Jurisdiction, no. Discovery, yes. Interesting combination.
âinformation as to how Mueller learned of information that allowed his prosecutors to take an unspecified âinvestigative actionâ in late August.â
Yeah, right. âWeâd very much like to know who the witness was so we can send him someâŚflowersâŚâ
Or, he might stab himself in the back and fall off a bridge.
It seems more than a bit rich to me that this guy is sitting in Russia, outside US jurisdiction, while demanding to have discovery rights as to how Muellerâs team was able to figure out certain things. In my opinion, he should hand himself over to the US courts before heâs afforded such discovery. Heâs just playing games as heâll never extradite himself.
Not sure if this is what is happening here, but I can imagine a situation in which a bad actor, knowing that opposing counsel has, or is about to learn some damaging information, could forward said information to the âfirewallâ counsel for appearances. They could then use this âcoincidenceâ to try to get the damaging evidence excluded from trial by making the same argument his counsel has
We know there was a Russian trolling team inside the U.S during the 2016 election. That appears to be what this legal action is about. Given the likelihood that ten of thousands of troll statements were sent by Russians in 2016, it is likely other Russian troll shops were active during the election. These troll shops were previously spotted coming from Saint Petersburg, Poland and Romania in what were probably rented business areas. (Logically, given the owner of the operation in the current article, it is likely Moscow should also be included as another possible trolling source.)
⌠Last month, the company also raised suspicions that confidential information it had provided firewall counsel in August had made its way into the hands of Muellerâs team. A week after Concord Management provided the information, âAssistant Special Counsel L. Rush Atkinson took investigative action on the exact same information Concord provided to Firewall Counsel,â according to a December filing by the company.
Upon learning about âthis remarkable coincidenceâ in October, Concord Managementâs lawyers, according to the companyâs filing, emailed Muellerâs team and the firewall counsel seeking an explanation.
D00d.
Itâs not a coincidence when US IC picks up your conversations and turns them over to #TeamMueller. Thatâs their job. 
FO and go to jail. Bye.
I think itâs Concord (which is actively defending in U.S. court), not Prigozhin (whoâs hiding out in Russia), seeking this information. Per the article:
prosecutors say they need to file under seal an explanation as to why they oppose being forced to hand over certain discovery that is be sought by Concord Management, a Russian firm charged by Mueller in February that is accused of funding the internet trolling operation. Prosecutors said the motion discusses a âmatter occurring before the grand jury,â citing a local court rule about when filings can be submitted under seal. The discovery being sought by the Russian firm seeks information as to how Mueller learned of informationâŚ
This seems a very interesting, possibly unique, use of corporate coverâŚ
Prigozhin is the Executive of the firm according to the article, so I still think he should come in person rather than hide and cast stones at the US judicial system.
The original claim was that the firm was entitled to every last bit of sensitive information, and promised to only share it with Prigohzin entirely by regrettable accident.
Thatâs why it strikes me as so interesting wrt use of corporate cover. I wouldnât be surprised if a precedent is established in this case.
All the reader comments on this item carry the same sentiment as this one - and not just here at liberal (âfar leftâ and âextremistâ per standing freedumbassitude) TPM.
I bear glad tidings: this judge is going to agree with you! So will every court thereafter. The SCOTUS will be invited to accept this case, but thatâs very tough to envision given thereâll be conflicting decisions to point to, nor probably even just dissents. That will allow the SCOTUS to duck accepting this, which it will by at least 5:4 (El Jefe will side with the libtards on matters like this that aim a dagger so obviously at the heart of insttutionalism), probably more, possibly unanimously.
So if this is so obvious to lawyers (and it is exactly that), why are the Rooskies continuing to fund this hopeless argument? Simply: itâs confusing to a tens of millions of non-lawyers who vote, so causes confusion and disorientation to the electorate. And THATâS the payoff, regardless of the outcome in the court system.
A clear example of the differing standards that are being followed here lies in the appellantsâ legal counsel complaint about the OSC - ALLEGEDLY- taking a particular action - ALLEGEDLY - just a week after the appellantsâ counsel filed something - ALLEGEDLY - thatâs so close - ALLEGEDLY - to the same subject matter - ALLEGEDLY - that it âcanât be explained by coincidenceâ - SEZ WHO? - SO betrays lack of good faith by the OSC.
The only way appellants could articulate this complaint is by taking it public - yet taking THAT public is ITSELF a violation if he courtâs order that set up the special intervening counsel vehicle.
So the Rooskies ainât interested in winning some legal argument. Indeed, theyâve self-immolated here.
Someone must have fed the American lawyers involved for the Rooskie clients an objective fortune to file and argue on this point, cuz daily those clowns are debasing themselves.