Interesting Read: Ex DOJ official defending Russian company against Mueller

quote:

---

His biting remarks have come in months of court filings and oral arguments. Mr. Dubelier has depicted Mr. Mueller as a rogue prosecutor willfully ignoring Justice Department guidelines.

He has accused Mr. Mueller of creating a “make-believe crime” against his Russian client, Concord Management and Consulting, which is accused of funding a troll farm that interfered in the 2016 election.

---

quote:

---

A “nude selfie” has inserted itself into the ongoing Special Counsel investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign collaborated with the Russian government to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

A Russian company Concord Management and Consulting LLC has filed a memorandum asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss a request from Special Counsel Robert Mueller to privately share sealed information about Concord with a judge handling the case.

The company is arguing that it should have access to information about how Muller and his team obtained confidential information about Concord, and that the Special Counsel should not be permitted to share this information with a judge without also sharing it with the company’s lawyers.

The Department of Justice, however, often keeps its evidence collection methods secret for national security reasons. The information about Concord is no exception.

“Could the manner in which he [Special Counsel Mueller] collected a nude selfie really threaten the national security of the United States?” asked attorneys for Concord in a memorandum filed in the Washington D.C. District Court on Thursday.

LINK

---

quote:

---

Lawyers for the company accused of funding Russia’s election interference trolls are demanding that special counsel Robert Mueller turn over reams of information, including the identities of informants, details of any electronic surveillance, and a list of “each and every instance” since 1945 in which the U.S. “engaged in operations to interfere with elections and political processes in any foreign country.”

The ambitious demand for legal discovery surfaced Friday in Mueller’s criminal case against 13 individuals and three Russian companies linked to the Internet Research Agency, the St. Petersburg troll farm that used fake accounts to organize demonstrations on U.S. soil and flood American social media with alt-right memes during the 2016 election. One of those defendants is Concord Management and Consulting, a Russian firm run by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a close Kremlin ally known as “Putin’s Chef,” who is also named individually as a defendant in the case.

Attorneys at the law firm Reed Smith are representing Concord. Though the Washington, D.C.-based lawyers have formally filed an appearance in the case, the government says they’ve refused to accept service of the court summons, and attempts to serve the Russian defendants through other means—like dropping off the summons with Russia’s prosecutor general in Moscow—have failed. Mueller’s team is seeking a postponement of a May 9th arraignment date until the technicality can be ironed out.

Concord’s attorneys, though, are wasting no time in demanding legal “discovery” in the case. Generally, the government is required to provide defendants with any evidence it intends to use at trial, as well as any material relevant to preparing a defense. To that end, the defense team is seeking a wealth of information on what the U.S. knows about the trolling operation, including a full list of fake social media accounts, the names of suspected co-conspirators, details of electronic surveillance by U.S. intelligence agencies, and identities of Americans who were tricked into aiding the Russian campaign.

The lawyers also want Mueller to define a number of terms used in the indictment, including “improper foreign influence,” “significant funds,” and “disparaging Hillary Clinton.” In addition, the defense is demanding information on every U.S.-run election-interference operation since World War II, perhaps telegraphing a pot-kettle defense to the eight-count indictment.

“This disclosure should include any and all information regarding the use of computer infrastructure inside and outside of the United States, false foreign identities, goals to sow discord in a foreign political system, assistance to a foreign elected official or candidate, attacks on a foreign elected official or candidate, assassination or conspiracy to assassinate a foreign elected official or candidate, buying political advertisements, posing as foreign persons and/or failure to honestly identify to foreign voters the involvement of any officer, employee or agent of the United States Government,” reads a letter sent to Mueller’s office last month by Reed Smith partner Eric Dubelier.

LINK

---

quote:

---

Lawyers for the company accused of funding Russia’s election interference trolls are demanding that special counsel Robert Mueller turn over reams of information, including the identities of informants, details of any electronic surveillance, and a list of “each and every instance” since 1945 in which the U.S. “engaged in operations to interfere with elections and political processes in any foreign country.” 

---

quote:

---

Mr. Dubelier argues that people are free to create fake accounts. It’s done all the time, he says. “When it comes to political speech, one is free to pretend to be whomever he or she wants to be and to say whatever he or she wants to say,” he said at an Oct. 15 hearing. “That’s why in this case this special counsel made up a crime to fit the facts that they have,” Mr. Dubelier said. “And that’s the fundamental danger with the entire special counsel concept: that they operate outside the parameters of the Department of Justice in a way that is absolutely inconsistent with the consistent behavior of the Department of Justice in these cases for the past 30 years

---

quote:

---

‘Made up a crime to fit the facts’

Concord Management and Consulting is an unlikely client. Legal observers opined that when Mr. Mueller brought charges against various Russians who hacked computers and trolled the 2016 election, no defendant would travel the nearly 5,000 miles to show up for trial.

No defendant has personally arrived. But Concord did appear quickly after the February indictment. Of 28 Russian individuals and firms charged with election interference by Mr. Mueller, only Concord has appeared in U.S. District Court, in this instance in the person of the aggressive Mr. Dubelier.

The Washington defense attorney seemed to catch the Mueller team off guard by immediately demanding disclosure of evidence. Disclosure, Mr. Dubelier argues, is a sacred legal right in America, even for the oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, Concord’s chief with close ties to Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Concord is accused of an elaborate conspiracy with another Russian operation, the Internet Research Agency. The indictment accuses Concord of providing the troll farm $1.2 million monthly to defraud the U.S. The two firms set up fake personas and false Twitter accounts, Facebook ads and other social media posts mostly to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.

In a separate case, Mr. Mueller brought charges in July against 12 Russian intelligence officers for hacking Democratic computers, stealing emails and funneling them to three websites for distribution.

Mr. Dubelier argues that people are free to create fake accounts. It’s done all the time, he says.

---

quote:

---

In another pre-trial argument, Mr. Dubelier is the first defense attorney to ask this question: Why isn’t British ex-spy Christopher Steele, who was paid by Democrats to obtain anti-Trump information from the Kremlin to influence 2016 voting, being investigated by the Justice Department for election interference just like the Russians?

Mr. Steele didn’t register under the Justice Department’s Foreign Agent Registration Act, under which Mr. Mueller has brought charges against a number of defendants, including the Concord team. Judge Friedrich rejected Mr. Dubelier’s argument of “selective prosecution.”

Mr. Mueller’s counter-motion boils down to this: Mr. Prigozhin is a criminal fugitive who blatantly interfered in the U.S. election and is not entitled to sensitive national security information he would share with the Kremlin intelligence.

In a new battleground, the Mueller team wants to show the judge top secret material to persuade her to keep it from the defense.

“Disclosure of such information could cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security,” the Mueller filing stated.

---

quote:

---

In another pre-trial argument, Mr. Dubelier is the first defense attorney to ask this question: Why isn’t British ex-spy Christopher Steele, who was paid by Democrats to obtain anti-Trump information from the Kremlin to influence 2016 voting, being investigated by the Justice Department for election interference just like the Russians? 

Mr. Steele didn’t register under the Justice Department’s Foreign Agent Registration Act, under which Mr. Mueller has brought charges against a number of defendants, including the Concord team. Judge Friedrich rejected Mr. Dubelier’s argument of “selective prosecution.”

---

quote:

---

“Disclosure of such information could cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security,” the Mueller filing stated.

---