I am a lawyer as well.
My understanding is that Kiko acted as a lobbyist and not an attorney. Either way, he did not have to take the case but chose to do so anyway. Now he is in potential conflict with a client, or at least an ex-client, and this can raise legal ethics concerns.
Regardless of his sympathies for the Muslim Brotherhood, he has put himself into a compromised position. As far as I am concerned, the implication is that he will work to steer the investigation away from motive, and away from exploring involvement by the Muslim Brotherhood unless the evidence is so overwhelming that it can’t be ignored.
Gowdy has tainted the entire committee by bringing him on. Whether it was intetional sabotage or not remains to be seen. Gowdy already sides with the amnesty crowd so I do question his integrity already.
OK, now I get it, it’s actually Gowdy you don’t approve of. Kiko is just a way of getting at Gowdy. That’s explains your assertions about both men.
I’ll stick with Gowdy, my gut tells me he’s putting together a solid team.