[SoCar]

I don’t believe this. I’m not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure if the client is notified of the conflict then the client can waive that. In this case Trump. I think this is just a save face excuse because he spoke to them and didn’t think they were the right attorneys. JMO

[jimfree]

A client waiver may not be adequate. Under ABA model rules the lawyer must believe that he “will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client.” There are a couple of other requirements and then informed written consent.

[jjotto]

They have a pre-existing legal client on a related matter, It’s not a question of anything political or even having to do with Trump. They are ethically bound to serve the interest of their current client.

They could be disbarred and are protecting their livelihood.

[HotHunt]

I've learned not to take too literal what Trump says or get upset with what he does. He always seems to come out on top. What appears at first blush is not always what is actually going on.

Trump never does anything without a strategy and a plan.

The apparent hiring and then having to back away from Toensing and diGenova was designed for Mueller's consumption, I think.

I think there is some sleight of hand going on here. Trump is up to something that is being kept under wraps until all the players are in position.

I am not trying to read the tea laves here. Just an educated guess, based on Trump's operating style and him being the master deal-maker and manipulator.

Otherwise, I'm just here for the view like every else is.