Tucking In Alexander Smirnov: Abbe Lowell Accuses David Weiss of Doing Russia’s Bidding

I was working on a complex post about a comment David Weiss’ prosecutors made in their response to Hunter Biden’s selective and vindictive prosecution claim in Los Angeles — bizarrely suggesting that because right wing claims had been debunked by David Weiss’ further investigation of Alexander Smirnov, it was proof that they were operating in good faith (while still adhering to claims about Joe Biden’s role in this investigation that are thoroughly debunked by the common sense implication that Biden was targeted by this investigation).

Tucked into a reply brief in Delaware, the defendant claimed that the Special Counsel’s investigation and recent indictment in the case of United States v. Alexander Smirnov “infected this case.” D. Del Dkt. 89 at p. 6. Anticipating he may make this claim in his reply here, the government notes the following. Ironically, in his recent congressional testimony before two House Committees, the defendant cited the indictment brought by the Special Counsel in the case of U.S. v. Alexander Smirnov as evidence that the Special Counsel had undermined the investigation by Republicans. He claimed, “Smirnov, who has made you dupes in carrying out a Russian disinformation campaign waged against my father, has been indicted for his lies.”12 While the defendant testified to Congress that the Special Counsel had undermined the impeachment inquiry conducted by House Republicans, to this Court he argues instead that the Special Counsel is working at the behest of House Republicans. Motion at 13. Which is it? Indeed, the defendant has no evidence to support his shapeshifting claims because the Special Counsel continues to pursue the fair, evenhanded administration of the federal criminal laws.

It was an utterly obnoxious comment, not least because prosecutors have not provided discovery relating to this — including, about David Weiss’ own role in the review of claims in 2020. These men enthusiastically chased Russian disinformation and now they’re trying to be snide about it.

I need not have bothered. In advance of a Delaware status hearing Wednesday, Abbe Lowell just filed what he fashions as a notice of additional authority — invoking the Scott Brady transcript — describing that even though David Weiss claimed to start investigating Alexander Smirnov’s allegation in July, he had already been briefed on Smirnov in 2020, but nevertheless chose to chase Russian disinformation again in July when House Republicans wailed loudly.

Although the Special Counsel claims that its investigation of Smirnov’s fantastical claims about Mr. Biden and President Biden receiving millions of dollars in bribes began in July 2023, Mr. Weiss and his team became aware of Smirnov’s claims years earlier. In October 2020, the FBI and then-U.S. Attorney Scott Brady (W.D.P.A.) passed Smirnov’s allegations to then-U.S. Attorney Weiss, and the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office was briefed on the claims contained in the now infamous FD-1023 alleging a fabricated foreign bribery scheme involving Mr. Biden and his father.1 Again, the FBI and DOJ had closed this investigation in August 2020 because they found Smirnov’s allegations baseless, and Mr. Weiss apparently agreed because he took no action based on them for over three years.

Then, in May 2023, it is uncontradicted that extremist Republicans in the House of Representatives pushed for the FBI (even threatening to hold its Director in contempt of Congress) to release the FD-1023 in an effort to publicly air these sensational allegations against Mr. Biden and President Biden, despite those allegations being baseless. Against its wishes, the FBI relented in July 2023. 2 With extremist Republicans and right-wing press outlets reviving interest in Smirnov’s claims, the Special Counsel apparently reopened its investigation days or weeks later. By the end of that month (July), the then-U.S. Attorney’s Office, instead of addressing with Mr. Biden’s counsel the specific questions this Court asked on July 26, instead abruptly backed away from a Plea Agreement that it signed and proposed to this Court and reneged on the Diversion Agreement. The connection between the reopening of the Smirnov allegations and the then-U.S. Attorney’s Office’s total rejection of the Agreement it made has, at the least, the appearance of catering to the shouts of extremist Republicans to scuttle the deal and keep an investigation into Mr. Biden alive.

Effectively, Lowell argues, Weiss’ decision to reopen the case against Hunter amounts to doing Russia’s bidding.

