The last minute rumors

[dan_bgblue]

Bolton and others are coming out of the woodwork at the last minute

[Doc]

I am not seeing anything of this. Only thing I see is Murcowski voting against witnesses making it a clear no go for the dems.

However, one bit of correction on the now witness bunk. There were witnesses. All those who testified during the House Impeachment investigation were in fact witnesses. There testimony was presented to the senate for their review. That was the part of "making the case" and the house failed to make its case. It is not the senates job to investigate. That is what the HOUSE does. The house had their opportunity to get all the witnesses they wanted, and do so under their rules. The elected to prevent a defense and elected to NOT CALL or fight for the right to call witnesses that the President felt had executive privilege. It is the the Senate's job or responsibility to make or further the houses evidence. Likewise it is not the President's job or obligation to do it either by providing witness he believes are privilege. He did that with Mueller and see what that got him. Likewise he presented the transcript of this impeachable call which the left tried to convince people it was something other than it was. For a slam dunk case, the house fell short. They will try to blame the senate but it their own ineptness and rush that led to a evidence lacking trial.

[UKHistory]

There is evidence but if you were willing to vote for man that said your father killed jfk and you were wife is six. There is no justice

He is already said he can kill anyone and get away with. He has attorney general who says he is above the law and douche of a Harvard lawyer that says he can’t get impeached. And he grab whoever he pleases.

Trump has a mic if a shot of getting found guilty as a white deputy in Mississippi for killing a black guy circa 1963. Or maybe 2020

[Doc]

There is evidence but if you were willing to vote for man that said your father killed jfk and you were wife is six. There is no justice

He is already said he can kill anyone and get away with. He has attorney general who says he is above the law and douche of a Harvard lawyer that says he can’t get impeached. And he grab whoever he pleases.

Trump has a mic if a shot of getting found guilty as a white deputy in Mississippi for killing a black guy circa 1963. Or maybe 2020

60,000,000 people disagree. Sorry Hilary lost.

This is no evidence there. The left can say it again and again, but that does not make it so. There is plenty of evidence of the left using political postion against the opponents...things like putting the IRS onto political rivals as Obsma did...or video of Biden bragging about a quid pro quo...or illegitmate FISA warrants....or Ryssian produced dossiers.....or ignored congressional warrants to Eric Holder. But as far as first hand evidence that Trump violated laws, show us.

Shiff and others gave it their best shot, tried to live up to their political promises and FAILED. They failed epically and looked like a bunch of novice idiot lawyers with zero understanding of the law despite being law makers.

[CitizenBBN]

There is evidence but if you were willing to vote for man that said your father killed jfk and you were wife is six. There is no justice

He is already said he can kill anyone and get away with. He has attorney general who says he is above the law and douche of a Harvard lawyer that says he can’t get impeached. And he grab whoever he pleases.

Trump has a mic if a shot of getting found guilty as a white deputy in Mississippi for killing a black guy circa 1963. Or maybe 2020

That Harvard lawyer is one of the greatest legal minds of our age. A jewish man who has fought his entire life for civil liberties for the oppressed. he is a liberal Democrat as well.

What he is not is a hypocrite.

For example, he strongly supports gun control, but being an honest man he supports repealing the 2nd Amendment versus trying to just legislate around it and pretend it doesn't exist. That's an honest opinion, and that's what he has done throughout his career, including aiding in the defense of many unpopular people on civil liberties grounds.

As for the rest, if a politician saying outlandish things is now grounds for overturning the vote of the People then we're going to have a lot of vacant offices. Does Elizabeth Warren get removed for saying she's Cherokee Indian?

Most important, Trump said those things BEFORE he was elected. The People voted for him knowing full well he was prone to such nonsense. It wasn't hidden, and the people accepted it, so there is absolutely no basis for the Congressional branch of government to overturn their will on that basis. None.

Justice? For someone so worried about losing democracy, you seem to be suggesting we ignore it when we don't like the results.

This Ukraine thing is completely out there, and now the voters can decide if its important or not. that's as it should be. This was never grounds sufficient to overturn an election and remove a President, but it is something that Congress could certainly investigate and make public for the voters to decide.

