You have to wonder about Rachel Maddow and her grip on reality.

She believes that Mike Pence’s choice of a defense lawyer automatically proves he’s guilty.

You can’t make this stuff up.

Vice President Mike Pence has sought legal counsel from Richard Cullen, a seasoned lawyer who worked for Republican politicians during the Watergate scandal and Iran-Contra.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that Pence had hired Cullen as “outside legal counsel to help with both congressional committee inquiries and the special counsel investigation into possible collusion between President Trump’s campaign and Russia.”

His outside legal counsel is to help with both congressional committee inquiries and the special counsel investigation into possible collusion between President Trumps campaign and Russia.

Pence has never been suspected of engaging in collusion with Russian officials during the presidential race, nor of attempting to cover up any collusion after taking office like others inside and outside the administration have been accused of doing.

No evidence has surfaced to date that suggests collusion took place, but that does not stop Maddow from concluding that Pence is guilty.

Politicus USA reports:

“Even though Vice President Mike Pence hasn’t been the central focus of the ongoing investigation into the Trump administrations ties to Russia, Rachel Maddow explained on Thursday night that his choice of Richard Cullen as his personal criminal defense lawyer is proof that the vice president is afraid he might be brought down by the scandal, too.

Maddow pointed out that Cullen was central to other major Republican presidential scandals, including Ronald Reagan’s Iran-Contra and Richard Nixon’s Watergate.

In other words, Pence is worried that the current scandal surrounding the administration’s links to Russia and its potential obstruction of justice could bring the whole administration down, so he picked a lawyer with experience in similar matters.

“It’s very interesting that the vice president has felt the need to hire private counsel, right? The specific private counsel he’s chosen? Who knows if we should extrapolate from those previous experiences in previous Republican presidential scandals. … But, you know, it would appear that Vice President Mike Pence does have stuff to worry about here. … It’s not surprising that the vice president has no found himself a private lawyer, but oh what a private lawyer he has got.” 

The fact that Mike Pence is now lawyering up suggests that, while he has largely flown under the radar with respect to the Russia scandal, he may have reason to worry after all.

As Maddow pointed out, Pence has uttered complete lies with respect to his knowledge of Michael Flynn’s ties to Russia and about the reasons behind the firing of James Comey, which the vice president had said had absolutely nothing to do with the Russia investigation.

Pence’s initial attempt at playing dumb may have worked in the short-term, but the more time that has passed, the more it looks like he, too, is caught up in this major White House scandal and possible obstruction of justice.

His hiring of a lawyer that has experience dealing with other major GOP presidential scandals is proof that Pence knows he could be in trouble and go down with Trump.”

What is particularly infuriating is she should know better.

The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right of citizens to have an attorney.

In our adversary system of criminal justice, any person hauled into any legal process cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.

The right to counsel protects all of us from being subjected to criminal prosecution in an unfair trial.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to legal counsel at all significant stages of a criminal proceeding.

This right is so important that there is an associated right given to people who are unable to pay for legal assistance to have counsel appointed and paid for by the government.

Basically Maddow is claiming that an innocent person should not need an attorney.  And that is frankly not true.

In the book, ‘You Have the Right to Remain Innocent’ by James Duane, the author explains why any rational person would want the best attorney possible:

“Anybody who understands what goes on during a police interrogation asks for a lawyer and shuts up.” 

“Any time you agree to talk to the police or government investigators, you are rolling the dice and taking a terrible chance with your life. You do not know what you are up against, because you do not necessarily know what crime they are really investigating.

They may tell you, but what they say may be a lie. You also do not know what evidence they already think they have against you. They may tell you, but again, they might only be lying.

And even if you are completely innocent, there is absolutely no way you could possibly have any idea whether the truthful details you give the police could tragically get you ensnared in a web of ambiguous circumstances, later leaving you in the position of trying in vain to convince the jury that it was all just an amazing coincidence.

“Perhaps it was true a century ago—I deeply regret that it is no longer true—but the United States criminal justice system long ago lost any legitimate claim to the loyal cooperation of American citizens.

You cannot write tens of thousands of criminal statutes, including many touching upon conduct that is neither immoral nor dangerous, write those laws as broadly as you can imagine, scatter them throughout the thousands of pages of the United States Code—and then expect decent law-abiding, unsuspecting citizens to cooperate with an investigation into whether they may have violated some law they have never even heard about.

The next time some police officer or government agent asks you whether you would be willing to answer a few questions about where you have been and what you have been doing, you must respectfully but very firmly decline.” 

“If you are asked any question by a police officer or a government agent and you realize that it is not in your best interest to answer, you should not mention the Fifth Amendment privilege or tell the police that you wish to exercise your right to avoid incriminating yourself.

In this day and age, there is too great a danger that the police and the prosecutor might later persuade the judge to use that statement against you as evidence of your guilt. And if they do, to make matters much worse, you have no guarantee that the FBI agent in your case will not slightly misremember your exact words.” 

And this is especially true if the investigator is a special prosecutor with a political agenda.