- The Washington Times
Tuesday, January 8, 2019

The attorney for a Russian firm on Tuesday lashed at U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich, saying her tongue-lashing at a hearing the previous day triggered “a flow of hatred in the form of voicemail and electronic mail from self-proclaimed patriots” who made death threats.

On Monday, Judge Friedrich rose to the defense of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Defense attorney Eric A. Dubelier had filed a brief on Friday suggesting Mr. Mueller’s team obtained evidence unethically. He cited a line in the movie “Animal House” to make his point.


Mr. Dubelier, I will tell you now that I found your recent filings, particularly the reply brief that you filed on Friday, unprofessional, inappropriate, and ineffective,” Judge Friedrich told him.

The lawyer is representing the Russian firm Concord Management and Consulting, which was indicted for alleged election interference. He returned the legal fire on Tuesday with an unusually sharp attack on a sitting judge.

Said Mr. Dubelier, “It is clear that at each court appearance the government has been represented by ten or more lawyers and investigators working for the Special Counsel, the U.S. Department of Justice National Security Division, and the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. Each

one of these individuals is an experienced attorney, perfectly capable of advocacy on behalf of

the government. None of them, in pleadings or in court, have expressed any problems with the

content or tone of Defendant’s filings other than vigorously opposing the relief sought. For a

reason unknown to undersigned counsel, the Court [judge] took it upon itself to defend the Special

Counsel, creating at a minimum an appearance of bias or prejudice in favor of the government.”

Mr. Dubelier said the mainstream media has all but ignored his written arguments which have criticized the judge for approving Mr. Mueller’s bid to hide evidence from Concord on national security grounds.

The judge, he said, “did not consider the fact that while the mainstream media has largely ignored Defendant’s pending motions, when the word ‘Judge’ appears before a person’s name, this political adornment suggests to the public that there now is some higher level of wisdom than among the mere mortal lawyers in the case, and as such, every single mainstream media organization repeated the Court’s words as gospel. The direct consequence was swift and clear; that is, undersigned counsel have received overnight and continuing today a flow of hatred in the form of voicemail and electronic mail from self-proclaimed patriots containing threats, intimidation, and the desire that both undersigned counsel.”

Mr. Dubelier said that MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow, “unknown to undersigned counsel,” influenced viewers until they were “whipped into their frenzy” and made death threats against his co-counsel.

“So while counsel’s words used in advocacy can hurt, the words of a Judge can have devastating

consequences,” Mr. Dubelier said.

He also said Judge Friedrich is putting the burden on him to show he is entitled to evidence.

“Unfortunately, it appears that the Court believes it is the burden of the Defendant to establish it is entitled to discovery as opposed to the burden of the Special Counsel to establish that Defendant is not entitled to discovery,” he said. “Given the fact that there is no case law to support the Special Counsel’s position in this case, Defendant remains perplexed by the Court’s statement, but will leave that argument for another day.”

Mr. Mueller brought an indictment against Concord in February on charges of funding a trolling operation during the 2016 campaign that created false personas on Twitter, Facebook and other social media.


Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC.