Thread by @BBuchman_CNS

NEW: Update in the Bijan Kian/Ekim Alptekin matter at USDC EDVA - Judge Trenga has vacated the Feb 11 trial date. In light of voluminous records, including classified docs that must be obtained ahead of trial, the trial date is off the books, but other status hearings remain.

Here's today order vacating the trial date: documentcloud.org/documents/5691…
The next status hearing is slated for Feb 8.
This development also follows a motion filed by Kian requesting the gov't provide a 'bill of particulars' which essentially asks prosecutors to...

detail, at length, several of the allegations found in the original indictment against him.

Kian wants details on things like the identities of other alleged conspirators mentioned by prosecutors in the indictment. He stresses that the particulars are needed simply because of the sheer volume of evidence produced by the govt ahead of trial.

"In 3 hard drives w/a total capacity of 10TB, a thumb drive, & a DVD disc, the govt has produced, according to its description, the entire data from the def's 2 laptops + 3.75M TIFF files from other sources, plus 68,500 pgs of additional discovery." (He continues...)

"And there is more to come. Under the circumstances, the defendant should not have to comb through a haystack looking for a needle to understand the indictment's allegations," he writes.
There's also some basic problems with the indictment, Kian explains.
First, walk with me:

So, the DOJ opened an investigation into Michael Flynn's company after he published an op-ed about Gulen. More here: courthousenews.com/us-charges-2-w…
Flynn Intel Group hired the law firm Covington and Burling to find out whether they were obligated to register as an agent under FARA...

Now, prosecutors claim Kian and Alptekin lied to the law firm doing the review which led to the falsified FARA report. This is where Kian says there is a "problem" with the indictment.

He argues: Covington's letter to DOJ FARA unit, and the FARA filing itself made it clear the reason Covington decided Flynn Intel Group should file under FARA, rather than ratify earlier lobbying disclosure acts tied to Flynn Intel, was because Flynn Intel Group's work...

"for Inovo could be construed to have principally benefited the Republic of Turkey," *not* because Flynn Intel Group was acting as an agent of the gov't of Turkey.

"Covington made no effort to hide the fact that the govt of Turkey could be considered to be the principal beneficiary of the work that Flynn Intel Group was doing for Inovo," Kian writes in his memorandum.

Once that was disclosed, when Covington was asked whether Flynn Intel Group "engages or is now engaging in activity on your own behalf which benefits any of your foreign principals, like Inovo BV," Kian claims Covington correctly responded by saying:

"Because this is filed in retrospect to activity under this engagement, we note that during the course of the engagement and thereafter, Flynn Intel Group officials - particularly Michael T. Flynn as a public figure separate from Flynn Intel Group - frequently wrote..."

"...spoke or provided interviews relating to national security. Although not undertaken at the direction of any foreign principal, including but not limited to Inovo, it is possible that such activities may have had an indirect benefit to Inovo BV."

"Each of the 2 sentences in Covington's response is unquestionably & obviously true. Yet the gov't alleges it to be knowingly false. A criminal charge of falsity should involve more than simple word games," Kian writes.

"In this case, the govt should be required to explain why the language Covington's chose was false," Kian writes.
In order: Here's the supporting memo detailing why he made the bill of particulars request: documentcloud.org/documents/5690…

Here is his bill of particulars request which captures the key questions: documentcloud.org/documents/5690…
And here is a copy of the original indictment: documentcloud.org/documents/5631…