Posts

Derek Hines’ Romanian Freeh Fall

/10 Comments/in , /by

There have been a bunch of developments in Hunter Biden’s Los Angeles case that I hope to catch up to:

  • Prosecutors’ games with coercing testimony from Hunter’s family members, again
  • The status of both Hunter’s and Alexander Smirnov’s efforts (Smirnov’s is before a different judge) to replicate Trump’s challenge to Special Counsel authority
  • The apparent strategy prosecutors will use to prove their case — including an effort to limit how much Hunter can talk about the addiction they spent a week proving in Delaware

But I want to talk about the curious conflict that prosecutors’ may create effort to use Hunter’s work for Romanian businessperson Gabriel Popoviciu to smear Hunter in the guise of proving his acuity. Both parties are renewing the motions in limine they submitted in May before the trial got moved, and on July 31, Hunter submitted a motion to exclude any allegations of (my word) influence peddling — basically, the arguments the House has been focused on.

Defendant Robert Hunter Biden, by and through his counsel of record, herebyfiles this Motion in Limine to exclude from trial reference to any allegationthatMr.Biden (1) acted on behalf of a foreign principal to influence U.S. policy and public opinion, (2) violated FARA, (3) improperly coordinated with the Obama Administration, (4) received direct compensation from any foreign state, (5)receivedcompensation for actions taken by his father that impacted national or international politics, or (6) funneled money to his father or any related alleged corruption(together, allegations of “improper political influence and/or corruption”).

Hunter argued that since he had never been charged for any such crime, it should not come in at the trial.

Mr. Biden is not,and never has been, charged with any crime relating to these unfounded allegations, and the Special Counsel should thus be precluded from even raising such issues at trial.

Hunter even renewed his complaint that prosecutors wanted to present such evidence even though he had agreed not to raise how they had chased Alexander Smirnov’s hoax against Hunter and his father.

Defense counsel notes that it is ironic that the Special Counsel has filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence “alleging the prosecution of the defendant is somehow due to or part of a Russian malign election influence campaign,”whichMr.Biden did not object to. (DE 92 at 4.) Yet, the Special Counsel opposes the instant motion, which would preclude him from putting forward similar politically charged information to the jury. To prevent this trial from becoming a trial on politics rather than a trial on the charges in the Indictment, this Court should grant both the Special Counsel’s motion as it relates to a “Russian malign election influence campaign”and this Motion.

In David Weiss’ response (importantly, signed by Derek Hines), he scolds Hunter for not offering up what was provided in Jencks production in May, and uses that to submit a filing from Rob Walker’s grand jury testimony under seal, as if that was Hunter’s job to do.

In addition to providing evidence prosecutors allege will show that Hunter “performed almost no work in exchange for the millions of dollars he received from” Burisma and CEFC, prosecutors want to show the work that Hunter did do for Romanian businessman Gabriel Popoviciu. They claim it’ll not only show what income Hunter made in 2017 — something that can easily be shown with bank statements — but also show that Hunter retained his full capacities in a year he didn’t pay taxes (albeit a year when Hunter allegedly simply forgot to pay his prior year’s taxes).

For Count 2, the government must prove that the defendant owed taxes on his income for the calendar year ending December 31, 2017. See Dkt. 159-1, Gov’t Proposed Instruction No. 34 (Failure to Pay). The purpose and structure of the payments and the nature of the work described above are relevant because they establish that the defendant received income when payments were made by Business Associate 1 and the year in which the defendant earned the income. See United States v. Hoegel, 723 F. App’x 421, 424 (9th Cir. 2018) (unreported). Moreover, the evidence of what the defendant agreed to do and did do for G.P. demonstrates the defendant’s state of mind and intent during the relevant tax years charged in the indictment. It is also evidence that the defendant’s actions do not reflect someone with a diminished capacity, given that he agreed to attempt to influence U.S. public policy and receive millions of dollars pursuant to an oral agreement with Business Associate 1 in an arrangement that concealed the true nature of the work he was performing for G.P. See id. at Gov’t Proposed Instruction No. 29.1 (“Diminished Capacity”).

Amid a bunch of other fairly reasonable or routine motions, this one is an outlier. Particularly given how Hunter’s non-payment of 2016 taxes was charged as a crime that occurred in 2020 (meaning, Hunter’s acuity in 2017 is not directly tied to the crimes alleged), it feels very equivalent to John Durham’s corrupt efforts to insinuate a conspiracy by making allegations he couldn’t prove in court filings. The inclusion of all this is a stretch (though Mark Scarsi has been overly solicitous of the government’s requests, and I have no expectation that’ll change).

