Federal prosecutors have dropped a significant challenge in the criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey, targeting his lead defense attorney for possible involvement in past disclosures.
As reported by Fox News, the Justice Department on Sunday moved to address a potential conflict of interest with Patrick Fitzgerald, Comey’s longtime friend and lawyer, suggesting his role in sharing sensitive information after Comey’s 2017 firing by President Donald Trump could warrant disqualification.
This filing, presented to U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, also requested a swift setup of a "filter team" to review privileged materials and assess Fitzgerald’s actions.
Prosecutors pointed to the deep ties between Comey and Fitzgerald, both former colleagues in the Southern District of New York, as a red flag. Their yearslong relationship raises questions about whether Fitzgerald aided in disseminating information later deemed classified.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Tyler Lemons and Gabriel Diaz stated in the filing, "Based on publicly disclosed information, the defendant used current lead defense counsel to improperly disclose classified information." Such a claim, if substantiated, could unravel the defense’s foundation, though one wonders if this isn’t more about rattling Comey than proving a point.
A 2019 Justice Department Inspector General report, cited by prosecutors, criticized Comey for sharing details of Trump interactions with his legal team. Yet, that same report found no evidence Comey or his attorneys leaked classified data to the media, a detail that undercuts the urgency of this latest maneuver.
Comey’s legal team fired back on Monday, calling the prosecutors’ accusations baseless and defamatory toward Fitzgerald. They argued the memos Comey shared with his lawyers weren’t classified at the time, only labeled as such after the fact.
"In short, there is no good faith basis for attributing criminal conduct to either Mr. Comey or his lead defense counsel," the defense stated in their filing. This retort smells of a desperate attempt to smear, especially when the classification issue seems more like bureaucratic gamesmanship than a genuine crime.
The defense further rejected any notion of a conflict between Comey and Fitzgerald, insisting there’s no justification for disqualification. It’s hard not to see this as the Justice Department flexing muscle, perhaps hoping to disrupt Comey’s strategy early on.
Last month, Comey was charged in the Eastern District of Virginia with one felony count of making a false statement and another of obstruction. These serious accusations now sit alongside this side battle over his choice of counsel.
Prosecutors are clearly aiming for early wins, as the case is set for heightened scrutiny in the coming days. Meanwhile, one can’t ignore how this focus on Fitzgerald distracts from the core issues of whether Comey’s actions truly crossed a legal line.
Comey’s team has also challenged the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as acting U.S. Attorney for the district, installed just days before the indictment. This timing, following the resignation of interim attorney Erik Siebert under pressure to pursue charges, reeks of political orchestration worth questioning.
Hours before a formal motion to dismiss the case on grounds of "vindictive" prosecution, Comey’s lawyers are framing the entire effort as a targeted hit. If Halligan’s appointment and this push against Fitzgerald are any indication, they might have a point about selective justice.
The broader picture suggests a Justice Department eager to score points against a figure long in Trump’s crosshairs. Yet, without clearer evidence tying Fitzgerald to wrongdoing, this feels like a stretch, a tactic to unsettle rather than uphold fairness.
As this case unfolds, the balance between accountability and overreach remains shaky. For those wary of government weaponization, this skirmish over Comey’s counsel is a reminder to watch closely, ensuring the pursuit of truth doesn’t morph into a personal vendetta.
