My Cart



USA v Internet Research Agency update

Donate to Mad Dog

Posted on May 06 2018


As discussed yesterday, here and as previously promised open source link to the Special Counsel’s 5/4/18 Document #7 with Exhibits can be found, here


 Defendant Concord Memorandum of Opposition 


Page 1, paragraph 1 & 2 

(and yes Defense Counsel brought up the Attorney General and the Scooter Libby case, odd timing given president Trump recently pardoned Libby. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence)


‘Special Counsel is not entitled to special rules, and is required like the Attorney General to follow the rules of the Court. See United States v. Libby, 498 F.Supp.2d 1, 10-11 (D.C.C. 2007).”


See page 2 paragraph 6:

I mean the irony here is a bit much. Reed Smith “returned” the summonses by email with a one line email to the Special Counsel, yet defense Counsel is brazen enough to say the Special Counsel is “petty”. Um okay?


“Defendant voluntarily appeared through counsel as provided for in Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(b)(1), and further intends to enter a plea of not guilty. Defendant has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel’s motion is pettifoggery.” (emphasis added)



Also I think one could reasonably conclude that Reed Smith’s May 5, 2018 Memorandum of Opposition oddly confirms, yes they have been properly “served”. Which was the underlying point of the Special Counsel’s May 4th filing, to allow the Court to rule service of summonses occurred or it did not occur. Again why would your client(s) intend to “plea not guilty” if they were never served the summons? Also in the Defendants Memo of Opposition Notice how the dates seem to range from 3, 4 to 5 days? 


Page 3 & 4


Again why would your client emphasize their right to a speedy trial if you were never “properly served the summonses”? 

Defendant is entitled to a Speedy Trial, see 18 U.S.C. § 3161, and the Special Counsel’s motion has no legitimate purpose and will create unnecessary delay.” 

“Defendant sought discovery from the Special Counsel 2 ½ weeks ago and the Special Counsel has not extended the common courtesy of providing any reply whatsoever.


So let me get this straight Reed Smith, LLC  you filed a massively overly broad Bill of Particulars demanding the Special Counsel provide 75 years worth of our Country’s sources and methods of “how America interferrred with other Foreign Countries elections” and expected Discovery Production in two and a half weeks.


And then demanded the Government, OUR government provide you & your Russian clients the names and other personal identifiable information to their investigation? Notwithstanding your client has never availed themselves to service of a summonses much less an intital appearance or arrangement and now you’re pounding your legal chest, figuratively screaming “see your honor the Special Counsel is out to get our (Russian) clients”...

Again I ask, who or what entity is bankrolling the  Reed Smith, LLC invoices? Is Reed Smith being paid in Rubles? That said I think there’s plenty of criticism for both sides. On one hand I can understand & respect the actions taken by the Special Counsel’s office in this criminal matter. Conversely I am disgusted that an American Law Firm, Reed Smith appears to be willing and eager to do Russia & Putin’s bidding and use our Judicial System at the peril of our Democracy.

What part of Russia attacked the heart of America’s democracy does Reed Smith not understand?  What part of Russia is engaged in a protected disinformation & propaganda campaign  to turn Americans on each other? And yes I’ll totally own I am being (potentially) harsh of Reed Smith...but I have so many questions about this firm and the clients they “serve”. Link to Reed Smith’s filing here 

And it’s not like Reed Smith has a Russian office or a LOT of Russian clients, oh wait...yes they do, see here 

and Reed Smith would never ever amplify Putin’s unlawful invasion and annexation of Crimea, oh wait, yes they did, here


 Judge Denies SCO request to delay 

ORDERED that the 7 Government's Motion is DENIED. The initial appearance and arraignment of Defendant Concord Management and Consulting LLC remains scheduled for May 9, 2018 at 1:45 p.m”

While you're here, throw us a bone.

Mad Dog is thrilled to have Spicy in our PAC(k). We are proud to provide a space for her tireless, hard hitting, in-depth investigations. But we can’t do it without you.

Our numbers are growing. Our voices are being heard. Our campaigns are making a difference. Help us, and Spicy, continue to fight the good fight. Consider a donation to help support the work of Mad Dog PAC today.



Leave a comment

All blog comments are checked prior to publishing