I've been a litigator/trial lawyer/arbitrator for nearly 33 years. I've represented clients I didn't like very much, and I've represented clients who were at least partially wrong.
But I've never done what Philbin + Cipollone are doing.
1/
But I've never done what Philbin + Cipollone are doing.
1/
I've never lied for a client. I've never made an argument I knew to be legally spurious.
When my client was wrong, I've found the places where my client was RIGHT, + argued those.
2/
When my client was wrong, I've found the places where my client was RIGHT, + argued those.
2/
E.g.: "Ladies + gents of the jury, my client caused the accident. He's liable! BUT the plaintiff was speeding, too, + he's overstating his injuries. So my client is liable – but I ask you to be fair when you award damages."
It can be VERY effective, bec it's based on truth.
3/
It can be VERY effective, bec it's based on truth.
3/
And Trump's lawyers could do the same. E.g., they could admit Impoundment Control Act violation while arguing it's not impeachable and urging censure instead. They could agree that the whistleblower is irrelevant while still pointing out any discrepancies in his/her complaint.
4/
4/
In short, lawyers not only can, but ethically MUST, find a way to represent their clients effectively while preserving the integrity of the search for truth. Believe it it not, those are the rules of our profession.
5/
5/
But Cipollone and Philbin and Bondi wouldn't know Truth if it was enlarged on foamcore and Jesus Himself pointed it out to them with a laserpointer.
Professionally, these "lawyers" disgust me even more than Trump does. He's just sick; they knowingly shame a noble profession.
6/6
Professionally, these "lawyers" disgust me even more than Trump does. He's just sick; they knowingly shame a noble profession.
6/6
