Mueller's investigation

[Dr. Kenneth Noisewater]

Lol con artist Jacob Wohl's dad just offered to represent stone pro bono

[Sam the Centipede]

Any lawyers here want to represent Roger Stone pro bozo?

[NMgirl]

Mueller is willing to share more information with the public about the Super Sekret Grand Jury case. Does the timing tell us anything Damned if I know.

Although the Court has granted the application for leave to file the application for a stay, the response and the reply under seal (No. 18A669), the government believes that redacted versions of those filings may now be made on the public record without compromising grand jury secrecy.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ne-to.html

[fierceredpanda]

That memorandum is interesting. Noel Francisco, the Solicitor General, is believed to be an opponent of the Mueller investigation. His signature is on that brief. Perhaps that assumption is faulty and needs to be reexamined?

[neonzx]

David Wohl✔@DavidWohl
I want Roger Stone to know I will be happy to assist in his defense.

Pro Bono.

Any lawyers here want to represent Roger Stone pro bozo?

Well, at least we know where his son, Jacob, get's his cra-cra.

[Addie]

New York Times - Sharon LaFraniere and Michael S. Schmidt

Collusion or Conspiracy: Here’s What We Know About the Mueller Case

WASHINGTON — The indictment unsealed Friday against President Trump’s longtime adviser Roger J. Stone Jr. raised anew the perennial question about the Russia investigation: Will any Trump associate be charged for what Mr. Trump loves to refer to as collusion?

Mr. Stone, the indictment said, conveyed information to the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks, the group that released thousands of Democratic emails and other documents in the months before the 2016 election. The Russians had stolen that material and delivered it to WikiLeaks as part of its broad effort to interfere in the American presidential election.

But the indictment secured by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, does not contend that Mr. Stone’s efforts to connect with WikiLeaks were illegal. Instead, Mr. Stone was charged with lying to Congress about those efforts and trying to pressure an associate not to expose his lies.

Mr. Trump’s legal team likes to say that “collusion” is not a crime. But that is a purely semantic argument because a “conspiracy” between two or more people or entities to commit an offense is a crime.

The question is whether Mr. Mueller’s team will find evidence that the Trump campaign agreed to work with WikiLeaks or the Russian government, or both, in a conspiracy to violate some statute — such as laws that make it illegal to hack private information or that bar foreigners and foreign entities from expending resources to influence American elections.

[Kendra]

Acting A.G. Matthew Whitaker says the Mueller probe almost done:

"The [Mueller] investigation is, I think, close to being completed and I hope that we can get the report from Director Mueller as soon as possible."

[NotaPerson]

The head of the Justice Department said Monday that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation is nearing an end, the first official acknowledgment that the probe ensnaring President Trump may soon reach a conclusion.

Asked about his view of the Mueller probe in light of critical comments he made while working as a television pundit in 2017, Whitaker said those statements were offered while he was a private citizen.

“I have been fully briefed on the investigation and I look forward to Director Mueller delivering the final report,” Whitaker said. “I am comfortable that the decisions that were made are going to be reviewed. . . . Right now, you know, the investigation is, I think, close to being completed.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... d49d4230ef

Whitaker's view of Mueller's investigation has clearly changed.

[NMgirl]

What say you, Acting AG Matthew Whitaker?

Mueller team signals to Stone associate another indictment may be in the works

Washington (CNN) A defense attorney for Andrew Miller, who's fighting a subpoena from Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, learned Monday afternoon that the special counsel still wants witness testimony for a federal grand jury.

Paul Kamenar, the defense attorney, says the assertion from Mueller's team made clear to him that Mueller and the Justice Department are considering an additional indictment of Roger Stone or have plans to charge others.

The development sets up the potential for another twist in the Russia probe. It comes hours after acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said that Mueller's investigation was "close to being completed."

Kamenar's client is Miller, a former employee of Stone's whom Mueller subpoenaed in mid-2018 to testify to the grand jury. In a court hearing about Miller's testimony, a judge made clear that Mueller sought information Miller had about Stone's communications regarding Wikileaks and Russian hackers around the time they disseminated damaging hacked Democratic emails.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/politics ... index.html

[Turtle]

I'm guessing they found what they were expecting to find when they raided Stone's places.

