whom is?

A story over at Talking Points Memo contains this:

So McCain, along with his campaign finance lawyer Trevor Potter (whom I've met and is a very sharp guy) came up with a workaround.

Uh... no.

It's too bad, because his first clause, "whom I've met", is completely correct. But then he goes and joins it to the next clause, and "whom is a very sharp guy" is wrong.

He's trying to make the same word be the direct object of one clause and the subject of another.

Funnily, had he gotten the "whom" wrong

So McCain, along with his campaign finance lawyer Trevor Potter (who I've met and is a very sharp guy) came up with a workaround.

it would have sounded fine (though it would still have been a mismatch) and I'd have read right over it, I expect.

Here's one fix:

So McCain, along with his campaign finance lawyer Trevor Potter (whom I've met and found to be a very sharp guy) came up with a workaround.

Of course, that makes his sharpness less a fact and more an opinion, so it might not be acceptable. Making it a non-relative parenthetical is another option:

So McCain, along with his campaign finance lawyer Trevor Potter (I've met him and he is a very sharp guy) came up with a workaround.

and so is mixing the types of clauses

So McCain, along with his campaign finance lawyer Trevor Potter (whom I've met - he's a very sharp guy) came up with a workaround.

At any rate, something needs to be done here.