WASHINGTON, D.C. — Lawyers for Russian company Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, formally entered a “not guilty” plea in federal court Monday in a case special counsel Robert Mueller probably never thought would happen.

Mueller, weathering significant criticism that his Russian collusion case was thin, unveiled a

grandiose indictment

Feb. 16 against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies. The 13 Russians in question were charged with waging “information warfare” in the United States, interfering with the 2016 presidential election, and conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Mueller generated headlines with the February indictment, safe in the knowledge the 13 Russians were beyond U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, there would be no trial — only sensational Russian collusion accusations.


Mueller may now have to try the case, and Concord’s lawyers have put the special counsel on notice. The Russian company’s lawyers intend to invoke “discovery” to obtain U.S. intelligence about what they knew of Russian activities.

“I guess Mueller thought it was a freebie, for sure,” former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy told The Daily Caller News Foundation after the court proceeding.

“He thought it could make this association (of Russian collusion) and it would never be challenged in court,” McCarthy, also a National Review contributing editor, said.

Concord

retained the services

of two attorneys at mega law firm Reed Smith, and the company is demanding a speedy trial.

In starting Wednesday’s trial, Eric A. Dubelier, a Reed Smith law partner, entered a “not guilty” plea in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He also repeated his client’s interest for a “speedy trial.”

McCarthy called Mueller’s entire indictment an “unforced error.”

“One thing you never want to do is to indict in a case that you’re not prepared to try,” McCarthy said.

Mueller tried to delay Wednesday’s hearing

and floated a claim Concord had not been properly served notice.

“Until the Court has an opportunity to determine if Concord was properly served, it would be inadvisable to conduct an initial appearance and arraignment at which important rights will be communicated and a plea entertained,” Mueller’s lawyers filed in federal court.

But Concord opposed the motion. “The Special Counsel is not entitled to special rules and is required like the Attorney General to follow the rules of the Court,” Dubelier stated in his response to Mueller.

U.S. District Court

Judge Dabney Friedrich agreed with Concord and rejected Mueller’s request for a delay

in the trial without comment, which led to Wednesday’s arraignment.

Concord wants a “speedy trial” as provided by federal law, the company’s lawyers also repeated Wednesday. The case will resume July 9.

It is the second legal headache for Mueller in two weeks. Last week, federal Judge T.S. Ellis, III, a Reagan appointee, threatened to throw out the special counsel’s indictment of Paul Manafort since the charges against President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager did not relate to any charges of Russian collusion. Instead, the charges were tied to banking activities that went as far back as 2005 — more than a decade before Trump announced his intention to run for president.

Seriously clowns?? Even a moron would know that they sent THEIR LAWYERS simply to get discovery of evidence and those indicted will never actually show.

What have you got against Meuller, Mechanic?

Russian Uranium Deal

(2009-2013): Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved a deal allowing a Russian company to control 20% of the uranium mining production capacity inside the United States, which was followed by

millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation

from people associated with the transaction

Clinton Private Email Server

(2009-2013): during her entire tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton dodged Freedom of Information Act requirements by using a private email server to conduct official government business, as well as sent and received classified information that was Top Secret over an unsecured system—an “extremely reckless” (and obviously illegal) act

HSBC Bank Money Laundering Scandal:

Although it received little coverage in the mainstream media, the HSBC money laundering case reveals the complete and total corruption of federal law enforcement toward the end of Mueller’s term as FBI Director. No case demonstrates how the swamp works better than this one.

For nearly the entire duration of Mueller’s term, UK-based HSBC, an international bank with divisions and depositors worldwide, was doing billions of dollars in business with drug cartels, rouge nations, and even banks associated with terrorism, taking massive deposits made in foreign nations and funneling them into its US banks.

The overall amounts were staggering, totaling hundreds of billions of dollars, which likely gave HSBC a comparative advantage over its rivals and greater market share, while providing international criminals with the ability to “launder” money into the US banking system with little-to-no oversight.

In 2012, a whistleblower, who collected information and recorded conversations with HSBC employees, provided strong proof to the public that the bank was operating as a “criminal enterprise.”

Mexican Drug Cartels:

From 2002 to at least 2009 (and possibly much longer), HSBC bank laundered billions of US dollars for Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman’s murderous Sinaloa Cartel and similar groups. In 2009, Forbes placed El Chapo at #41 on its “World’s Most Powerful People” list. The same year, many experts agreed that Mexico’s drug war had rendered it a “failed state.” By 2012, the Sinaloa cartel alone was estimated to have annual revenues of $3 billion, which were comparable to Facebook or Netflix.

