Deputy CIA director has a new side gig as his own lawyer

In a move that reaches a breathtaking level of WTAF even for the Trump administration, the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Michael Ellis, just sidelined the agency’s general counsel in favor of … himself. 

Does it even need to be mentioned that no, Ellis will not be leaving his role as No. 2 at the agency but will instead be doing both jobs? So Ellis, the general counsel, will review the actions of Ellis, the deputy director, to determine if they are legal. 

This is, of course, unhinged. 

One doesn’t need to be a lawyer to know that this is ridiculous and makes a mockery of actual legal advice and oversight. However, if one is a lawyer, like one Michael Ellis is, one does know that there are at least two ethical rules this violates. 

First, any lawyer who represents an organization, which is precisely what Ellis is doing as general counsel, has to make decisions in the best interest of the organization overall. Since Ellis the lawyer isn’t very likely to overrule Ellis the deputy director,  there’s no credible way to say he’s putting the agency first.

Next, it’s a conflict of interest if a personal interest of the lawyer would limit the representation of a client. Ellis, the lawyer, can’t fairly and ethically represent the CIA because he has a personal interest in approving the actions of Ellis, the deputy director. 

There’s also the fact that the CIA’s Office of General Counsel is an independent office, so Ellis will be working for the independent office and the CIA itself at the same time. Sure, why not.  

Ellis’ move, besides being comedically unethical, is also weirdly timed. The general counsel role, which requires Senate confirmation, has been officially vacant since President Donald Trump took office in January, following the departure of President Joe Biden’s appointee. Hence, an unnamed career lawyer has been in the role since then. 

When The New York Times asked the CIA for comment, you will not be surprised to learn officials had nothing to say about how this dual role wouldn’t be a conflict of interest. Instead, a CIA spokesperson told the Times that Trump had nominated Joshua Simmons, currently a principal deputy legal adviser at the State Department, for the role, with a hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee scheduled for Wednesday. 

Related | Trump is breaking the law—and he wants you to know that

Besides that answer having nothing to do with Ellis’ conflicts of interest, it also inadvertently highlights how weird this whole situation is. If Simmons is already teed up for the job and could apparently be confirmed relatively soon, why not just leave the career attorney in the role until then? If there was some concern about that attorney, put a different career lawyer in the role until Simmons is confirmed. There are any number of solutions that are not “make yourself your own general counsel.”

Things get weirder when you learn that Trump had been expected to tap Ellis for the general counsel role months ago, before he was named deputy director instead. 

Perhaps this type of doubling-up actually makes sense. The Trump administration isn’t interested in any oversight, because oversight means telling these lawless lackeys they can’t do something. So why bother with general counsels who will evaluate whether an agency action is lawful? Just have a loyalist sit on one side of the table with their “deputy director” hat on and slide whatever horrific illegal plan is in the works across the table, and then switch seats and toss on a “lawyer” hat and rubber-stamp the thing.

The administration could streamline things even more by letting deputy White House chief of staff and Santa Monica’s finest Joseph Goebbels impersonator Stephen Miller decide what the law is. He thinks that when judges rule against the administration, they are committing “legal insurrection,” whatever on Earth that might mean. 

Related | Trump team thinks if you can’t see a law, it no longer exists

To be fair, like most Republicans, Miller remains steadfastly perplexed about what constitutes an insurrection, because if they thought about it for very long, they’d have to acknowledge that was exactly what Jan. 6 was. But no, for Miller, the real insurrection is a judge telling Trump “no.” This is in keeping with Miller’s other recent legal claim, which is that the Supremacy Clause means that if Trump feels like it, one state’s troops can invade another state. That is, to put it charitably, a novel interpretation. 

Unlike Ellis, Miller is not a lawyer, but really, who needs legal training for any of this? The Trump administration is loudly, proudly lawless, and real attorneys with any sense of ethics just get in the way.