1. The IRA CIPA filing today got me interested the case. I think that filing may have been a “minimally unredacted copy” of Vol 1 of #MuellerReport. And @RepAdamSchiff already has it. @maddow

Link to (dkt 134) Govt Supplement Filing

I’ll try to summarize what this is about. Putin’s chef Yevgeny Prigozhin, represented by counsel in DC is filing numerous things in the pending IRA case on behalf of his company Concord Management and Consulting LLC.  (“Concord”). One recent filing was a motion seeking to hold Barr and Mueller in contempt for violating court rules about public statements. They claim that the Mueller Report states that Concord is essentially guilty. It’s a clever argument IMO.

So today the Govt filed something under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) that is allowing the court to see in camera material related to the case.

I explored a little and found the above linked US Govt filing. It says that a nearly fully unredacted copy of Vol I of the Mueller Report was to be delivered to the House and Senate intelligence committees on May 28, 2019.

My point is that I think it is possible that the document that went to the SCIF today for the judge was the minimally redacted Vol I of Mueller Report.

Material filed by #ACLU in #SDNY and #SCOTUS in US #Census case. Redacted for “deliberative process privilege.” Is ACLU just teasing or did it catch a big one? @maddow @lawrence

First, I think ACLU violated the Court rule.

After a case has been argued or submitted, the Clerk
will not file any brief, except that of a party filed by leave of
the Court. 

Supreme Court Rule 25 (7).

Here is the complete Respondent’s Notice of Filing. My SCOTUS experience is limited so I can’t speak to whether the Court might just ignore it. Perhaps just decide it warrants a footnote in the opinion that is likely well along in the drafts.  So ACLU must know the rule. They’re acting like it’s a big deal.

So, SCOTUS is seeing the unredacted material over which the Trump administration is claiming executive privilege.  ACLU may have caught a big one but it’s under seal in the SCOTUS.  But ACLU teed it up in NY in a contempt sanction motion so the district judge in #SDNY is in a position to have it flop out on the deck in public.  And all SCOTUS will be left with is the stink.

Clever.

Here’s a link to the SCOTUS Docket

 

 

 

 

In #DeutscheBank @realdonaldTrump SDNY litigation, the parties filed joint motions in both 2nd Cir and SDNY. Links and explanation. @maddow @lawrence

In the SDNY they parties filed Joint Motion to stay.  This motion seek to stay the procedgins not the subpoena. It’s a smart thing to do especially for attorneys who aren’t getting paid by their client or who are on a shoestring budget.

 

In the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit the parties filed a Joint Motion to establish an expedited briefing schedule that lays how the case will proceed and also says that materials unrelated to the parties will be produced.  NB Russia is not a party.  No way to tell who they are addressing.