[NMgirl]

Media sez too many redactions on documents filed in the Sekret Grand Jury Subpoena case and why should the government and petitioner get to decide which filings become public and which do not.

Reply in support of motion to intervene filed by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. in In Re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 18-948

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ed-by.html

[fierceredpanda]

Media sez too many redactions on documents filed in the Sekret Grand Jury Subpoena case and why should the government and petitioner get to decide which filings become public and which do not.

Reply in support of motion to intervene filed by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. in In Re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 18-948

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ed-by.html

Who even needs Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? Or the pending investigations exception to FOIA?

I mean, yeah, I want to know these things, too. But you could literally sabotage an investigation this way, to say nothing of dealing irreparable damage to innocent parties reputations - which is precisely why grand jury secrecy under Rule 6(e) exists.

[NMgirl]

Media sez too many redactions on documents filed in the Sekret Grand Jury Subpoena case and why should the government and petitioner get to decide which filings become public and which do not.

Reply in support of motion to intervene filed by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. in In Re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 18-948

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ed-by.html

Who even needs Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? Or the pending investigations exception to FOIA?

I mean, yeah, I want to know these things, too. But you could literally sabotage an investigation this way, to say nothing of dealing irreparable damage to innocent parties reputations - which is precisely why grand jury secrecy under Rule 6(e) exists.

Since you're around, frpanda, can you explain to me, in the simplest possible way, why the defense attorney(s) want SCOTUS to make decisions rather than the appeals court

[fierceredpanda]

Which attorneys? The journalists' lawyers, or the attorneys for the mystery corporation fighting the subpoena?

[NMgirl]

Which attorneys? The journalists' lawyers, or the attorneys for the mystery corporation fighting the subpoena?

I'll have to go back and look, but I believe it was the attorneys for the mystery corporation who skipped right to SCOTUS on another filing. I know I'm going to sound really dumb here, but to put my question in a different way, what is special about this case that SCOTUS doesn't just deny cert. Is there an issue that hasn't been addressed at lower court levels

Edited to add: I can't find it. Damn, how I wish I had an index of all the documents filed in this case, which I sometimes do for other cases.

At this point, I think we should have a separate topic for the Grand Jury Subpoena case. The "Mueller's investigation" topic is way huge and covers so many discrete investigations and threads. Against that, there is so much info already discussed in the "Mueller investigations" regarding the GJ Subpoena case.

[fierceredpanda]

Which attorneys? The journalists' lawyers, or the attorneys for the mystery corporation fighting the subpoena?

I'll have to go back and look, but I believe it was the attorneys for the mystery corporation who skipped right to SCOTUS on another filing. I know I'm going to sound really dumb here, but to put my question in a different way, what is special about this case that SCOTUS doesn't just deny cert. Is there an issue that hasn't been addressed at lower court levels

Edited to add: I can't find it. Damn, how I wish I had an index of all the documents filed in this case, which I sometimes do for other cases.

At this point, I think we should have a separate topic for the Grand Jury Subpoena case. The "Mueller's investigation" topic is way huge and covers so many discrete investigations and threads. Against that, there is so much info already discussed in the "Mueller investigations" regarding the GJ Subpoena case.

Not to worry. You don't sound dumb, and I know what you're getting at.

There is a very live issue at bottom here; specifically, whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act protects foreign countries from criminal, as well as civil, proceedings here in the US. The courts below have expressed some hesitation even as they have allowed the contempt sanction to stand. If lower courts have uncertainty, than it definitely isn't the sort of thing where SCOTUS would deny cert without even asking the government to file a response. How FSIA is interpreted could have very serious ramifications on foreign relations, and I certainly wouldn't blame the Court for wanting to take a hard look at what the implications would be with regard to allowing American courts to have jurisdiction in criminal cases against foreign countries who are otherwise immune from being dragged into our court system in the context of a civil lawsuit. Generally these types of grants of (or restrictions of) jurisdiction are expressly enacted by Congress (e.g., the law Congress passed by overriding President Obama's veto permitting 9/11 victims' families to sue the government of Saudi Arabia - the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act) - and it makes sense that SCOTUS would want to carefully examine decisions by lower courts that would have the effect of potentially expanding US courts' jurisdiction without Congressional authorization.

