They also remember you are a crappy one.

that most Professional Codes of Ethics are just laughable these days and backed up by "legal beagles" that really don't have any. I know, for example, that claims against real estate brokers for misconduct have an extremely short reporting time period, essentially over before the victim knows what hit 'em. Good luck finding those who will fight again banking and insurance giants, corporate labor, or government shake-downs of low- to no income American citizens unless it will go mainstream high-profile.

and many of the other Watergate miscreants who wound up in prison.

.... and no Rudy, you can't handle Adam Schiff. You're a fool if you think you can.

Keep digging that hole.

This almost as dumb as Jr claiming attorney-client privilege on a convo with Dump45 because there was a lawyer in the room. Schiff isn't going to let that slide like Mueller did.

The good ole days.

Of course lawyers are called to testify all the time. One of the funniest cross-examinations I've ever seen is when Yale Galanter had to testify regarding his defense of OJ Simpson in Simpson's armed robbery trial.

the House subpoenas.

Explainer: How powerful are Congress subpoenas, contempt citations?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-congress-subpoena-explainer/explainer-how-powerful-are-congress-subpoenas-contempt-citations-idUSKCN1S81FP

What Can Congress Do If Flynn (Or Anyone Else) Refuses to Comply With a Subpoena?
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-can-congress-do-if-flynn-or-anyone-else-refuses-comply-subpoena

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/fining-william-barr-congresss-best-option/589798/

The criminal-contempt statute, passed in 1857, makes it a federal crime to defy congressional subpoenas. Congress has the option of asking the Justice Department to sue anyone held in contempt for violating this federal law. If Congress succeeds in obtaining a favorable judgment, the judge can order the contemner to be jailed or fined. But, not surprisingly, if the individual held in contempt is an executive-branch official, Justice will likely refuse to sue him or her—as it has in every case involving a federal official in the past 10 years.
,,,
First, courts are hesitant to entertain disputes that involve a tug-of-war between two branches of the government. Second, litigating the matter in courts can be time-consuming in practice, so it’s not helpful when Congress’s main concern is expediting access to information. In the past, similar cases have dragged out in the courts for long enough that the requesting Congress and the incumbent administration’s terms both expired before reaching a resolution.

You really want to go there, regarding "intellectual heavyweights"?

questions because of client/presidential privilege."

They really think their circular reasoning will work.

you're a pretty damn poor one!