Today (5/5/2018), a federal magistrate denied Mueller's request to continue the May 9, 2018 initial appearance and arraignment.
Let's look at the motions...
Let's look at the motions...
On 4/11/2018, counsel entered appearances on behalf of Defendant Concord. That same day, they demanded information from the Special Counsel - including details of surveillance and names of witnesses.
4/20/2018: the Special Counsel responded, asking if they were authorized to receive service on behalf of Concord.
Concord answered the Special Counsel: "Since your communication to me of the attached summons does not comply with FRCrP 4, I am returning it to you."
lol.
Concord answered the Special Counsel: "Since your communication to me of the attached summons does not comply with FRCrP 4, I am returning it to you."
lol.
The Special Counsel continued, asking the Court to determine if Concord was properly served.
Subplot: The motion was signed by Jeannie Rhee.
Who is Jeannie Rhee? She represented the Clinton Foundation in prior litigation and, as documented in this thread, lied to the court in that case:
Who is Jeannie Rhee? She represented the Clinton Foundation in prior litigation and, as documented in this thread, lied to the court in that case:
https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/965665088517570560
Concord's response is highly enjoyable, firing shots in the first paragraph:
"The Special Counsel is not entitled to special rules."
"The Special Counsel is not entitled to special rules."
Concord also illustrates to the court that the Special Counsel ignored FRCrP 4 by sending summons w/o advanced consultation; and had no obligation to answer the Special Counsel's interrogatories.
Concord reminded the court it is entitled to a speedy trial.
Finally, it also noted that Concord sought discovery/documents from the Special Counsel and "the Special Counsel has not extended to common courtesy" of providing a reply.
Please let this go to trial.
Finally, it also noted that Concord sought discovery/documents from the Special Counsel and "the Special Counsel has not extended to common courtesy" of providing a reply.
Please let this go to trial.
Great finds by @almostjingo in this one - exhibits in support of Concord's motion.
Jeannie Rhee smacked down.
"I find it disturbing that in your first communication you are already behaving in a manner that is inconsistent with the practices of the Department of Justice."
Jeannie Rhee smacked down.
"I find it disturbing that in your first communication you are already behaving in a manner that is inconsistent with the practices of the Department of Justice."
Here is what's going on. This is why Special Counsel Jeannie Rhee was freaking out.
It starts on April 11, 2018, when Defendant Concord's notice of attorney appearance was filed.
It starts on April 11, 2018, when Defendant Concord's notice of attorney appearance was filed.
On that same day, Concord's attorney sends Special Counsel Rhee
two letters requesting (1) discovery and (2) a bill of particulars.
two letters requesting (1) discovery and (2) a bill of particulars.
The discovery letter seeks, under Federal Rules of Crim Pro:
1) All statements/recordings/agent notes re: Concord officers/employees
2) Records of statements to gov't agents
3) Any recorded testimony of Concord officers/employees
1) All statements/recordings/agent notes re: Concord officers/employees
2) Records of statements to gov't agents
3) Any recorded testimony of Concord officers/employees
Concord also seeks:
1) Records since 1945(!) of every instance where an agent of the US gov't "engaged in operations to interfere with elections and political processes in any foreign country."
I don't think there's enough paper in the world...
1) Records since 1945(!) of every instance where an agent of the US gov't "engaged in operations to interfere with elections and political processes in any foreign country."
I don't think there's enough paper in the world...
And records, applications, affidavits, and court orders in connection with searches, seizures, and electronic surveillance.
And here is the 4/11/18 letter demanding a Bill of Particulars pursuant to Rule 7(f), asking the SC to define/ID:
- Interference w/ elections and US political process
- Improper foreign influence and political activities
- Co-conspirators
- Interference w/ elections and US political process
- Improper foreign influence and political activities
- Co-conspirators
Cont'd: Demand to define/ID:
- Conspirators who hid their "Russian origin"
- The goal to "sow discord"
- what was "Disparaging Hillary Clinton"
- ID who was req'd to register as foreign agents
- Conspirators who hid their "Russian origin"
- The goal to "sow discord"
- what was "Disparaging Hillary Clinton"
- ID who was req'd to register as foreign agents
Cont'd: Demand to define/ID:
- The Russian entities involved in the conspiracy
- All persons paid
- Bank account information
- The ID of the US person who heard an implicating statement from a Concord employee
- The Russian entities involved in the conspiracy
- All persons paid
- Bank account information
- The ID of the US person who heard an implicating statement from a Concord employee
It also requires the Special Counsel ID a Trump campaign volunteer and other unnamed "Campaign Officials"
Special Counsel Rhee ignores these requests for discovery and the Bill of Particulars, and instead fires off this letter seeking info on Concord. She also includes the summons.
There is only one problem: Special Counsel Rhee is up against a seasoned defense attorney who has been practicing law since she was in grade school.
If you come at Eric Dubelier, you better know the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
If you come at Eric Dubelier, you better know the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
And that, my friends, is why Special Counsel Rhee filed her Hail Mary motion with the court.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