From the filings in Smirnov and other disclosures, it turns out that a Russian intelligence operation has the same goal of spreading disinformation to influence the U.S. presidential election in Russia’s favor. At a subsequent detention hearing in Smirnov’s case, Mr. Wise explained that Smirnov “met with Russian intelligence agencies on multiple occasions, and the U.S. intelligence community has concluded that Russian intelligence interfered in the 2020 election and continues to interfere in our elections by spreading misinformation.” United States v. Smirnov, No. 2:24- MJ-00166-DJA (D. Nev. Feb. 20, 2024) (Ex. 1 at 20). Mr. Wise explained that Smirnov’s “disinformation story” is part of a Russian intelligence operation “aimed at denigrating President Biden” and “supporting former President Trump.” Id. at 20–21, 33. Russia’s support of President Trump makes sense, as President Trump has praised the dictatorship of President Putin repeatedly and he continues to favor Russia over U.S. allies. See, e.g., Kate Sullivan, Trump Says He Would Encourage Russia To ‘Do Whatever The Hell They Want’ To Any NATO Country That Doesn’t Pay Enough, CNN (Feb. 11, 2024). The Special Counsel told the Nevada Court: “The effects of Smirnov’s false statements and fabricated information continue to be felt to this day.” Smirnov, DE 15 at 8 (Ex. 2 at 8); see also Govt’s Memo. in Support of App. for Review of Bail Order, United States v. Smirnov, No. 2:24-cr-00091-ODW, DE 11 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2024) (Ex. 3).

This case illustrates the very continuing harm identified by the Special Counsel. The Special Counsel tells us Russian intelligence sought to influence the U.S. presidential election by using allegations against Hunter Biden to hurt President Biden’s reelection. 3 And what did the now-Special Counsel do? The Office abandoned the Agreement it signed and filed felony gun and tax charges against Mr. Biden in two jurisdictions, which public records and DOJ policy indicate are not brought against people with similar facts as Mr. Biden. In these actions, the Special Counsel has done exactly what the Russian intelligence operation desired by initiating prosecutions against Mr. Biden.

Read the whole thing — along with other additional authority posted, a Third Circuit case holding that prosecutors have to deliver on their promises.

Whatever else these two filings do, they’ll force Weiss to explain his wildly conflicted role in this case.

image_print
40 replies
  1. dark winter says:

    *case, Mr. Wise explained that Smirnov “met
    *1 at 20). Mr. Wise explained that Smirnov’s

    Is this a typo and s/b Weiss? If not? who is Wise?

    Q: will this come out tomorrow, like is Mr. Lowell/ANY Democrat Rep going to bring this out?

    Thank you. Excellent coverage.

  2. Alan King says:

    Spreading Russian disinformation is a major MAGA objective, and as you point out in the previous post, Weiss expressed concerns to Congress about safety of his family. So Weiss is going where MAGA wants him to go, and Putin-emulating creeps slowly creep into power.

    Hard not to be depressed about this. But then I remember all the violence actually performed by office-holders in Hoover’s FBI, the CIA, the Jim Crow states. Not to mention the violence directed by organized crime towards police and prosecutors. So this is nothing new. Part of the deal. Just deal with it, Weiss.

    • dopefish says:

      Its very disturbing to see so many Republicans parrot Russian disinformation or talking points. Somehow the American public has lost sight of how anti-American this is and how harmful it can be to U.S. national security. Fiona Hill called them out for it during Trump’s first impeachment hearings, but it continued and got worse.

      The U.S. is the leader of the “western club” of rule-of-law democracies. Capitalist economies, independent judiciary, strong institutions, elections that actually matter, and so on. None of those systems are perfect, of course they have flaws, but they are still a thousand times better than what goes on under totalitarian dictatorships. Its disgusting to see Republicans adopt Kremlin talking points because they think its convenient to their own interests.

      When R’s parrot Russian talking points, they are helping an aggressive foreign enemy state do damage to the vibrant free society of the U.S. Russia under Putin is becoming more and more similar to Germany of the late 1930’s. Western countries could easily find themselves at war with Russia within 5 years, because Russia is not going to stop trying to expand their territory by force, and the West is currently not doing enough to stop them in Ukraine.

      • Sussex Trafalgar says:

        Excellent points! Well said!

        Fiona Hill is an expert in this field and should be interviewed more by the American press.

        • dopefish says:

          I missed it when it was published back in December, but Politico interviewed Fiona Hill about whether Russia is winning in Ukraine.

