- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Can you imagine a case you would have declined to accept? If yes, what factors would you have weighed to arrive at your conclusion?
Once having been retained, can you imagine learning of a fact set that might've compelled you to recuse (is that the right word? resign?) yourself?
Not trying to bait you or set a trap here. Knowing that you tend to argue from core principles (in our adversarial system of justice, everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense) I'm curious as to whether this matter is absolutely black/white for you.
I think many (myself included) have trouble not only with the nature of the client, but what appear to be the likely motivations for accepting the case. You come across as similar to the ACLU lawyers - willing to defend "hate speech" as a matter of "free speech" principle. Or accused terrorists, on the basis of the fact that they might not be guilty. (Yes, I'm aware Chiquita might not have been guilty).
Holder, OTOH, does seem to have collected a big paycheck in order to help BigCorp, obtain a slap on the wrist for some heinous isn't a strong enough word, activity.
You don't detect even a whiff of taint?
And please (as if you need my permission) ignore this if the personal questions are "too" personal.
