two, I can’t be responsible for that. I maintain my credibility.”

    No one really believes that, but the lawyer can respond to that by saying: “It’s not me. Take it up with my client or that wacky guy selling you story two.”

    Enquiring minds want to know.

  2. Leen says:

    It sure was suspicious when the Times released the story about Iseman…and then the story seemed to disappear. The MSM went stone cold silent on that story after that

  3. bmaz says:

    Unless you know something I don’t (most do), i don’t think Bennett dumped him. I think they didn’t want to put out in front of this the man who previously admitted malfeasance. I doubt it factored into their concern, but could potentially open a can of privilege waiver worms I suppose (this probably on the paranoid side, but I would think about it in that position.

    • emptywheel says:

      I’m just guessing, but I suspect the real story isn’t so much Bennett ditching McCain, as Dowd now representing McCain during the Iseman stuff. After all, Bennett really COULDN’T represent McCain on Keating. Plus, Dowd has worked with McCain forever, and did represent him the last time. So why not when Iseman came up?

      Which makes Sargent’s comment even more intriguing. Did Dowd refuse to represent McCain over Iseman because he hate(d) who McCain had become? And if so, what did it take to get him on retainer for this round of pushback?

      • bmaz says:

        Isn’t that what i said? Ah, well, I see. In looking at it again, it does look like my words were run through one of them Palin speech generator thingys. A common problem with me….

  4. JThomason says:

    Bennett has probably told McCain, “hey the “judgment” thing was just to keep the public happy…don’t take it personally…its all politics…”

  5. skdadl says:

    Anecdotal and gossipy, but I remember watching Dowd at the Goodling hearing (it was hard not to; attentive and solicitous would be understatements). The feed continued for quite a time after the hearing was over, and Dowd did not stay by Monica’s side; he was up among the congresscritturs, greeting and talking with several of them, and when I say up, I mean he was among their benches (do you call them that?). I’ve seen witnesses approach to shake hands with the chair before or critturs come down to shake hands, but this was something much more — Dowd was schmoozing. Perhaps just my ignorance, but I’ve never watched anything quite like that before.

  6. TheraP says:

    The thing about lying is a liar has thousands of stories and cover stories. While the truthful person has just one story. The truth-teller may, over time, understand their story better, but the story doesn’t change. mcShame is branding himself a sociopath with every passing day. He seems, to me, to be politically suicidal. He’s wrapping himself in “volatile substances,” just as much as a suicide bomber might. He’s going to blow up himself, his campaign, his party, and if he could.. the country – in this increasingly self-destructive series of events he has set in motion.

    I’ve never seen anything like this. Of course I don’t work with criminals. And rarely with sociopaths. But wow! This is becoming nothing but a “below the belt” campaign.

    • Leen says:

      Why did McCain go down the path of down and dirty? Did someone on his team want him to lose? How different would this race have been if he had actually not used the same wicked techniques that were used on him?

      • TheraP says:

        If you’re looking for a psychological explanation for that, we could call it “identification with the aggressor.” Which is the process of taking on for oneself the negative qualities of someone who has harmed us. It’s possible he’s done that here with regard to the previous experience of being smeared. And I’ve long been wondering if mcShame also internalized some of the techniques of his captors over the 5 years he was in prison. In other words, in some ways I’d say he is “torturing” American voters in this shameful, disgusting campaign he’s engaged.

        Why he’s doing this I really can’t be sure. But sometimes people have so much unconscious shame that they ultimately keep pushing the boundaries of their behavior until the shame becomes a reality for all to see. I think that’s what’s happening now. He’s becoming almost like a cartoon playing in real time. A cartoon of shame.

      • TheraP says:

        Did someone on his team want him to lose? That one I can’t answer. But I would hazard a guess that if they’re doing it, it’s sure a secret. My guess, probably wrong, is that the man is so deranged at this point, he has taken over control. And no one can stop him. But the utter degradation of one of the most humiliating and bizarre defeats ever recorded in a democratic process.

        • Loo Hoo. says:

          That was my sense on the “suspension” of the campaign and trying to call off the debate. I doubt that he was following advice on that.

  7. Leen says:

    Ot
    Ew followed along over at the Book Salon with Gellman (still banned over there for bringing up the I/P issue and challenging the moderator about what I see as a blog clog)

    Anyway great questions. I had several questions that did not get asked. 1. What does Gellman have to say about Cheney’s blocking off Colin Powell’s efforts to get rid of John Bolton and how Cheney had protected him.

    2. Also wanted to ask Gellman about the NSA intercepts that Bolton “allegedly” accessed which may have had to do with the wiretapping of Colin Powell and UN officials.