          For Vladimir Putin now Ukraine has become a proxy war. It’s not a proxy war by the United States against Russia. We’re trying to get Russia out of Ukraine, period. But for Putin, Ukraine is a proxy war against the United States, to remove the United States from the world stage. He’s trying to use Gaza, and Israel like that now, as well. He’s trying to whip up anti-United States sentiment wherever he can. I’ve just come back from Europe and from a whole host of conferences where there’s just so much rage and grievance about the United States and Putin is fanning the flames.

      • wetzel-rhymes-with says:

        As long as I can remember it has always been “Politics stops at the water’s edge.” We were always brought up to be unified, Democrats and Republicans, for a consistent foreign policy that didn’t change with every administration, but in developing that rationale, we forgot on the way partisan divisions towards a foreign power can damage your own security. We had a Quasi War with France about France’s interference in internal American politics during the Adams Administration. They favored the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson. When you have an internal division along partisan lines about how to treat a major power, every incentive can develop for the major power to interfere in your elections. GOP victory in the next American election is existential now for Russia’s security, and their actions over the next eight months will reflect this. The reason that the GOP does not object is because they don’t have any other way to win. They have become a party of crooks and dopes trapped in a fascist cone of kompromat and malicious idiocy with Trump at the top. MAGA is a Russian social engineering project.

  3. Upisdown says:

    After all of the abuses that Weiss was accused of by the IRS pair, the plea deal fiasco, the excessive new indictments, and now this Smirnov scandal, it would be understandable for Garland to fire Weiss. I’d say that the incompetence shown by Weiss all but demands his removal. He does not appear to have any clue what he is doing.

    • Ithaqua0 says:

      No longer bound by DOJ policy as to the breadth and content of his testimony, I’m pretty sure he will do his best to earn a well-paid right-wing position somewhere by making Biden look as senile as possible. As for Weiss, I think he knows what he’s doing. He’s trying to balance a ton of political pressure with legal stuff, which is seriously damaging the quality of the legal stuff, as this sort of tradeoff in any endeavor tends to do.

      • jecojeco says:

        Hur and Weiss are making Garland look like God’s own fool. With Hur he not only invited the Fox into the henhouse he provided him with a knife & fork and Hur is going to seize this opportunity to go megaMAGA. He’ll probably even say Garland placed unfair restrictions on his investigation. I thought Garland would last the remainder of this administration but Biden better have somebody in the bullpen because Hur could end Garland’s AG term abruptly.

    • emptywheel says:

      That was true of Durham as well. It also means he’ll have no immunity as a prosecutor. So he could be prosecuted for GJ violations or false claims.

      Durham actually ratcheted BACK some of the false claims he made in the report in his testimony.

      • Sussex Trafalgar says:

        Exactly!

        I hope the Democrats on the panel are smart enough to forfeit their respective five minutes of questioning time in favor of giving Adam Schiff enough continuous questioning time to properly examine Hur. An hour at least would be helpful.

      • wetzel-rhymes-with says:

        Please, please, please someone in Congress please bring a poster with those boxes on it. Please ask Hur if he can tell that there’s a difference between the ‘D’ is on those two boxes. He says they are the same. He used them to place Biden’s Afghanistan notes in Virginia. It doesn’t take a forensics expert to see that those are not the same box.

        What boxes you ask? They were here! I swear! Searching ‘Hur boxes “D”‘ in Google Image Search doesn’t find them. I’ve never been more ashamed to be a member of a completely disorganized political movement. We have no game at all. If Mueller had put out a picture like that, the GOP would have had 1000 drummers beating the tune, and at least two social media networks boosting it. It’s not like I’d want to be a member of a left-wing party that operated like that, but the blogs used to make an organic way to amplify through community mediation, but there doesn’t seem to exist efficacy like that except whatever is allowed on Twitter. I don’t understand what’s happened to the voice of the media. It seems oblivious, but I am silo’d here with you Illuminati.

    • harpie says:

      Robert Hur will testify as private citizen with help from Trumpworld figures EXCLUSIVE: Ex-Special Counsel arranged to leave Justice Department the day before his appearance with the House Judiciary Committee https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/robert-hur-trump-special-counsel-b2510944.html Andrew Feinberg 3/11/24

      […] In preparing for the hearing, Mr Hur has turned to William Burck, a veteran Washington lawyer with deep ties to the Republican political establishment to serve as his counsel during his testimony before the committee. […]

      – Maratha Stewart prosecution team
      – GWBush WH + his NARA representative since he left the WH
      [Kept Bush era docs out of Kavanaugh confirmation hearings]

      • harpie says:

        TRUMP WH v. Mueller probe and FOX Corp.