That's been done, and that is the justice that has been served. Now it's up to the voters to decide. IMO they will worry more about the economy and health care than they will the intrigue and intricacies of foreign aid to a far off land, esp. given that it appears there are plenty of corrupt US political ties to that country including Trump/Guliani but also Biden and even the DNC, who worked with Ukranians to find dirt on Trump.

I expect voters to, wisely, declare pox on both of the houses and move on to things that might actually impact their lives for the next 4 years.

[CitizenBBN]

60,000,000 people disagree. Sorry Hilary lost.

This is no evidence there. The left can say it again and again, but that does not make it so. There is plenty of evidence of the left using political postion against the opponents...things like putting the IRS onto political rivals as Obsma did...or video of Biden bragging about a quid pro quo...or illegitmate FISA warrants....or Ryssian produced dossiers.....or ignored congressional warrants to Eric Holder. But as far as first hand evidence that Trump violated laws, show us.

Shiff and others gave it their best shot, tried to live up to their political promises and FAILED. They failed epically and looked like a bunch of novice idiot lawyers with zero understanding of the law despite being law makers.

I find it hilarious that Obama utterly ignored Congressional subpoenas in Fast and Furious, as well as subsequent court orders (when the House did what it's supposed to do and sued in court), but that's not "obstruction of Congress" and what Trump did, which is refuse subpoenas and then never went to court b/c this House dropped the subpoenas, is somehow obstruction. Give me a break.

After three years of ceaseless investigating there is ZERO evidence of Russian ties, have been no laws broken, etc. and Trump is a despot, yet PROOF of FISA abuses, proof of ignored court orders, etc. was never questioned.

This is the greatest mental political masturbation I've ever seen, where you just continuously fantasize for purposes of self gratification of beliefs that have been disproven with some of the most intense investigations in US history.

Yes Trump is an ass. Yes I'm sure he pressured Ukraine into investigating the bidens. The problem is that a) every President pressures groups and foreign nations into things to help themselves politically, and b) it seems readily apparent Trump has a point and the Bidens do need to be investigated, and as CLEO of the land that's certainly within his prerogative.

It's certainly more justified than the IRS targeting conservative PACs to try to tilt the balance of spending in elections. That event should have had special prosecutors and people in jail, and nothing was done.

All the House did was uncover the fact of how politics is played in this country at that level. That's why we know the DNC paid a foreign spy to consult with Russian spys to dig up dirt on Trump, but that's not interfering or "cheating" in an election? How about lying to the FISA court to get warrants on Trump's campaign and then leaking the investigation before the election? Anyone going to jail for that yet?

Man, welcome to how the game is played, and it's clear from the past 3 years both sides are playing it, but only one is being lamblasted for it.

[UKHistory]

Impeachment is not nor should it be about overturning an election. It is about conduct of elected officials.

No doubt allies of mine in this fight would look for any excuse to get rid of him.

Douchewitzh is an attorney defending his client which means he professionally Will use whatever argument he can.

When questioned about his previous stance when Clinton was impeached, he just described himself as more correct now. His Jewish heritage has no bearing in him being arrogant.

He has laid out an argument for hat no doubt other president will use justify more heinous behavior

One last thing from me as I leave you to plot revolt to restore the Republic.

The worst thing about the impeachment is that his victory in the senate will embolden to greater acts of profiting off of and abusing his power.

[Doc]

That Harvard lawyer is one of the greatest legal minds of our age. A jewish man who has fought his entire life for civil liberties for the oppressed. he is a liberal Democrat as well.

What he is not is a hypocrite.

For example, he strongly supports gun control, but being an honest man he supports repealing the 2nd Amendment versus trying to just legislate around it and pretend it doesn't exist. That's an honest opinion, and that's what he has done throughout his career, including aiding in the defense of many unpopular people on civil liberties grounds.

As for the rest, if a politician saying outlandish things is now grounds for overturning the vote of the People then we're going to have a lot of vacant offices. Does Elizabeth Warren get removed for saying she's Cherokee Indian?

Most important, Trump said those things BEFORE he was elected. The People voted for him knowing full well he was prone to such nonsense. It wasn't hidden, and the people accepted it, so there is absolutely no basis for the Congressional branch of government to overturn their will on that basis. None.

Justice? For someone so worried about losing democracy, you seem to be suggesting we ignore it when we don't like the results.

This Ukraine thing is completely out there, and now the voters can decide if its important or not. that's as it should be. This was never grounds sufficient to overturn an election and remove a President, but it is something that Congress could certainly investigate and make public for the voters to decide.

