A momentary twinge of guilt / conscience / non-payment of fees?
Despite this being a closed hearing, the lawyers could be heard clearly in the halls:
It can’t possibly go well when you have a client involved in a major scandal…with the name -Gates - already built in.
Pretty quiet about this at the White House.
I guess Trump wasn’t really serious about law and order.
“It would be irresponsible not to speculate.” We will know the truth soon enough, or so I hope.
How rare or common is this?
I just can’t help thinking that in hindsight, you know, a year or two from now, this is all going to make perfect sense. Along with, all the rage tweeting, and the stupid, distracting memos, all of it.
Gates joined the campaign the same time Manafort did, and he stayed a lot longer. He knows everything. The White Hole House is terrified
I wouldn’t call it common,especially in big cases, but it happens. Usually it is about non-payment of fees (including concerns about the origins of money being used to pay fees) or the discovery of a conflict. Perhaps a major change in strategy created a conflict?
I assume we will eventually know.
Decided his soul was worth more than they were offering?
I hope Gates is lifting weights in addition to growing his beard. He’s going to need all the cred he can manage in the penitentiary yard.
How common is it that the court would say, “Alright, we’ll take it under advisement” instead of just letting the old team go (assuming a new team is in place, so as not to leave the defendant defenseless)?
If this was just a simple “Hey our client has new counsel so we want to withdraw”, I’d think (having watched several episodes of Law & Order and Judge Judy) that the judge would just let 'em go? Is it reasonable to infer that the reason for the requested withdrawal is not so benign?
That’s a very good point and it is curious. In my experience judges are reluctant to change counsel for non-extraordinary reasons IF that change will delay the case. Beyond a simultaneous motion to continue a trial so new counsel can get up to speed, I’ve got nothing.
While I’m a lawyer, I don’t handle cases like this, but I’m sure there are people here with more insight than me.
Seems to me that having Mueller’s people and the old counsel at the hearing might mean it’s not about nonpayment, unless it’s specifically about money that’s been frozen.
Is the part about being under seal because the information would be highly prejudicial boiperplate or not?
I know. What is that fool wearing? He looks like he’s out of a Dickens novel!
Since we’re all speculating, here’s one scenario: it came to the notice of the Court that it had been misled by counsel for Gates on something; counsel could not correct the misrepresentation without further instructions from Gates; and Gates was unable/unwilling to provide corrected instructions. That would give rise to differences that were incompatible with counsel’s duties to the court and therefore irreconcilable.
Isn’t speculation fun?