        […] During the DOJ probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election led by former FBI director Robert Mueller, Mr Burck represented three Trump White House officials, Mr Trump’s first White House counsel, Don McGahn, his first chief of staff, Reince Priebus, and his 2016 campaign chairman and White House chief strategist, Steve Bannon. And he has served as a board member of the Fox Corporation, operator of the right-wing, Republican-aligned Fox News Channel, since 2021. […]

      • harpie says:

        1] Jamison Foser links to, and has a screenshot of that Independent article which relates that Axios first reported that Hur sought advice on his testimony from Trump-era DOJ spokesperson Sarah Isgur, and that she headed DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs under Rosenstein during the Mueller probe. https://bsky.app/profile/jamisonfoser.bsky.social/post/3knhdpffe2w2k
        Mar 11, 2024 at 6:53 PM

        2] Marcy wrote on Bluesky [I can’t tell if that is the article she’s responding to]:
        https://bsky.app/profile/emptywheel.bsky.social
        Mar 11, 2024 at 6:49 PM

        Sarah Isgur is the most interesting here. She was part of the hit jobs against Strzok and Page that Hur was associated with.

        If I’m HJC I focus on the corruption Hur–and Isgur–were involved with under Trump.

        3] Independent issues a correction [don’t know when]:

        An earlier version of this story said Mr Hur had been working with former Trump Justice Department official Sarah Isgur to prepare for his appearance. Ms Isgur, now a senior editor for The Dispatch, was approached by Mr Hur but declined to assist him in any way. We regret the error.

  4. David F. Snyder says:

    OT: Trump Employee Number 5 being interviewed by Kaitlynn Collins on CNN (or broadcast just now) re the TS dox case. Interesting info. Not sure how this feeds into Smith keeping key witnesses safe.

    • tje.esq@23 says:

      my guess: once (as previewed and anticipated) Cannon orders his identity and anticipated testimony to be disclosed to defense, potentially raising a risk of harm for the witness, by ‘informing’ potential inciters, going public at least gives protectors a chance to act, lessening the risk. Vigilante protectors who don’t know what the witness looks like, nor the content or importance of his testimony needing to be safeguarded, can’t help protect a witness.

      In other words, once there is an actual or potential threat of harm, there is safety in numbers.

      There may be other simpler explanations that I’m not privvy to, of course. Mine is a complete guess.

      • tje.esq@23 says:

        Witness describes his motive for coming forward @ 14 seconds into video. And yes, it was because Judge Cannon’s plan to expose all witnesses, as I had guessed…. This was not what he expected this far out from trial (I inferred, but link so you can judge for yourself) and he felt safer getting HIS story out first.
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=THimFBZphf0

        • SteveBev says:

          He also explained that he had expected the trial would have at least begun by now.
          So his decision is twofold
          1 he will be more secure as someone who has chosen to be a public figure, given that he was about to be doxxed by Trump/Cannon in any case
          2 that the public should have and deserve to have a more complete understanding of the strength of the case against Trump, and by giving a public face in particular to his own evidence, demonstrates more forcefully the egregiousness of Trump’s behaviour and thus his dangerous unfitness for office in the run up to the election.

  5. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Here’s the NY AG’s response to Trump’s Motion for a Stay in the civil fraud case. Trump requested that he be granted a stay of the lower court judgment, without putting up an appeals bond, or that he be allowed to put up a bond of less than 25% of the amount required.

    A bond for this judgment, with substantial accrued interest to date, plus 20% for costs and interest through resolution of the appeal, would be about $550 million. The AG greets Trump’s unusual request with 132 pages of well-argued derision.

    https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=TcRlx9PONjOWDk8QYmk6hg==

  6. Tech Support says:

    Whatever else these two filings do, they’ll force Weiss to explain his wildly conflicted role in this case.

    Oh I dunno. Based on the content of previous filings it sounds like Weiss is more than capable of hand waving and dancing around thing.

  7. DChom123 says:

    Sharp legal minds: Outside of her favoritism to Trump, is Judge Canon qualified to be a District Court Judge or even a knowledgeable lawyer?