That's been done, and that is the justice that has been served. Now it's up to the voters to decide. IMO they will worry more about the economy and health care than they will the intrigue and intricacies of foreign aid to a far off land, esp. given that it appears there are plenty of corrupt US political ties to that country including Trump/Guliani but also Biden and even the DNC, who worked with Ukranians to find dirt on Trump.

I expect voters to, wisely, declare pox on both of the houses and move on to things that might actually impact their lives for the next 4 years.

I highlighted this for a reason...because in a cesspool of turds and hypocrites (yes, redundant), he stands alone. I am in no way a Allen Dershowitz fan but he has gained much respect from me for actually doing what the left is having you think they are doing, which is standing up for the Constitution. Little disgust me as much as seeing "fat" Jerry Nadler sermonizing about how Impeachment should be bipartisan and used as a last resort (when Clinton was under impeachment for actually violating laws) and "scrawny" Jerry Nadler is sermonizing about how anything and everything is impeachable when it comes to Trump. Oh, and I hate when the GOP does it too

[CitizenBBN]

Impeachment is not nor should it be about overturning an election. It is about conduct of elected officials.

No doubt allies of mine in this fight would look for any excuse to get rid of him.

Douchewitzh is an attorney defending his client which means he professionally Will use whatever argument he can.

When questioned about his previous stance when Clinton was impeached, he just described himself as more correct now. His Jewish heritage has no bearing in him being arrogant.

He has laid out an argument for hat no doubt other president will use justify more heinous behavior

One last thing from me as I leave you to plot revolt to restore the Republic.

The worst thing about the impeachment is that his victory in the senate will embolden to greater acts of profiting off of and abusing his power.

Dershowitz didn't have to take the case. He took the case to address only constitutional questions, b/c he's an outspoken civil libertarian. he will almost always be found on the side of defendants b.c of it.

But I do have to ask. You are obviously upset he's about to be acquitted. Did you ever think for a second he was going to be removed? This has been a complete exercise in politics, and never was about removing him. The bar is so high it would never happen.

So if anyone went into this thinking it was going to bring Trump down, that's going to be tough to swallow no doubt. This was about trying to triangulate politically on key Senate races in November, which is why they House dropped the subpoenas and made for a super short investigation. They wanted to force the witness vote in the senate where they think they can make some political hay.

This is just a game now, was from the start.

[dan_bgblue]

Chuck Schumer says he understands why Mitch McConnell and President Trump want short, rush impeachment trial

Democrats signaled in the runup to the looming conclusion of President Trump's impeachment proceedings that they'll simply refuse to accept his all-but-certain acquittal because his "sham" trial lacked proper witnesses and evidence.

Signaling how they will message the saga in the coming months on the campaign trail, top Democratic leaders in the House and Senate argued Trump can never erase the stain of impeachment because the trial wasn’t legitimate.

"The president's acquittal will be meaningless," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., declared Friday, "because it will be the result of a sham trial. If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink."

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif. said Republicans may get what they want -- a speedy end to the trial -- but it won't have any value.
Steve Hilton: Pelosi stunts vs. Trump resultsVideo

"There will be no true acquittal if there is no fair trial," Harris, a former White House hopeful, said Friday.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who for weeks held onto the two articles of impeachment to try to force the Senate to commit to witnesses, said she won't accept a not guilty verdict in the Senate as vindication.

“He will not be acquitted,” Pelosi said Thursday. “You cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial, and you don't have a trial if you don't have witnesses and documentation and that.”

Pelosi has already been gloating that her House of Representatives gave Trump a black mark in the history books that can never be erased.

“You're impeached forever," Pelosi said with a big grin in an interview with HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” "No matter what the Senate does, that can never be erased."

Democrats have hammered that without witnesses testifying, such as former national security adviser John Bolton, the Senate trial amounts to a cover-up.

With Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., refusing to join Democrats in wanting new witnesses to appear, the trial is poised to end soon without any new testimony beyond the 17 witnesses that appeared in the House.

House impeachment manager Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., backed Pelosi’s point in an appearance on CNN Friday.

“I fundamentally agree with her point that in the absence of witnesses, in the absence of documents, in the absence of evidence, in the absence of a fair trial, how can the American people conclude that justice was done?" he said.

