5 ms·
It may have been a judge that appointed the firm, but it's kind of suspicious that he would appoint a firm that had previously represented Chevron to represent
by sacred_numbers 5y ago
It may have been a judge that appointed the firm, but it's kind of suspicious that he would appoint a firm that had previously represented Chevron to represent the US Government. That seems like a pretty big conflict of interest.
- jahewson 5y agoThat’s not a conflict of interest - the prosecution is supposed to be “against” the defendant.
- cgio 5y agoMaybe so, but on behalf of its client, the government? The court? Not on behalf of someone else who is not paying. Hard to imagine there was no other law firm that would take this job, and if not then that’s one more negative sign for validity of prosecution, right?
- 6510 5y agosee the interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKbpptFKaXc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKbpptFKaXc
- woodruffw 5y agoThe judge’s selection is the conflict of interest, not the prosecution itself. Selecting a private firm that’s financially entangled with the aggrieved party to discharge the duties of the Department of Justice is extremely unusual and concerning.