Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Takket

(21,563 posts)
Tue Dec 18, 2018, 10:07 PM Dec 2018

Court rules "company" must comply in "mystery appeal" from 4 days ago

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/18/politics/mueller-mystery-grand-jury-appeal/index.html

This like movie stuff LOL

(CNN)Four days after attorneys secretly argued over a grand jury subpoena suspected to be related to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 election, a federal appeals court is forcing an unnamed company to comply with the subpoena.
The appeals court did not identify the company, nor did the appellate judges say the subpoena was related to the Mueller investigation. The company that sought to quash the subpoena is owned by a foreign country, the ruling Tuesday said.
But the hearing Friday came after several other secretive court clashes between Mueller's team and the company that received the subpoena, apparently over a grand jury action. The US Circuit Court in DC had locked down an entire floor of the courthouse Friday to prevent disclosure of the lawyers' identities.
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Court rules "company" must comply in "mystery appeal" from 4 days ago (Original Post) Takket Dec 2018 OP
The "company" is a bank/banks BigmanPigman Dec 2018 #1
My guess - Alpha Bank Jersey Devil Dec 2018 #2

Jersey Devil

(9,874 posts)
2. My guess - Alpha Bank
Tue Dec 18, 2018, 10:11 PM
Dec 2018

A state (Russia) owned company that supposedly had servers in Trump Tower, used as a conduit for info/money from Russia.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Court rules "company" mus...