Hold onto your hats, folks—federal prosecutors are gunning for a potential knockout blow against former FBI Director James Comey’s defense before his trial even starts.

The latest courtroom drama centers on a motion filed by prosecutors alleging a conflict of interest with Comey’s lead attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, tied to the controversial leaking of memos back in 2017, with Comey himself facing charges of making false statements and obstruction of justice from his 2020 Senate testimony, the Washington Examiner reported.

Let’s rewind to the beginning of this saga, where the roots of this mess trace back to 2017, when Comey’s memos—allegedly containing sensitive information—were reportedly leaked to the media, a move that raised eyebrows and ignited fierce debate about government transparency versus security.

Tracing the Roots of Comey’s Legal Woes

Fast forward to 2020, and Comey found himself before the Senate Judiciary Committee, testifying about the FBI’s handling of investigations into alleged Russian collusion with then-President Donald Trump—a hot-button issue that still divides opinions.

That testimony didn’t sit well with everyone, and by September 2025, a grand jury slapped Comey with an indictment on two serious counts: making false statements and obstructing justice, setting the stage for a blockbuster trial scheduled for early January 2026 in Alexandria, Virginia.

Now, just when you thought the plot couldn’t thicken, prosecutors dropped a bombshell on a quiet Sunday night with a motion targeting Fitzgerald, Comey’s lead counsel, suggesting his involvement in the 2017 memo leak could taint his ability to defend without bias.

Prosecutors Push for Conflict Review

The filing by U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan and her team isn’t just a polite suggestion—it’s a demand for U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff to rule swiftly on a so-called “filter protocol” to sift through potentially protected materials related to Fitzgerald’s alleged role in the leak.

They argue that some of this material could be pivotal for both sides in Comey’s upcoming trial, potentially holding evidence that could make or break the case, and they want it reviewed pronto to avoid any legal hiccups down the line.

“The evidence for filter review could also inform a potential conflict and disqualification issue for the current lead defense counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald,” prosecutors stated in court documents, a line that hits like a legal warning shot across the bow. Well, if that’s not a polite way to say “we’ve got a problem,” then what is?

Inspector General Report Fuels Controversy

Prosecutors aren’t pulling this conflict concern out of thin air—they’re leaning on a scathing report from the Justice Department’s inspector general at the time, Michael Horowitz, who didn’t mince words about Comey’s handling of those memos.

Horowitz concluded that Comey “violated Department or FBI policy, or the terms of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement,” as detailed in the report, pointing to serious breaches in protocol that, while not prosecuted then, still cast a long shadow. If that’s not a bureaucratic slap on the wrist, it’s hard to say what is.

Though the DOJ opted against charges over the memo fiasco back then, prosecutors now contend that the overlap in communications from that period raises red flags about Fitzgerald’s role, potentially justifying his disqualification if the evidence pans out.

Legal Maneuvers and Trial Timeline

The government’s request for a rapid review of materials isn’t just about dotting i’s and crossing t’s—it’s about ensuring that all relevant, non-privileged information is on the table before any courtroom battles over Fitzgerald’s status erupt.

Meanwhile, Comey’s legal team isn’t sitting idle; they’re expected to file their initial motions soon, likely including a bid to dismiss the charges altogether, signaling that this fight is far from over before the trial even kicks off in 2026.

In a political climate where trust in institutions often feels like a relic of the past, this case isn’t just about one man’s legal fate—it’s a lightning rod for broader debates about accountability, government overreach, and whether the rules apply equally to those at the top. While some may see Comey as a victim of partisan witch hunts, others view this as a long-overdue reckoning for actions that skirted the line of propriety, and both sides deserve a fair hearing as this unfolds.