re: #67 No Malarkey!

Even the guilty are entitled to a defense, and the defense his attorney is presenting, while contemptible, is colorable in a legalistic way, so he won’t face bar discipline, nor should he, imho.

This is why I said that.

He added that “every lawyer is ethically and by oath obligated to pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client’s cause or endeavor.

I don’t feel any of what Eastman did was lawful or ethical and his attorney is doing the same. There’s a difference between rigorous defense and rigorous defense that skirts the boundaries of law and ethics. I think the latter wasn’t skirted but stomped on.