[CitizenBBN]

And that was their ploy all along. They are charged with providing those witnesses and documents, didn't do it, then try to blame the GOP for not doing it.

The good news is it won't matter either way. It will have very little sway on the election by November. People vote on other issues, things that have meaning in their lives, and this is just Washington theatrics.


BTW, Sen. Jeffries was the one who said the dossier wasn't election interference b/c it was paid for and wasn't a government act, to which he was asked if Trump just paid the Ukraine to open an investigation does he vote to acquit?

[dan_bgblue]

Unlike typical Senate votes, the rules for impeachment require that any debate among senators take place in secret. Each senator can speak for 10 minutes apiece on a vote on witnesses and 15 minutes each on the final question of whether or not to acquit the president.

Democratic senators will put forth two motions that will force a debate on the two big looming votes -- witnesses and the articles of impeachment -- which would automatically extend the time of the trial. They propose that the debate be out in the open, rather than in a closed session.

Anyone surprised that the Democrats want to change the constitutionally established rules?

[CitizenBBN]

The danger of this all is the Democratic party is playing to the mob. "Throw the bum out!"

The problem is that the checks and balances of the system were set up to avoid exactly this kind of over the top, knee-jerk reactionary mob rule. They are stoking that fire in every way possible for political reasons, then complain about how we are being divided.

Gee, I wonder why we're so divided. Maybe when an opponent wins you don't declare you will do everything within your power to never work with him on anything. That might be a start to "healing the divide". Ya think?

[dan_bgblue]

That Harvard lawyer is one of the greatest legal minds of our age. A jewish man who has fought his entire life for civil liberties for the oppressed. he is a liberal Democrat as well.

He is tough too (https://www.foxnews.com/media/alan-dershowitz-cnn-trump-impeachment)

[KeithKSR]

Here is the biggest issue for the Dems. Even if everything they claim is true, which it isn’t, they have not alleged an impeachable offense, because they alleged no violation of law.

[Catfan73]

The Democrats are hoping a whole bunch of senators just signed their own death warrants by not allowing witnesses.

I did notice gas prices took a pretty big drop today and that’s pretty important to a lot of people lol. For most of them this will all be but a foggy memory soon. Of course the vast majority of them can’t be bothered to vote anyway.

[Catonahottinroof]

I think the bigger issue will be in the house where the majority has spent all it’s time to subvert the administration. They are all up for re-election and this particular fact will be used in the campaign against all incumbents....both Republicans and Democrats.
The Democrats are hoping a whole bunch of senators just signed their own death warrants by not allowing witnesses.

I did notice gas prices took a pretty big drop today and that’s pretty important to a lot of people lol. For most of them this will all be but a foggy memory soon. Of course the vast majority of them can’t be bothered to vote anyway.

[suncat05]

There just isn't enough rope......👍

[CitizenBBN]

Both sides will claim victory, as politicians always do. Democrats will claim victory that Trump was impeached, and then try to hang the "sham trial" on Senators in vulnerable seats.

The GOP will claim victory that Trump was acquitted from the "sham impeachment" and will try to hang it on the House members in vulnerable seats.

How will it play out? Like all Congressional politics it's truly mostly local politics. There are only a few Senators with any serious vulnerability but there are enough Democratic House members in districts Trump won in the election to turn the House.

Going to be interesting.

[dan_bgblue]

There just isn't enough rope......��

Are you still wasting rope on the number of turns in the wrap? I am down to 5 for anything under 170 lbs

[CitizenBBN]

Sometimes you need to let people hang themselves.

Tucker Carlson was right about this one. IMO the GOP handed this election to the Dems by not doing anything other than the tax cut while they held power. The Dems just needed to focus on issues like health care and throw bill after bill against the GOP and Trump.

Instead they focused on these tin foil hat conspiracies and became utterly obsessed with just being against Trump.

While they did that they have ended up letting their party platform shift so far left the possible winner in Iowa isn't even a Democrat. he's a true socialist who is only a Democrat by caucus.

It's given the GOP a golden opportunity to win. Now they need to throw bill after bill of positive work against the House, like they did with the USMC, which the House had to swallow b/c of the unions.

Now go after health care, with a real proposal, something Trump can run on. He can then talk about how he's lived up to a number of his goals he promised and in his next term will deliver on X, Y and Z.

