Another day, another article in a major publication implying thatArthur Folsom, the Denver-area attorney representing terror suspect Najibullah Zazi
, couldn't be more doomed to disaster if his legal background consisted entirely of watching season three ofNight Court
on DVD. This time, the doubt is slathered on by theWall Street Journal
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
, whose piece is crammed with deadpan passages like this:
But legal analysts say Mr. Zazi is now locked into whatever he may have said during that 28-hour interrogation, before he had a good sense of the evidence against him or a chance to consult at length with counsel.
Mr. Folsom said his client has nothing to hide and was right to speak to the FBI. "If you're asking if I regret having done that," he said, "the answer is no."
Some WSJ commenters are kinder to Folsom, with one declaring, "Good material for John Grisham's next book," and another responding, "Or John Le Carre. He already has one out portraying the Muslim as the sympathetic character and the US intelligence community (and a few other foreign intel agencies) as paranoid, trigger happy, ethically challenged louts. This one is right up his alley."
In the fictional version, of course, Zazi would be innocent, and his lawyer would look like a young Tom Cruise. Good luck with that one, Mr. Folsom.