For all three relationships, Weiss can simply prove Hunter made the money by pointing to bank accounts. Including anything more is prejudicial, wildly prejudicial in a trial scheduled during campaign season.

Hines’ stunt of providing the Rob Walker transcript seems designed to ensure it gets shared one way or another, and in the process, freed up for inclusion in a final report.

But here’s the reason why Weiss’ focus — Derek Hines’ focus — is so curious. Prosecutors seem prepped to argue that Hunter himself peddled influence for Popoviciu — but as [!!!] Fox News explained two years ago, Hunter didn’t do the work. Other lawyers at Boies Schiller did … including, especially, Louis Freeh.

Hunter Biden and his colleagues at a high-powered law firm tried to leverage their government connections in the final months of the Obama administration in a failed bid to help a Romanian real estate tycoon avoid a conviction on bribery charges.

Emails obtained from Hunter’s abandoned laptop show the younger Biden — then working as a counsel at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP — reached out to former FBI Director Louis Freeh in June 2016 about the case of Gabriel Popoviciu, who was accused of acquiring land to build a Bucharest mall at a below-market price, the Daily Mail reported.

In a June 18, 2016, email, Hunter Biden told Freeh — then a partner at the Delaware-based law firm Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan — that he believed Popoviciu was “a good man that’s being very badly treated by a suspect Romanian justice system … Time is of the essence and my client has never balked at bringing whatever team it takes together at whatever cost to obtain justice.”

While Freeh’s initial response, which began “Thanks for your note and for thinking of me,” was noncommittal, he was soon fully invested in Popoviciu’s case.

“I will see my good friend Ron Noble (former SecGen INTERPOL), in NY on Thursday,” Freeh wrote Hunter three days after the initial email, “and most likely he knows this DNA [Romanian National Anti-Corruption Directorate] prosecutor, Laura Codruta Kobesi, very well. Let me talk to him and see what the possibilities may be to meet with her and to initiate a dialogue which would remediate the situation.”

This does make it similar to what Hunter did with actual lobbying for Burisma and influence-peddling for Patrick Ho: brokering relationships to have other people do the work.

And (as more anti-Hunter outlets have explained) Derek Hines worked with Freeh for eighteen months leading up to these events.

Hines’s LinkedIn says he worked as ‘Special Counsel’ for the ex-FBI director at his company Freeh Group in New Orleans, Louisiana, between August 2013 and February 2015. It is unclear what projects he counseled Freeh on.

It wasn’t until 2016 that Hunter started working with Freeh consulting for Popoviciu.

Indeed, Hines’ past work with Freeh was the subject of conspiracy theorizing that he was covering for Freeh.

At least as explained, Freeh’s role seems to go to the core of the allegations Hines wants to present in court, allegations that have nothing to do with non-payment of his taxes, allegations that say nothing about Hunter’s acuity in 2020, when he allegedly chose not to pay his 2016 taxes.

Yet Hines appears to have had a closer relationship to Freeh than Hunter did.

NCAA, Mark Emmert, Unitary Executives & The Death of Due Process

/52 Comments/in , , /by

Once you step beyond the tragedy of Aurora, the big news today centers on Penn State and the aftermath of Jerry Sandusky, Joe Paterno and Louis Freeh. There is a lot of news, and implications to come, from today’s events.

First, and unsurprisingly, Penn State yesterday took down the fabled statue of JoePa. Abandoning larger than life symbols, whether human or otherwise, is never easy. And it is not just the specter of human faces in this regard either, witness the difficulty (irrespective of which side of the equation you reside on) of moving beyond “Redskins” and “Seminoles” as team mascots. But Paterno’s statue at PSU, by now, was more a testament and reminder of gross and wanton failure, not success. A defeating duality if there ever was one for a supposedly inspirational piece of art. The statue had to go the way of JoePa himself, and it now has.

The second part of the news, and discussion thereof, however, will have far greater repercussions. That, of course, is the actual penalties handed down to the Penn State football program. They have just been announced and are as follows:

1) A $60 Million fine to be applied to anti-child abuse charity and organizations

2) A four year ban on bowl appearances

3) A scholarship reduction of 10 initial scholarships year one and 20 overall scholarships per year for a period of four years.* Current athletes may transfer without penalty or limitation

4) Imposition of a five year probationary period

5) Mandatory adoption of all reforms recommended in the Freeh Report

6) Vacation of all football wins from the period of 1998 through 2011. A loss of 111 wins from the record book (109 of which were from Paterno)

These are extremely harsh penalties. In some terms, competitively anyway, the scholarships are the key element. A loss of twenty per year for for four years, when prospective players know they will never see a bowl game in their career, is crippling. It will be fascinating to see how PSU survives this blow.