  8. earlofhuntingdon says:

    We’ve been there, done that. Cannon has the requisite academic performance and adequate, but light, legal experience to be a district court judge. Some commentators put her performance down to inexperience. She hasn’t dealt with many cases since her appointment, mostly owing to Covid. For me, that plays a small part. It’s her politics that seem to get in the way of competent judging.

    • SteveBev says:

      One thing I have wondered about is to what extent she relies on her law clerk(s) and who they are and what their connections to MAGA world and or the Federalist Society may be.

      I appreciate that such information is likely to remain unknowable. But who her helpers are and what exactly her helpers are helping her with is something probably worth knowing.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Every judge relies on their law clerks, typically two or three at a time. They juggle the work as it comes in, but one might specialize in evidentiary and procedural law, another in complex topics or those the judge doesn’t frequently encounter and isn’t as up to speed on as the stuff that normally comes up.

        As was true with Judge Engoron and his chief clerk, whom Trump excoriated for no cause, the issue isn’t the clerks. It’s what their judge has them do. The judge is in charge: s/he sets priorities, and determines what law and language to make part of her final work product.

        • RipNoLonger says:

          Are the clerks also “suggested” by the Federalist Society? I would think they’d like to be involved in that whole pipeline.

        • Rayne says:

          Dawned on me that Orrin Hatch’s departure from the Senate may have accelerated and intensified the Federalist Society’s grip on the SCOTUS pipeline. He was a co-founder but he may have provided restraint; need only recall he supported RBG (though he didn’t support Garland).

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Judicial clerkships are very competitive and highly sought after, especially at the appellate level. They are an automatic leg up in the pursuit of govt and white shoe law firm jobs, and eventual appointment as a federal judge.

          The most sought after candidates might have two, or, rarely, three, typically progressing from lower court to higher court. The best candidates clerk for an appeals court and then the Supreme Court.

          Recommendations from previous clerks on law school faculties play a big part in directing candidates toward judges they know and who have the most connections with other judges.

          As with judges themselves, academic performance is a given; personality and political views are what is screened for. Both parties do this. Republicans are considered to have a deeper, more fervent farm team system. As with other forms of wingnut welfare, searching for vetting, and promoting members for inclusion in their nomenklatura can sometimes extend from cradle to grave.

        • RipNoLonger says:

          Thanks for that great explanation. Sounds like a purely meritorious selection process where only proven achievement plays a role.

          Glad to know that family and connections and money and race aren’t a factor!
          (No need to respond to my snarkiness – made in jest.)

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Annual clerkship hirings are extensive. There are thousands of them in the federal system and more in the state systems. Each judge makes their own hiring decisions.

          Many judges do a thorough job of looking for candidates from diverse schools and backgrounds. Others hire only from their alma mater or the Ivy League. Not all hires are about connections and political viewpoint.

          Because of that, it’s hard to characterize even a single court’s processes, such as the ones used by the 9th, 2nd, and DC Circuits or the Supremes, considered the most desirable. But there are patterns.

          It’s hard to get hired by a judge in the 11th or 5th Circuits, if you didn’t attend a law school in the South or Texas. Jobs at the Supremes tend to be overwhelmingly Ivy League. Odd, then, that Clarence Thomas is in hot water not because he’s hiring a George Mason candidate, but because of her overtly expressed racist views. Who knew?

  9. silatserak says:

    So can someone remind me who would appoint right wing special counsels to do the job that democrats should be doing? And why would that same person have allowed Smirnov to have been involved with the knowledge that he was a hack job?

    • Reader_21 says:

      The Attorney General (here, Garland) appoints the special counsel. As to Smirnov, I’m not sure he was ‘allowed to have been involved’ is entirely accurate – the issue is that right-wing House Members pursuing the Bidens were warned that he was, at best, unreliable (which, given that he was a criminal informant on Russian organized crime, and criminal informants aren’t known generally for being the most reliable bunch, let alone those involved with Putin’s ROC gang, shouldn’t have come as a surprise), and yet they not only eagerly consumed but broadcast widely what they knew to be sketchy and unverified allegations. As to why the special counsel’s actions here, I’ll certainly defer to Ms Wheeler, who has done stellar work exposing the, shall we say, irregularities around this entire investigation and the special counsel’s actions.

Comments are closed.