Logic leads from one point to the next; it is a failure of basic logic when a point is blunted the proponent shifts sideways like a crab to avoid the obvious conclusion. It is a weasel move, a straw man, whatever you want to call it.
There comes a time when an argument is shown to be invalid.
We past that point some time ago. Let go.
Last time:
Assuming you agree with the 5th A right against self incrimination and 4th A right to counsel and right to call W’s on your own behalf, how do you reconcile the two if your own lawyer can be compelled to testify about your communications?
You cannot be candid with the lawyer as he can now be interrogated.
Anything you say to your lawyer can now be used against you.
You give the prosecutors the ability to “disappear” exculpatory evidence obtained through their interrogations of your own lawyer. [That kind of misconduct seems to be in the news now]
And that’s just off the top of my head.
Like I said, think this through.