Now, the GOP will absolutely NOT do this, b/c they aren't any smarter than Democrats, and are also so deep in the swamp they can't see clearly, but that's their golden opportunity.

[MickintheHam]

Sometimes you need to let people hang themselves.

Tucker Carlson was right about this one. IMO the GOP handed this election to the Dems by not doing anything other than the tax cut while they held power. The Dems just needed to focus on issues like health care and throw bill after bill against the GOP and Trump.

Instead they focused on these tin foil hat conspiracies and became utterly obsessed with just being against Trump.

While they did that they have ended up letting their party platform shift so far left the possible winner in Iowa isn't even a Democrat. he's a true socialist who is only a Democrat by caucus.

It's given the GOP a golden opportunity to win. Now they need to throw bill after bill of positive work against the House, like they did with the USMC, which the House had to swallow b/c of the unions.

Now go after health care, with a real proposal, something Trump can run on. He can then talk about how he's lived up to a number of his goals he promised and in his next term will deliver on X, Y and Z.

Now, the GOP will absolutely NOT do this, b/c they aren't any smarter than Democrats, and are also so deep in the swamp they can't see clearly, but that's their golden opportunity.

Bloomberg, the likely nominee is going after Trump on Healthcare. The Donald can cut the legs from under him by going after Healthcare and giving the House a bill, they must approve.

[suncat05]

Are you still wasting rope on the number of turns in the wrap? I am down to 5 for anything under 170 lbs

👍

[Catfan73]

I think Bernie wins Iowa but there’s not much chance that Biden won’t be the nominee come November.

[dan_bgblue]

The Rern will have a lot of Momentum if he wins the first 2 and if he wins Iowa's he is even more likely to win NH.

[CitizenBBN]

This could be an open convention. If Bernie wins Iowa and NH, he's unlikely to win a lot in the South, and if Biden and Bloomberg and maybe one other all split that up it will be a heck of a lot of fun to watch the convention.

Still an open race IMO, and a really good chance it will be settled in back rooms at the convention. They used to be smoke filled back rooms, but times have changed.

[ukpumacat]

It cracks me up seeing all of these Conservative talking heads on Fox News praising Alan Dershowitz and using him as some kind of proof as to Trump’s innocence.
The truth is that Dershowitz is a media/trial whore and EVERYONE knows it. Hannity knows it. Tucker knows it. They all know it. It just so happens that right now they can use it so they are.
That dude will sell his soul to anyone willing to pay for it.

OJ.
Tyson.
Harry Reems.
Weinstein.
Epstein.
Trump.

That’s quite a group right there. And it’s not exhaustive.

Defend Trump all you want. But please, please stop pretending Dershowitz is some kind of honorable liberal who simply cares about the truth.
The guy would have defended Hitler if he were available. He’s a complete hack and I thought so long before this stupid impeachment trial.
Honestly, please....take Dershowitz and make him one of your own. Just be careful....those massages at the Epstein pedophile mansion were filmed.

[CitizenBBN]

I don't make him my own, and there's no doubt he loves the media.

But you'll notice all of those guys he is defending. The truth is he will defend about anyone, no doubt. He's a die hard civil libertarian, he will almost always conclude the defense has been wronged.

So I'll give you he'll defend about anyone, it's been his MO for his whole career, but he's also brilliant, and he's most definitely liberal.

And in this case I don't know if a President needs a textbook crime to be impeached, but I do think it requires some kind of "high crime" well beyond what we have seen with Trump so far.

But his arguments and briefs are very well researched and sound. You make him sound like the intellectual equivalent of Avanetti, and that's just false. He's a hard core defense guy, but the fact he loves the media doesn't really address his positions.

[Doc]

I think Bernie wins Iowa but there’s not much chance that Biden won’t be the nominee come November.

We should know if he won or not sometime next week.

[ukpumacat]

I don't make him my own, and there's no doubt he loves the media.

But you'll notice all of those guys he is defending. The truth is he will defend about anyone, no doubt. He's a die hard civil libertarian, he will almost always conclude the defense has been wronged.

So I'll give you he'll defend about anyone, it's been his MO for his whole career, but he's also brilliant, and he's most definitely liberal.

And in this case I don't know if a President needs a textbook crime to be impeached, but I do think it requires some kind of "high crime" well beyond what we have seen with Trump so far.

