prestigious law firm in boston. and everyone had an even higher estimation of james st. clare because the president needed a defense lawyer and turned to james st. clare. one thing i would point out, in watergate, the president and all the president s men had first class lawyers. their legal representation was excellent. there was one lawyer who became a defendant in the case. he was less experienced and got sort of hoodwinked by the white house. he was impressed, i think, by being part of the oval office team and started behaving in a way that was illegal and got caught. and then ended up a defendant. so it s a warning that defendants or lawyers who are turning down representing the president may say to themselves
president was looking at ted olson. he s a strong republican, i don t think he s a trump kind of guy but strong republican loyalties. i think he was dismayed by the president s indiscipline, he s a bad client, and the reputation for not paying his bills. but above all, as he said to andrea mitchell, by just the chaos and mayhem in the white house, he s not going anywhere near this story. prior to now there has never been a moment where the president of the united states needed a lawyer, an outside lawyer, and every lawyer in the country didn t want to do it because it was the most prestigious choice that could be made. i remember in the watergate investigation the boston community was very proud when the president turned to james st. clare from the most
olson. he s a strong republican, i don t think he s a trump kind of guy but strong republican loyalties. i think he was dismayed by the president s discipline, he s a bad client, and the reputation for not paying his bills. but above all, as he said to andrea mitchell, by just the chaos and mayhem in the white house, he s not going anywhere near this story. prior to now there has never been a moment where the president of the united states needed a lawyer, an outside lawyer, and every lawyer in the country didn t want to do it because it was the most prestigious choice that could be made. i remember in the watergate investigation the boston community was very proud when the president turned to james
st. clare from the most prestigious law firm in boston. and everyone had an even higher estimation of james st. clare because the president needed a defense lawyer and turned to james st. clare. one thing i would point out, in watergate, the president and all the president s men had first class lawyers. their legal representation was excellent. there was one lawyer who became a defendant in the case. he was less experienced and got sort of hoodwinked by the white house. he was impressed, i think, by being part of the oval office team and started behaving in a way that was illegal and got caught. and then ended up a defendant. so it s a warning that defendants or lawyers who are turning down representing the president may say to themselves
eventually. and i also want to get you on what you make of evolving defense theory coming from donald trump s personal attorney and white house attorneys. you had john dowd floating donald trump cannot obstruct justice. but now you have ty cobb from the white house, i don t know, downplaying talking to the washington post saying they re focused on a fact-based defense not a mere legal defense. one of my initial questions, is why aren t all these folks on the same page when it comes to something as fundamental as this? they may not know the facts. that happened during watergate with james st. clair making statements about what nixon knew and didn t know. nixon hadn t been candid with his attorney either, so it s very easy for that to happen. as for dowd, you know, i think he is trying to defend his client, but he s putting words in his mouth that are very dangerous, giving him knowledge