USC provides the best analogy, as it is just finishing up its sanction of a two year bowl ban and loss of ten scholarships per year for three years. While the Trojans will be eligible for a bowl game again this year, they still have one more year of the scholarship reduction to get through. USC has remained competitive and, in fact, is considered to be a major contender for the championship this coming year. Penn State, however, has much longer terms, especially as to the Read more →

Near Daily Drone Attacks Continue in Pakistan

/14 Comments/in , /by

John Brennan must feel that Pakistan’s morale has only improved marginally, because what was an average of almost one drone strike a day has now fallen to about a half drone strike a day. Three successive days of strikes (with a total death toll of 27) have brought to eight the number of strikes in the two weeks since last-minute negotiations on the reopening of supply routes through Pakistan broke down and Brennan decided to rain terror down on Pakistan once again.

Today’s attack killed 15 in Mir Ali in North Waziristan. In the AFP story carried in Dawn, we have no less than two officials confirming that those killed were “militants” even though their nationalities aren’t known:

“Fifteen militants were killed in a dawn strike on a compound. The bodies of those killed were unable to be identified,” a security official in Miramshah told AFP.

He said there were reports that some foreigners had been killed but these were unable to be confirmed.

A security official in Peshawar confirmed the attack and said 15 militants were killed.

“We have received reports that 15 militants have been killed in a drone strike but at this moment we don’t know about their nationalities,” the official said.

“We are also unclear about the number of the militants who were present in the compound at the time of attack.” The latest attack came amid an uptick in drone strikes.

Coverage of this strike in the Express Tribune is quite interesting. It has near the beginning the usual quote of a local official asserting those killed were militants, but includes an admission that “locals” were among those killed:

A security official said that the compound was targeted in the Esokhel area of Mir Ali and that locals along with foreign militants were killed. “I don’t know how many foreign militants were killed but we are sure that foreigners were among the dead,” said an official of the security force.

But then we get to a tribesman being quoted, and what he has to say is revealing:

According to a tribesman who was an eyewitness, the compound was razed to the ground after the attack. “I didn’t go near the house, as I avoid going near places where drone strikes take place,” he added.

Why would local tribesmen “avoid going near places where drone strikes take place”? Why that’s because the US intentionally targets first responders at drone strikes:

But research by the Bureau has found that since Obama took office three years ago, between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children.  A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts.

Who else targets first responders? Well, there are terrorists in Iraq who do that: Read more →

Louis Freeh Defending Iran-Contra Type Arms Deals Along with Bandar

/51 Comments/in /by

There’s an aspect of the Louis Freeh interview on Frontline I find fascinating.

In defense of his client, Saudi Prince Bandar, on allegations that Bandar received billions in bribes associated with a huge BAE defense contract, Freeh mostly tries to pretend there’s a meaningful distinction between the Saudi family and high government officials in it. Thus, the plane and estate that Bandar got in connection with the BAE deal are actually government-owned facilities he has use of.

And conveniently, Freeh hasn’t looked at the Swiss Bank Accounts or the Yamamah contract, so he can’t comment on their legality.

But I’m also fascinated by a more subtle tactic Freeh uses–to implicate high ranking Americans (and Brits) in the use of the funds. 

He explains away that structure of the al Yamamah contract to Congressional intransigence during the Reagan Administration. Congress wouldn’t let the Administration sell planes to Saudi Arabia, so what was Reagan to do except encourage Margaret Thatcher to set up a big corrupt contract to bypass this restriction?

Freeh: In other words, the United States, was not able to sell the Saudis F15s, and I think you understand the origin to this contract. The King sent Prince Bandar, my client, to President Reagan with very specific instructions, “Buy F15s.” And of course the United States had armed the Saudi armed forces for the last 20 years before that.

President Reagan said to my client, “Congress will never approve the sale of F15s.” My client then went up to the hill, spoke to senior leadership on both sides of the aisle, and they said, “We can’t authorize the purchase of F15s by the King of Saudi Arabia.” He went back to President Reagan who said, “Go talk to Maggie Thatcher,” which my client did. That’s how Tornados and the treaty, not the contract but the treaty between the two countries, was originated.

He wanted to buy the planes in the United States.

[snip]

So there was only one bidder here by default and that was the British Aerospace Systems and the Toranado, at least as the contract began. So the way the treaty was set up, if the Ministry of Defense and Aviation wanted to purchase U.S. arms, U.S. arms could be purchased through BAE and DESO, which was the U.K. Ministry that did the purchasing, and that was sort of a way to purchase arms, transparent way to purchase arms, Read more →