Paul Manafort drops legal team for Russia-Trump investigation


Originally published at:


popcorn sales are booming.



Time to rearrange the deck chairs!


I do hot understand. Did he retain counsel, or drop counsel, or both?



(Additional characters go here.)


Now, why would a potentially valuable witness facing serious criminal charges of his own no longer feel the need to retain high-priced legal counsel?


The Trumpeters have openly turned on Manafort, but the undercurrents are hard to read from the outside.


  1. The Enquirer story and West Wing leaks were a warning shot at Manafort, forcing him to swap his lawyers (who may have been looking for a deal) with a team more to the Trumpeter’s liking (stonewall, deny and delay instead of deal).


  1. The Trumpeters have decided to cut Manafort loose and use him as a scapegoat, and the change of lawyers is Manafort moving to a less Trump-loyal firm.

Hard to say which, but I’d bet on (1).

Pardoning Manafort and firing Mueller won't help Trump

Popcorn.gif supplies are low, but the futures market is great!


In Russian reality hack, counsel drops you


Must be nice to be able to afford one’s choice of legal teams (as opposed to an overworked, underpaid public defender).

Justice is blind has her hand out.


What makes you think Justice is going to bother showing up?

(Sorry, hard to not be cynical these days)


Or option 3:

I’m a bit reminded of The Maltese Falcon, where Wilmer is being lined up as the designated fall guy.
(The difference being that most of the characters in The Maltese Falcon had class, as opposed to - ah, why even go there.)


One intriguing possibility is that he told his lawyers something which means that they couldn’t carry on.

Ethics - not just a county near London.


LOL, I think not…

Miller & Chevalier’s Richard Hibey has previously represented Manafort. His other clients have included CIA officer Clair George, who was convicted in 1992 of making false statements to Congress about the Reagan administration’s secret arms sales to Iran.



Previous counsel: DO NOT WANT.


Ah, but was Mr George stupid enough to tell his lawyers he’d lied?

You can act for people who are guilty. You can act for people you think are guilty. You can act for people you are convinced are guilty.

You are not supposed to put forward a defence of ‘I didn’t do it’ for someone who told you he did.

I will say that it seems that you don’t get to be a big-shot lawyer with the multi-million dollar income without running those pesky ethical requirements as close to the line as possible if not right over it.


Better call Saul, then.


I imagine that counsel cannot simply say “Our erstwhile client is as guilty as a cat with an empty bowl of milk”, so the change in legal representation is usually worded in more circumspect terms.


Yeah, over here it’s sometimes the moment when the barrister gets up at the start of trial and asks to be excused that gives it away…

You can’t say why, the judge isn’t supposed to ask (because you can’t answer) but everyone knows your client dropped a last minute clanger.