easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,094
- 2,645
Eric A. Dubelier, a litigator for the Reed Smith law firm who knows international law and the D.C. playing field, served eight years prosecuting cases as a Justice Department assistant U.S. attorney in Washington. He refers to his former employer as “the real Justice Department,” implying that Mr. Mueller’s team is something less.
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.
Mr. Dubelier charges that the Mueller team violated the confidentially of Concord’s counter evidence while hiding documents Concord needs for its defense. The prosecutor wants to “whisper secrets to the judge,” Mr. Dubelier says, as Mr. Mueller is calculating the “short-term political value of a conviction” and not worrying about an appeals court defeat years later.
An example: In a Dec. 20 motion, Mr. Dubelier resurrected a botched case spearheaded by Mr. Mueller’s top prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann.
Mr. Weissmann headed the Justice Department’s Enron task force nearly two decades ago. He won a conviction against the accounting firm Arthur Andersen for shredding the defunct energy firm’s financial documents.
Years later, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction. The 2005 decision effectively said that Andersen, by then out of business and its 28,000 employees gone, hadn’t committed a crime.
“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.”
“This equates to the burden of preparing for trial without any ability to discuss the evidence with the client who is to be put on trial. This has never happened before in reported case law because the notion is too ludicrous to contemplate.”
“What Mueller has turned over is often irrelevant to mounting a defense, such as promotion emails for airlines and personal naked selfie photographs”
Mueller has pushed back....successfully...by claiming presenting the actual evidence being used to prosecute a defendant would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security'.
There's just a few little problems with doing so:
1. Denying a defendant of the evidence being used against him 'blinds' him and his legal defense, placing the defendant and his legal counsel in an unfair / unrealistic disadvantage where they are forced to defend the client without knowing EXACTLY from what and without being able to provide evidence to counter the prosecutor's case because they have no idea what the prosecutor's case consists of.
PROSECUTOR:
'You are GUILTY because we say you are based on specific evidence we have on you, though you will never know what that is. What do you have to present in your defense?'
DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY:
'In defense of WHAT?'
2. Evidence and recent past demands for evidence by Congress resulted in Mueller claiming the same thing - 'the info can not be released to CONGRESS, who have Secret / Top Secret Clearances, because doing so would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security'. The problem was that when the information was released it was revealed that some of what Mueller had called information that would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security' turned out to be anything BUT that.
Obstruction
Perjury Traps
The 'Insurance Policy' Strzok Spoke Of
Refusing to investigate the Dossier or Steele
Withholding evidence resulting in innocent people going to jail
Extorting / Pressuring witnesses to make false statements / accusations
Creating bogus evidence / crimes resulting in innocent people going to jail
Bypassing Attorney-Client Privilege to get to the Investigation's focus' attorney
Hiding Russian crimes associated with the KGB Bank's effort to acquire Uranium One
Refusing to investigate Obama, who knew of Russian interference in 2014 and did nothing
Refusing to investigate Hillary, who paid the Russians & Steele for the Russian-authored Dossier
Indicting / charging / prosecuting without allowing the defendants to know the evidence against them
Working with foreign spy Steele before an investigation was started / before he became Special Counsel
Unethical
Immoral
Biased
'Illegal Tactics'
Co-Conspirator
Steele is a 'dirty' prosecutor, one tasked with objective and one objective only - NOT to seek the TRUTH and Justice but instead to 'Take Down The President'.
Eric Dubelier emerges as Robert Mueller’s top courtroom adversary
,
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.
Mr. Dubelier charges that the Mueller team violated the confidentially of Concord’s counter evidence while hiding documents Concord needs for its defense. The prosecutor wants to “whisper secrets to the judge,” Mr. Dubelier says, as Mr. Mueller is calculating the “short-term political value of a conviction” and not worrying about an appeals court defeat years later.
An example: In a Dec. 20 motion, Mr. Dubelier resurrected a botched case spearheaded by Mr. Mueller’s top prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann.
Mr. Weissmann headed the Justice Department’s Enron task force nearly two decades ago. He won a conviction against the accounting firm Arthur Andersen for shredding the defunct energy firm’s financial documents.
Years later, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction. The 2005 decision effectively said that Andersen, by then out of business and its 28,000 employees gone, hadn’t committed a crime.
“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.”
“This equates to the burden of preparing for trial without any ability to discuss the evidence with the client who is to be put on trial. This has never happened before in reported case law because the notion is too ludicrous to contemplate.”
“What Mueller has turned over is often irrelevant to mounting a defense, such as promotion emails for airlines and personal naked selfie photographs”
Mueller has pushed back....successfully...by claiming presenting the actual evidence being used to prosecute a defendant would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security'.
There's just a few little problems with doing so:
1. Denying a defendant of the evidence being used against him 'blinds' him and his legal defense, placing the defendant and his legal counsel in an unfair / unrealistic disadvantage where they are forced to defend the client without knowing EXACTLY from what and without being able to provide evidence to counter the prosecutor's case because they have no idea what the prosecutor's case consists of.
PROSECUTOR:
'You are GUILTY because we say you are based on specific evidence we have on you, though you will never know what that is. What do you have to present in your defense?'
DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY:
'In defense of WHAT?'
2. Evidence and recent past demands for evidence by Congress resulted in Mueller claiming the same thing - 'the info can not be released to CONGRESS, who have Secret / Top Secret Clearances, because doing so would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security'. The problem was that when the information was released it was revealed that some of what Mueller had called information that would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security' turned out to be anything BUT that.
Obstruction
Perjury Traps
The 'Insurance Policy' Strzok Spoke Of
Refusing to investigate the Dossier or Steele
Withholding evidence resulting in innocent people going to jail
Extorting / Pressuring witnesses to make false statements / accusations
Creating bogus evidence / crimes resulting in innocent people going to jail
Bypassing Attorney-Client Privilege to get to the Investigation's focus' attorney
Hiding Russian crimes associated with the KGB Bank's effort to acquire Uranium One
Refusing to investigate Obama, who knew of Russian interference in 2014 and did nothing
Refusing to investigate Hillary, who paid the Russians & Steele for the Russian-authored Dossier
Indicting / charging / prosecuting without allowing the defendants to know the evidence against them
Working with foreign spy Steele before an investigation was started / before he became Special Counsel
Unethical
Immoral
Biased
'Illegal Tactics'
Co-Conspirator
Steele is a 'dirty' prosecutor, one tasked with objective and one objective only - NOT to seek the TRUTH and Justice but instead to 'Take Down The President'.
Eric Dubelier emerges as Robert Mueller’s top courtroom adversary
,