    “When British Foreign Minister Jack Straw complained to Powell that Bolton was obstructing negotiations with Iran on its development of nuclear weapons, Powell ordered that Bolton be cut out of the process, telling an aide: “Get a different view.” The British also objected to Bolton’s interference in talks with Libya, and again Powell removed Bolton. But much as he may have wanted to, Powell could not dismiss Bolton because of a powerful patron: Vice President Dick Cheney.”

    http://dir.salon.com/story/opi…..s_revenge/

    3. Does he think that Addington will be a contender for impeachment after the election?

  8. Leen says:

    Last day for registration. There were students and older folks out on every corner and on Ohio State’s campus yesterday collecting registrations. Today at Ohio University at least 20 people out on this last day. I have not seen anything like this since the mid 70’s.
    Damn encouraging.

  9. hayduke says:

    Is this John Dowd the same fellow who headed baseball’s Pete Rose investigation? He certainly has the wonderful Republican tendency to state something one day…. and later flip the thang completely.

    • bobschacht says:

      Thanks for this, Mary!

      Seems to boil down to this:

      We therefore grant the motion for stay pending appeal and
      deny the motion for expedition.

      I.e., the court has decided to let them kick the can down the road and let the next President and/or Congress figure out what to do? IANAL, so maybe I didn’t read this right?

      Bob in HI

    • bmaz says:

      Last I heard consummate can down the road kicking was not an affirmative duty in the judicial canons. This is fucked up. Basically “We’re going to presume further appeal which we are going to presume will take us past the moot date of Congress turn over – and VIOLA – it is already therefore effectively moot. Buh bye, gotta go lunch and martini now!”

      This is a disgrace, but the real fault lies with Pelosi, Hoyer et.al as they intentionally strung this out to an extent that pretty much compels the conclusion that this is the precise result they desired. The dicked off all kinds of time in doing it, and completely rejected common sense and even Bates’ advice that they needed to man up and exercise their Constitutional prerogatives. Fuckers.

      By the way, why the hell would “The Committee” admit this? WTF is wrong with them?

      But the Committee recognizes that, even if expedited, this controversy will not be fully and finally resolved by the
      Judicial Branch—including resolution by a panel and possible rehearing by this court en banc and by the Supreme Court—before the 110th Congress ends on January 3, 2009.

      • Leen says:

        No need for Hoyers and Pelosi to wonder why the American public has no faith in congress. Obvious they do not give a rat’s ass.

    • Leen says:

      Mary obviously I am just a concerned citizen and basically a peasant trying to figure some things out. What the hell does this mean
      “In view of the above considerations, we see no reason to set the appeal on an expedited briefing and oral argument schedule. If the case becomes moot, we would be wasting the time of the court and parties”

      waste of time..WASTE OF TIME. When is seeking justice a waste of time? When the public sees that those in the Bush administration can act above the law and not answer to congressional subpoenas, where is this balance of powers that they were talking about.

      Sure does not appear to be much balance in that decision.

      • LabDancer says:

        Also bmaz @ 26 et al:

        Judge Tatel [Y’all remember him from Fitz’ enforcing subpoenas in US v Libby.] agreed with the other two members on the threshold [and maybe pretty technical looking, if YANAL at least] question of the court having jurisdiction, IE whether Miers and Bolten had a right of appeal from Judge Bates’ order.

        But Judge Tatel dissented – strongly doesn’t capture it: foundationally? – on the practical relief Miers and Bolten [well, really Bush and Rove et al] were seeking.
        Judge Tatel asserted that the court had NEVER EVER BEFORE granted a stay SOLELY on the ground of mootness.

        If I was counsel for the House and was listening to Tatel suggest that, I’m sure I’d be tempted to say something like: Thanks for the good thought, but please, no thanks for the reasoning. Even this dissent holds potential further value if the next Congress wants to use any part of the record of the current Congress; Miers and Bolten could argue not just “nullity” but also “mootness” on the implication that all 3 members of the committee were thinking mootness. So Congress effectively has to start all over again with these two, and they get to take the position that past isn’t even prologue.

        • Leen says:

          I just do not get how congress or was that a special counsel that pulled in all the hot shots during Watergate. How did they make Clinton testify under oath

    • Leen says:

      Does this mean this decision stands and does not keep moving up to the next level as quickly as possible? What would a congress who takes their oversight responsibilities do with this (partisan) decision? How quickly and responsibly can congress push this up to the Supreme Court?

      One would think they would be concerned about the lack of faith that the American public have in congress and the Supreme Court would be enough of a reason to move this up the ladder quickly.

