>>I’m tempted to believe that Theodore Olson wouldn’t have represented him for years if he didn’t believe he was denied justice.
Oh, come on, you really believe that.
Lawyers do it for the money.
Who paid Olson’s fees? Only if he did it pro bono would his representation mean anything else.
In general I’d a agree with you, but Ted Olson is a political animal, and it’s odd to go from representing Ronald Reagan in Iran-Contra. But he represented Wen Ho Lee too, so maybe spies interest him. I wouldn’t base a decision either way on Olson’s presence, his interest could be primarily a function of the unusual legal issues.
Do you know how much, if any, he got paid for representing Pollard? I don't - it is a simple, unloaded, question.