Can you make an argument that, because FSIA doesn't expressly immunize foreign governments against criminal actions in the US, it therefore follows that FSIA doesn't apply in the context of criminal cases? Definitely, and I think I would ultimately come down on that side of the argument. But there is also a compelling argument to be made that FSIA was drafted by Congress to accomplish a specific objective, i.e., make clear the boundaries of American jurisdiction with respect to civil lawsuits only , and we cannot infer from that silence that Congress intended to mean that foreign governments had no immunity in the context of criminal cases. Maybe it never occurred to Congress that there would be a time in the future when foreign entities, rather than foreign individuals, would ever become witnesses in federal criminal probes. Foreign government officials in their individual capacity, after all, are almost always protected by diplomatic immunity. So maybe Congress thought it was simply unnecessary to expressly codify immunity in criminal actions for foreign governments because Congress didn't conceive that things like foreign wealth funds would ever become as ubiquitous as they are. Ordinarily, if Congress didn't think of something, that's too bad for Congress. But here we are talking about something which could have ramifications on American foreign relations around the globe. Your average district judge isn't really cut out to think in those terms, but Supreme Court justices do. These aren't easy questions, and it makes total sense that SCOTUS would want to think really hard about it before deciding to deny cert - which would effectively tell lower courts that FSIA doesn't apply to criminal cases.

[NMgirl]

There is a very live issue at bottom here; specifically, whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act protects foreign countries from criminal, as well as civil, proceedings here in the US.

Thank you so much for taking the time to write that very clear and interesting explanation. Loved it.

[fierceredpanda]

Thank you so much for taking the time to write that very clear and interesting explanation. Loved it.

You are most welcome.

[Addie]

Sorry if this is a dupe.

CNN

Mueller team signals to Stone associate another indictment may be in the works

Washington (CNN) A defense attorney for Andrew Miller, who's fighting a subpoena from Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, learned Monday afternoon that the special counsel still wants witness testimony for a federal grand jury.

Paul Kamenar, the defense attorney, says the assertion from Mueller's team made clear to him that Mueller and the Justice Department are considering an additional indictment of Roger Stone or have plans to charge others.

The development sets up the potential for another twist in the Russia probe. It comes hours after acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said that Mueller's investigation was "close to being completed."

Kamenar's client is Miller, a former employee of Stone's whom Mueller subpoenaed in mid-2018 to testify to the grand jury. In a court hearing about Miller's testimony, a judge made clear that Mueller sought information Miller had about Stone's communications regarding Wikileaks and Russian hackers around the time they disseminated damaging hacked Democratic emails.

[Reality Check]

I think conspiracy indictments are coming. Mueller will wait until the big dogs are charged and then go back and include the piss ants like Stone.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

I think conspiracy indictments are coming. Mueller will wait until the big dogs are charged and then go back and include the piss ants like Stone.

That's how I have seen it 'splained on the interwebz.

[Flatpointhigh]

Now, THIS is interesting:

In a new filing in the Internet Research Agency case, Mueller's team says they've found evidence discovery documents were forged as part of a "disinformation campaign aimed (apparently) at discrediting ongoing investigations into Russian interference in the US political system."

Source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ition.html

[NMgirl]

Now, THIS is interesting:
Source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ition.html

Also posted on the trial topic:

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=10538&start=50

[NMgirl]

Edit: Forgot to add that this is in re the Sekret Grand Jury Subpoena

An interesting filing, in which we learn that media knows the name(s) of the attorneys and the law firm which is representing defendants. This is a fairly big deal, since it gives a good idea of what the case might be about. There are widespread rumors on the intertubz that one of the prosecutors involved in this case is an expert on the middle-east. Let Company 1 be a Qatari sovereign investment fund! Very strong tie-in with Jared Kushner. This has been a super-secret grand jury proceeding, but both the government and defense are agreed that there's going to be some loosening up on the secrecy.

ON APPLICATION FOR A STAY AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI UNDER SEAL

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... -2019.html

[Kendra]

THREAD.

Mystery company fighting Mueller subpoena:

-Wholly owned by a foriegn government (court docs)
-Has business in the US (court docs)
-Financial institution (per WaPo)
-Represented by Alston & Bird (per BuzzFeed and CNN)