What does it all mean?
Special counsel Mueller alleges that evidence turned over to an indicted Russian company's lawyers was altered and leaked, in arguing against further disclosure to Yevgeniy Prigozhin, aka 'Putin's chef,' charged in 2016 U.S. election disruption effort. pic.twitter.com/4VmfVkEG0I
— Spencer Hsu (@hsu_spencer) January 30, 2019
Our legal system requires disclosure.
Every person charged with a crime has a right to see all of the evidence that the state is going to use against them.
It is against the law to withhold evidence from the accused.
If Mueller doesn’t want the states evidence to be made public then he should practice law in Saudi Arabia.
The only way that Mueller can prove that anyone, even the Russians, has altered the evidence is to make it public.
If Mueller was/is unwilling to do that then he should never have brought the case to begin with.
Mueller’s error, if any, was in charging the Russian controlled corporation with a crime. He now discovers that it is the alter ego of the individual defendants who have not and will not submit to US jurisdiction. Under those circumstances no discovery or disclosure should be required. Every person answering to criminal process has a limited right to certain types of discovery. Broad disclosure of investigative materials is not a due process right under our criminal procedure (it should be, but the Supreme Court does not place broad civil discovery under the rubric of “due process” for dubious historical reasons). A Russian national resisting the jurisdiction of the Court has no right to production of evidence.