"My client is an idiot, but he's not a malicious idiot" is a step or two above the "it was just a prank, bro" defense. Not from a legal standpoint, but a moral one.
The usual arguments to be made are not available to him, so I guess he has to respond with this. He can't argue that his client wasn't there. This is a very well documented crime. He can't argue that his client wasn't aware of what it was he was doing: there are numerous pre-raid interviews where this Shaman lays out his worldview in crystal clarity. This man really thought he was doing something on par with the October revolution.
I feel like our friend is going to learn one of the harsh laws of history: If you win, it's a revolution; if you lose, it's sedition or treason.
Yeah I mean, there is no doubt he did it. He's front and center in so many different sources of footage, saying his fucking name and everything. So trying the tack of "my client didn't do it." Is just not available, at all. So, the lawyer can only do what he can. There is actually a really interesting podcast, called Opening Arguments, where a real lawyer, and a friend of his that is mostly a comedian, but also has an interest in law, discuss various legal issues on every episode. There is one episode, just a few weeks ago I think, where the main question is "What does a lawyer do if their client tells them they're guilty?" And it kind of touches on this subject I think. As far as what a lawyer can/can't do in situations like that. And how he can 'best represent his client" , which, in situations like this, boils down to "ok so, I'm advising you to take the deal, because you're totally fucked and there is no way you're getting out of this scott free. " Whether the client takes the lawyer's advice, is another matter.