      I left a small rental house that I owned untreated for termites and that house crumbled in no time.

  10. Leen says:

    Ew I swear Chris Matthews is coming to this site. ( at the Libby Trial I mentioned he should start coming here for info and insights instead of depending so heavily on the MSM I mentioned this to him again at the DNC in Denver). Too bad Matthews did not come to Democracy Now and other progressive blogs in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

    Tonight he brought up Troopergate and how the 7 witnesses who had said they would not honor the subpoenas are now saying they will. Matthews failed to mention that the Judge rejected these seven individuals challenge “Lawmakers subpoenaed seven state employees to testify in the inquiry but they challenged those subpoenas. A judge rejected that challenge last week.”

    It was as if these 7 individuals just up and decided to honor the subpoenas.
    ———————————————————

    The stats that Hardball had on about increased registrations were staggering. Colorado registrations are up 4 to 1 for the Democrats. Florida 2 to 1. North Carolina 6 to 1. Pennsylvania one half million new Democrats registered.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ (go to will new voters help Obama)

    “young voters lining up in droves”. We are sure witnessing this in Ohio. Saw it in Colorado in August. This could be a blow out for Obama if these voters actually show up
    —————————————————–

    Matthews hammered Republican strategist Mike Paul when he said that Obama had said McCain had come “unhinged” Matthews asked him where when show me?
    Matthews producers came back before the show was up and reported that Obama had said the McCain campaign had become “erratic”

    Matthews did not mention the Alaska Supreme Court taking up the case.

  11. iremember54 says:

    It’s funny Bob Bennet always seems to be there when some Republican has done some wrong to get them off. McCain was guity then but never got to a court of law because of Bob Bennet. McCain ever sense has felt he can do as he pleases, and claiming he is sorry can just make everything right. Lawyer are tearing the law of this Country apart and making a joke of everything we stand for. Remember it was lawyers that said we could torture prisoners, and that it was alright to spy on Americans. McCain has the guts to talk of other members of congress in federal prison when he should have went there himself. Republicans made me sick during the impeachment case against Clinton because every other word out of their mouths was the rule of law. Yet the rule of law never means anything when one of their own is involved in something of question. The American people are to dumb to notice what really goes on and thats the saddest part of the whole thing. Other than the fact a large part of the population would make McCain the President of our Country believing he is lilly white.

  12. Leen says:

    Will make sure that all of the peasants I know hear about this decision because this will more than likely pass under the MSM’s radar.

  13. Mary says:

    The circuit court is saying

    A. Only “this” Congress can have issued “these” subpoenas, so when this Congress is gone, the subpoenas evaporate. The subpoenas may get reissued by the next Congress, but this Congress will be gone (and don’t we all, in our heart of hearts – wish that were true, that they would all be gone with Pelosi and Hoyer leading the march of the lemmings?)

    B. This Congress sat on their hands and waited until pretty late in the game before trying to get review and now they are coming to us to try to get the court to set up superfast expedited review schedules to squeeze in review before this Congress is no more.

    C. [Going into speculation land] Even if we, the court, were to agree to expedited review, it wouldn’t matter bc we think and the Congressional committee agrees that then there will be requests for en banc and for the Sup Ct to review and of course cert will be granted and of course all of that will take longer than there is left in this Congress.

    D. So, based upon all our spec about what might happen in C above, we are going to say we don’t have to hustle bc it doesn’t matter bc it wouldn’t get done in time anyway. Oh, and besides, it might be that we are wrong and the Congress ending doesn’t moot the ultimate point, but if we are, then it doesn’t really matter when THAT determination is made, bc, it will be making the law on the issue irrespective of mootness. If that were to happen (basically, they are talking about a Roe v Wade type of decision, where the court said that while, by the time a case would reach the Sup Ct, someone is already going to have had either a baby or an abortion, the case wasn’t moot bc a determination was needed and the factual setting would never allow for a case to reach full review prior to resolution of the facts in the case in controversy)

    Why the circuit didn’t think it would be worth trying to make a resolution while the Congress was still around and presume that no other appeal would be timely granted to interfere with the subpoenas – they aren’t real clear on that, but bmaz is right, this is really all at the feet of the two years of the Pelosi controlled House. They’ve been worse than pathetic.

    BTW – Mukasey paid a lot of attention to the Judiciary Committee input to slow down on his new rules too.

    http://www.ibls.com/internet_l…..38;id=1411

    I believe the legal terminology is “nanner nanner nanner” *sigh*

    The thought of another Pelosi led House makes me ill. I’d almost rather listen to Palin’s inane prattle.