By April 2013, toward the end of Mueller’s term, the Sinaloa and other Mexican cartels had become the number one importer and distributor of narcotics inside the United States

(with many of the cartel’s top agents living inside the United States), El Chapo had become “public enemy no. 1,”

and 70,000 murders and nearly 27,000 disappearances were attributable to the drug war inside Mexico.

Ignoring the obvious,

HSBC inexplicably designated Mexico a “low risk” country for money laundering, allowing shady depositors and known drug kingpins to deposit billions of US dollars—in cash—into bank accounts in HSBC Mexico, followed by the same money becoming accessible at HSBC in the US.

With legitimate-looking banking, the Mexican drug cartels were given huge expansion potential inside the US that would otherwise have been easily detected if the cartels tried to purchase properties, vehicles, and shell businesses here using cash.

Much of the cash crossing the US-Mexico border (estimated at $25 billion per year in 2010) found a ready home in HSBC branches south of the Rio Grande. HSBC Mexico made billions of dollars in suspicious transactions, such as customers depositing hundreds of thousands of US dollars into a single bank account in a single day, during which the cash was put through teller windows in boxes that were designed to fit through the window openings.

Because there was virtually no investigation into these transactions or even the identities of depositors, who included high-profile drug dealers, accounts were rarely closed due to the suspicious activity. After all, Mexico was a “low risk” country for money laundering at the time.

Terrorists and Rogue Nations:

The bank’s practices also allowed terrorist groups and rogue nations to have access to our financial markets in a similar manner, facilitating financing of their activities inside this country, as well as providing greater international investment possibilities for sanctioned regimes—including $19 billion deposited from Iran into HSBC’s foreign affiliate banks. There were also lax rules for setting up relationships with affiliate banks in other countries, which included a Saudi Arabian bank with ties to funding terrorism.

While Comey may have provided HSBC with a Norman Rockwell-type face for its money laundering reform program,

it doesn’t appear that Comey actually reformed any of the bank’s practices.

During the time Comey was on the Board, HSBC was involved in laundering hundreds of millions of dollars from Russia into the British banking system

—a scheme with direct ties to the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin.

Apparently Comey missed this activity while he led the search for “vulnerabilities” in HSBC’s “financial system.”

Comey left HSBC in July 2013 to become FBI Director when Mueller stepped down.

 

gty_robert_mueller_james_comey_barack_obama_ll_130621_wblog

Mueller Became Partner At The Law Firm That Represented HSBC:

In its 2012 Year In Review, law firm Wilmer Hale indicated the following: “our regulatory, transactional, securities and investigations experience converged in our representation of HSBC in connection with Department of Justice and Senate inquiries.”

Less than one year after leaving the FBI, the “utterly incorruptible” Mueller took a lucrative position as a partner at the same law firm that represented HSBC in 2012,

working in the “government investigations practice” section of the firm.

Although it’s unknown whether Mueller ever handled HSBC’s matters personally, Wilmer Hale still includes HSBC in its list of “representative clients.” In 2016 alone, profits per partner at Wilmer Hale were $1.81 million.

In May 2017, Mueller left the firm to become Special Counsel for the Russia investigation.

Subsequent Inaction: In 2014, President Obama appointed Loretta Lynch to replace Holder as Attorney General.

Despite criticism of her role in the HSBC case, the Senate voted to confirm Lynch to the post in 2015. A few weeks before she was sworn in, her own office suggested that HSBC had not complied with the 2012 deferred prosecution agreement.

What did AG Lynch do to hold HSBC “accountable” once she took over?

Nothing.

By 2016, even Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) was critical of Lynch’s inaction against HSBC—it was that bad.

Russia, Russia, Russia:

If Mueller failed to do anything to stop these obviously corrupt and criminal practices during his own 12-year term as FBI Director, it’s hard to believe that he will conduct a fair and impartial investigation into the politically-charged assumption of “Russian interference” in the 2016 presidential election.

Mueller isn’t the one to investigate the swamp—Mueller is the swamp.

He is a dirty cop who never should have been appointed Special Counsel, and he should be fired immediately

.

Quote:


so yeah...

any other questions??