But his arguments and briefs are very well researched and sound. You make him sound like the intellectual equivalent of Avanetti, and that's just false. He's a hard core defense guy, but the fact he loves the media doesn't really address his positions.

OJ.
Tyson.
Reems.
Weinstein.
Epstein.
Trump.

That that list tells me everything I have ever needed to know about the guy. It doesn’t tell me his intelligence or his politics (don’t care). It doesn’t tell me he’s some wholesome civil libertarian who stands up for the accused (he’s not). It tells far more. And now Trumps name is on that list forever more.

[Doc]

OJ.
Tyson.
Reems.
Weinstein.
Epstein.
Trump.

That that list tells me everything I have ever needed to know about the guy. It doesn’t tell me his intelligence or his politics (don’t care). It doesn’t tell me he’s some wholesome civil libertarian who stands up for the accused (he’s not). It tells far more. And now Trumps name is on that list forever more.

It tells me he represents those who hire him, just like every lawyer. Every person is entitled to a defense, unless you are Donald Trump, and that is what lawyers do. Personally I find it funny when they will argue one thing this week because their client is "A" and next week take the opposite position because their client is "B" however that says nothing about them personally. I would expect a lawyer to argue my side if I hired him. However one thing that is consistent is his (Dershowitz) stance on civil liberties. He does not waver.

[CitizenBBN]

OJ.
Tyson.
Reems.
Weinstein.
Epstein.
Trump.

That that list tells me everything I have ever needed to know about the guy. It doesn’t tell me his intelligence or his politics (don’t care). It doesn’t tell me he’s some wholesome civil libertarian who stands up for the accused (he’s not). It tells far more. And now Trumps name is on that list forever more.

He's defended a lot more people than that. To somehow put down Trump by association of other people he's defended is a logical fallacy at best, and simply disingenuous smear at worst.

It's like putting down the ACLU for having defended the nazis. It doesn't mean you agree with them, they act on grounds of protecting civil liberties, and often the most likely times those go out the window is in cases with lots of emotion over someone who is hated.

[Catfan73]

We should know if he won or not sometime next week.

Hahahahaha

[ukpumacat]

He's defended a lot more people than that. To somehow put down Trump by association of other people he's defended is a logical fallacy at best, and simply disingenuous smear at worst.

It's like putting down the ACLU for having defended the nazis. It doesn't mean you agree with them, they act on grounds of protecting civil liberties, and often the most likely times those go out the window is in cases with lots of emotion over someone who is hated.

Again, defend him at your own risk. He is a media/trial whore and a slime ball that did far more than just defend Epstein. My statements about him are not political at all. They are very personal.

[CitizenBBN]

Again, defend him at your own risk. He is a media/trial whore and a slime ball that did far more than just defend Epstein. My statements about him are not political at all. They are very personal.

And if that's the case I hope it comes out and he's punished like so many others tied up with Epstein.

I didn't defend him as a person. I don't know him from Adam. Maybe he beats his kids, what do I know?

I only defend his legal reasoning.

What you are doing is an ad hominem fallacy, attacking the messenger and not the message. Dershowitz is absolutely one of the last civil libertarians left, a man who defends the rights of Nazis as a Jew. And he is also right to do so, as civil liberties are the foundation stone of our liberty.

But is he also a personal dirtbag? Maybe, and if you know he's one then OK, I'll accept it. But that doesn't dismiss his position on Trump or anyone else.

Bill Clinton is certainly a misogynist and possibly a rapist at one point. He was also an effective President. Trump is an ass and I bet working with him is a nightmare, but he's also proving effective at his job.

Lots of people in history were outstanding at their profession and also horrible people. Maybe Dershowitz is one of them, but it doesn't change the correctness of his arguments in this situation.

As for seeking the media and big name trials, that's not exactly grounds for being disbarred in that profession. lol. Now, a doctor turning down patients they could help b/c they don't like how it will make them look, that I get, but lawyers taking cases b/c it's good for their career and profile isn't even noteworthy.

And big name people seek him out b/c he also gives them credibility and cache. That's pretty typical as well.

By your approach we can dismiss the Declaration of Independence b/c the author was also a slaveholder. I dismiss that argument as a fundamental flaw of logic. The person can be flawed and still be insightful and right on an issue.