Who's distributing fake news anyway?

The Greek Courier: John Damellos

Care for some "Fake" news, today? 

Well, first let's deal with some undeniable facts. John Dowd just became the president’s second personal lawyer to leave his post. He was an outsider, not a White House lawyer and a leading member of the Russia investigation defense team. Now, let us try to disseminate reality. See who's fake and who's not...

Shall we will start with the Devil's advocate before moving to the real ones?

Today, the "fake" N.Y.T., claimed that "Trump was happy with Dowd's decision" to quit, because "he had grown frustrated with his his legal stance for weeks." Sounds fake to you?

If so, alternatively, you can believe the POTUS tweet 10 days ago when Trump said:

“The Failing New York Times purposely wrote a false story stating that I am unhappy with my legal team on the Russia case and am going to add another lawyer to help out. Wrong. I am VERY happy with my lawyers, John Dowd, Ty Cobb and Jay Sekulow, “They are doing a great job.”

Really, now? Despite claiming otherwise on Twitter, Mr. President, I believe that you met with the veteran Washington lawyer Emmet T. Flood, who represented President Bill Clinton during impeachment. Now, will he be helping you with Stormy Daniels, or the Russkies?

And what is your opinion Mr. Dowd?

“I love the president, I wish him the best of luck. I think he has a really good case.” Mr. Dowd said in a telephone interview after quitting.

Yeah, really good case. Come on, if you love the man, say something more zealous, Mr Dowd! Something like, "There was no collusion between the President's associates and Russian government and I am only ashamed that I did not perform my duties according to his high standards of intelligence an integrity, which is the main reason why I quit!!!". Now, that's better.

"A really good case"... my God, you sound like a lawyer who is dumping his famous client, frustrated from his inability to restrain himself from unnecessary danger... like meeting Mueller in person, per se. And try to pull his strings, maybe.

This sounds like "boat's sinking, damage control is failing, and the rats are jumping ship..."

Well, according to law websites, under certain circumstances, generally speaking, "the states' rules of professional conduct permit an attorney to dump a client if the breakup won't hurt him, such at the very beginning of the case, or if there's a suitable replacement waiting in the wings.

However, abandonment may be acceptable even if it harms the client's interests, especially if the client has done something wrong. For example, a lawyer can walk away if the client is engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, if he's using the lawyer to perpetuate his illegal scheme, or if the client asks the lawyer to do something illegal himself.

These exceptions exist so that the attorney can continue to uphold the law and provide adequate representation. If your lawyer fundamentally disagrees with you, then it's unlikely that he or she will represent you as zealously as they should."