Justice is served
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
Shouldn't Comey decide whether Fitzgerald has his best interests in mind?
Is that the issue?
Not if the attorney has a conflict of interest. He could be protecting himself to the detriment of Comey.
Think much?
That is for Comey to decide. We know that the prosecutor has beyond a conflict of interest in defending Comey, in that he has absolutely no interest in defending Comey.
This idea that the prosecution gets to pick the defense is bizarre.
No, James Comey's opinion does not override the prosecution's motion to disqualify one of his attorneys (specifically, lead counsel Patrick Fitzgerald) for an alleged conflict of interest.
Under U.S. federal law and ethical rules (governed by the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and adopted in federal courts via local rules), the determination of whether an attorney has a disqualifying conflict—such as Fitzgerald's purported involvement in Comey's 2017 memo disclosures to the media—is a judicial decision made by the presiding judge to ensure the integrity of the proceedings and protect the defendant's rights.
The client's waiver or opinion (here, Comey's apparent support for retaining Fitzgerald, as evidenced by the defense team's filings) is a relevant factor but not dispositive; courts may reject it if the conflict is deemed actual (rather than potential) and non-waivable, particularly in cases involving potential breaches of confidentiality or loyalty that could undermine the defense or implicate third parties.
In this case, U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff is handling the matter in the Eastern District of Virginia. Prosecutors filed a notice on October 19, 2025, signaling intent to move for disqualification based on seized materials suggesting Fitzgerald's role in the disclosures, which they argue creates an "insurmountable conflict."
The defense responded on October 20, 2025, denying any wrongdoing by Fitzgerald and accusing the government of defamation, but the ultimate ruling rests with the judge, who has already expressed skepticism about the prosecution's delay in raising the issue. No decision has been issued as of October 25, 2025, but precedents like Wheat v. United States (1988) affirm that trial courts have broad discretion to disqualify counsel over a client's objection when necessary to avoid serious risks to a fair trial.
Just another frivolous legality aimed at wasting time to prolong the procedures, Bondi knows it is a shit case and just wants to milk it as long as she can for Trump
So one more time, you are saying that defendants no longer have the right to a defense of their choosing, but rather the prosecutor gets to pick the defense? How Stalinist of you.
Is that a fact?
I'm saying what I already said and substantiated.
Given the participants and the case, best bet, Trump learned a long time ago from Cohn you got to use and abuse the Law anyone way you can, ethics is ever even a momentary consideration
It’s a joke, as I said it is all designed to delay and stall, Bondi knows it is a shit case, she has to extend it as long as she can to keep any media attention
So are you. Congrats!