Lawyers have no obligation to "support" their clients. They have a responsibility to represent their clients legal position within the bounds of the law. Lawyers who make public appearances claiming their clients innocence are acting as a "mouthpiece". There's a big difference.
Gingrich publicly proclaimed the value of Fannie and Freddie in 2007, a time when he had to have known it's precarious position. He didn't do this as a "historian" (did he really believe people would buy this?), he did this as a hired gun. The money was more important to him then telling the truth to the American people. If he did, much of the tragedy of the collapse of our economy might have been avoided.
Yep, this is a great record to run on.
Actually, I’ve seen lawyers on TV doing public relations for their clients, trying to paint the most favorable image of them possible. That is a fairly standard expectation, I think.
That does not mean that behind the scenes the lawyer isn’t disagreeing with some things and agreeing with others.
I’m surprised that people are upset that Newt made money off of F&F, but that other businessman who do virtually the same thing (advertising agencies, for example) can make millions doing the same thing, and that’s just fine.
If you learned that some ad agency had a 200 grand per year contract with F&F, would it bother you? It wouldn’t me.