The immunity agreement for alleged co-conspirators, for example, is so irregular that it reeks of a cover-up.
At the end of the last week's event at the Press Club featuring the three university presidents describing the importance training young people to navigate tough ethical issues, I discovered an old friend was among the attendees. We decided to approach the forum moderator, Starr.
As Starr gathered up his lecture notes and prepared to leave, I took the lead in thanking the speaker for an enlightening discussion. He smiled in friendly fashion. What follows are my notes reconstructing the conversation immediately afterward.
"But since it is the Press Club," I continued, "I hope you don't mind if I ask a question."
"Fire away!" he responded cheerfully. The Duke Law School graduate, a former law clerk to the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger from 1975 to 1977, has argued 36 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, including 25 during his service as solicitor general from 1989 to 1993. So, he has every reason to be confident in handling any question.
"In view of the topic of tonight's discussion," I said, "isn't it incongruous that you chose to represent Jeffrey Epstein?"
"I don't think I want to answer that. This involves the attorney-client privilege."
"I appreciate that because I'm a lawyer also. But I'm not asking for any privileged secrets. And I understand that everyone's entitled to a lawyer. But why you?"
He paused a moment, and responded with slightly more formality, "I was very happy to respond to the needs of a client of the firm."
We thanked him for his time and moved on.
In a post-mortem outside, my colleague told me, "Well, you got your answer. It's about the money, isn't it?"
This column is excerpted from a much longer version at the Justice Integrity Project (www.justice-integrity.org)
(Article changed on February 9, 2015 at 00:18)
(Article changed on February 10, 2015 at 11:45)
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
1
