My Man McGahn: The Smartest Lawyer in Trumpland
Why is Don McGahn still at the helm of the White House counsel's office? I mean does he really need to work for "King Kong"?
August 21, 2018 at 04:07 PM
4 minute read
|
Guess what? White House counsel Don McGahn is beginning to grow on me. Sure, I've accused him of being an ethics disaster, a ruthless careerist and a dreadful, awful White House counsel. But I now realize that he's so much more.
For starters, he's emerging as one of the smartest—if not the smartest—lawyer in President Donald Trump's orbit. I mean, he's definitely more lawyerly and normal than Rudy Giuliani, Michael Cohen or Marc Kasowitz.
But before we get into my latest fascination with McGahn, let's pause to consider some of the revelations in The New York Times article that detailed how McGahn “cooperated extensively” with special prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation into the Russian probe. I won't go into what's been widely covered, so permit me to tell you what jumped out at me from The Times' piece:
- First, isn't it adorable that McGahn calls Trump “King Kong” behind his back? The Times says he gave Trump the moniker “to connote his volcanic anger.” I bet Trump has his own nickname for McGahn, and it's far more vivid.
- Second, wasn't it generous of Trump to give McGahn the top White House legal job even though McGahn went to a no-name law school? “His lack of a degree from a top law school bothered Mr. Trump,” reports The Times. McGahn got his law degree from Widener Law Commonwealth, which is ranked No. 143 in U.S. News & World Report. (Hey, at least it's ranked!)
- Third, how refreshing that Trump's original lawyers (John Dowd and Ty Cobb) for the Mueller probe were so uncynical. They decided to cooperate fully with Mueller, allowing him to interview McGahn, because they thought it would bring a speedy end to the investigation. Apparently, “They took Mr. Trump at his word that he did nothing wrong and sold him on an open-book strategy,” according to The Times.
We can analyze the wisdom of Dowd and Cobb's tactics until the cows come home, but let's get back to McGahn. You'll have to read the entire Times article to understand how McGahn and his lawyer William Burck decided to cooperate with Mueller, but the bottom line is this: They feared that Trump would throw McGahn under the proverbial bus.
Despite what Giuliani has said, no one knows for sure what McGahn told Mueller. The only thing that's coming out loud and clear is that neither Trump nor McGahn trusts/likes/respects each other. Which leads to this overwhelming question: Why is McGahn still at the helm of the White House counsel's office? I mean does he really need to work for King Kong?
I think McGahn is hanging on for two reasons. First, he's trying to make himself over as un-Trumpian so that he can appear more palatable to the outside world should he need a job. Even without Trump tossing him to the wolves, McGahn's fingerprints can be spotted on some of the administration's more unsavory episodes—like his decision to ignore Sally Yates' warning about Michael Flynn. Don't get me started.
Second, I think McGahn loves the job—namely, the way he gets to play God. Like U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions, the other thorn in Trump's side who won't quit, McGahn is wielding powers beyond his wildest dreams. By all accounts, he's the decider on U.S. Supreme Court nominees, and he's credited with the smooth confirmation process for Neil Gorsuch. And, now, of course, he's overseeing Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the high court.
Of the two theories as to why McGahn won't quit his job, I tend toward the power theory. Despite getting sullied by his role in the Trump administration, McGahn can probably go back to his former firm Jones Day anytime. (Elie Mystal of Above the Law has some keen insights on this.) Everyone knows that Trump is a handful, so who's going to hold his minions accountable?
So, it's the power that must be intoxicating to McGahn. After all, how often does a graduate of Widener Law School get to sit in judgment of top Harvard or Yale law school alum vying for a SCOTUS spot and decide the fate of a nation?
Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected]. On Twitter: @lawcareerist
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250