The DOJ cited a possible conflict of interest with former FBI Director James Comey’s defense attorney because he’s allegedly a possible witness.The federal prosecutors in the U.S. District Court for Virginia’s Eastern District told Judge Michael Nachmanoff that Patrick Fitzgerald, Comey’s lead attorney, might have a connection to the case.On September 25, a federal grand jury indicted Comey “on charges believed to stem from Comey’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2020 about the FBI’s investigation into links between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia.”
Comey pleaded not guilty.The prosecutors told Nachmanoff that the “evidence for filter review could contain exculpatory or inculpatory evidence,” which they believe could reveal a conflict of interest:
Evidence in the government’s custody includes potentially protected material because the evidence was obtained from an attorney. Relevant to this motion, the attorney has informed the government that the quarantined evidence contains communications between the defendant and several attorneys. The current lead defense counsel appears to be a party to some of these communications.
Seems that Comey and his attorney go back. The prosecutors allege that Fitzgerald helped Comey leak confidential information to the press:
Additionally, based on publicly disclosed information, the defendant used current lead defense counsel to improperly disclose classified information. The DOJ OIG’s final description of Defendant’s conduct is worth consideration:
The responsibility to protect sensitive law enforcement information falls in large part to the employees of the FBI who have access to it through their daily duties. On occasion, some of these employees may disagree with decisions by prosecutors, judges, or higher ranking FBI and Department officials about the actions to take or not take in criminal and counterintelligence matters. They may even, in some situations, distrust the legitimacy of those supervisory, prosecutorial, or judicial decisions. But even when these employees believe that their most strongly-held personal convictions might be served by an unauthorized disclosure, the FBI depends on them not to disclose sensitive information.Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility. By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees—and the many thousands more former FBI employees—who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.
The prosecutors requested that the judge grant all parties access to all relevant information.
They hope the judge approves a neutral team to review the communications to determine if the material is privileged pr evidence of misconduct.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY