defending her client (who I'm sure is paying her VERY well). The extra added attraction of her working at fox and she'll claim she wasn't harassed and never saw harassment by ailes. Who she defends has nothing to do with her political leanings. She's doing her job.

I made the point, as you did, leftynyc, that she's a lawyer. But because of her Democratic activism, I found her victim-blaming comments remarkably offensive, particularly coming from a woman.

A lawyer can choose to not represent a client for any number of reasons. I would think that personal and professional ethics might influence such a decision. In any event, I agree with you that Mr. Ailes is paying her firm a lot of money.

The ones that go on that channel and constantly bash democrats and praise republicans

You say this just because Tulsi spoke the truth about the illegal Syrian war and the difference between Islam the religion and radical political Islam or Islamism that ISIS etc follows on different news agencies, including fox. Facts are facts, regardless of where they're spoken.

instead of repugs.

She's an opportunistic DINO.

her support for Assad on the idea that Assad can damage ISIS more is not borne out by reality since he has used most of his power against his own people and not ISIS.

it's also the position of the Russians, who have not been all that helpful either.

First, I never suggested that Roger Ailes is not entitled to a lawyer.

Second, I don't believe he has been criminally charged by law enforcement. The cases pending are civil lawsuits. Of course, he's still entitled to a lawyer.

More to the point, why would Ms. Estrich take Mr. Ailes as a client? She is under no obligation to represent him. I guess the money's that good.

Ultimately, Ms. Estrich ran a terrible campaign for Michael Dukakis. And I find her victim-blaming comments offensive and not representative of Democratic values. She's certainly taken a different professional path.

Money grubber with no principles.
She's a disappointment.