The Robert Mueller-led special counsel investigation has been investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, and indicted a number of Russians accused of operating an online “troll farm” to hack computers, manage fake social media accounts and sow discord among the U.S. electorate.
Within that collection of Russians is Concord Management and Consulting, a firm accused of funding the alleged trolls. Concord surprisingly pushed back against the indictments, and the defense attorney they hired, former assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Dubelier, has been giving Mueller and his team more than they bargained for in the fight.
Rowan Scarborough of The Washington Times reported that Dubelier, who now works as a private litigator for the Reed Smith law firm and represents Concord, has emerged as Mueller’s “most persistent courtroom critic.”
In both oral arguments and via court filings, Scarborough writes, Dubelier has made it abundantly clear that he views Mueller as a “rogue” prosecutor who has ignored the established guidelines of “the real Justice Department,” a distinction that obviously implies a drastic difference between the DOJ and Mueller’s special counsel team.
He has also alleged that Mueller wants to “whisper secrets to the judge” as part of a calculation to obtain the “short-term political value of a conviction” without worrying about defending such a conviction against an appeal at a later date.
As evidence of such, he has pointed to Mueller’s top prosecutor, Andrew Weismann, who has a history of aggressively seeking convictions that were later overturned on appeal, such as in the case against the Enron energy company and the accounting firm associated with it, Arthur Andersen, who were nevertheless destroyed as a business by the faulty conviction.
“Mr. Dubelier is exactly right on Mr. Mueller’s motives and tactics,” said former prosecutor Sidney Powell, author of “License to Lie,” a book which documents some of the scandals of the Justice Department. “His lieutenant Weissmann is the poster boy for prosecutorial misconduct and has no regard for the facts or the law. He will make up whatever he wants to win, and the entire like-minded team views as an accomplishment everyone whose life they destroy in pursuit of their objective.”
In July, Dubelier accused Mueller of essentially creating a “make-believe” crime” against his client. He has also suggested that Mueller’s team has withheld evidence from him and his client and violated the confidentiality of counter-evidence they have submitted.
Nobody, including Mueller’s team, expected Concord to fight against the indictments, but Dubelier has dutifully demanded that all evidence against his clients be disclosed.
Mueller’s team has argued that much of the evidence against Concord is “sensitive” and can’t be turned over, and the judge thus far has seemed to agree with Mueller, leaving Dubelier and Concord ignorant of what is being used against them.
Why not Christopher Steele too?
Dubelier has also set his sights on the obvious “selective prosecution” of Mueller’s team, and has openly asked in court why Mueller wasn’t prosecuting former British spy Christopher Steele — who wrote the anti-Trump dossier that ultimately led to the Mueller investigation — for interfering in the 2016 election or failing to register as a foreign agent, the same sort of charges filed against members of Concord and other Mueller targets.
The judge in the case has consistently sided with Mueller, and while Dubelier and his clients may eventually win the case on appeal, things don’t look to be trending in their favor as of now.
Critics view Mueller’s investigation as a one-sided affair with the overarching goal of getting President Donald Trump, or at least damaging him with the appearance of impropriety or criminal activity.