>>7172990
(A) Weissman
>https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-bob-mueller-placed-a-controversial-legal-bulldog-on-his-team
Weissmann started his career as a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York. There, he worked with a number of people who would go on to positions of extraordinary power: Valerie Caproni, who would become a federal judge in New York; Loretta Lynch, who would become attorney general; and Beryl Howell, who would also become a federal judge – the judge now overseeing Mueller’s grand jury.
(B) Valerie Caproni
>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/06/fbi-lawyer-surveillance-judge-valerie-caproni
Caproni has come under bipartisan criticism over the years for enabling widespread surveillance later found to be inappropriate or illegal. During her tenure as the FBI's general counsel, she clashed with Congress and even the Fisa surveillance court over the proper scope of the FBI's surveillance powers.
And Caproni faces renewed skepticism for describing surveillance conducted under the Patriot Act as more limited than it actually is, now that the Guardian has revealed and the Obama administration confirmed that the National Security Agency uses the act to collect and store the telephone records of hundreds of millions of Americans.
(C) Beryl Howell
>https://finance.yahoo.com/news/judge-wont-name-foreign-corporation-063921971.html
Howell’s ruling came after a March 27 hearing, during which a lawyer for the government told the judge that the grand jury convened by Mueller was “continuing robustly.” The U.S. also conceded that local criminal rules permitted the public release of redacted briefs and transcripts.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore Boutrous, had led the effort to unseal records. Boutrous argued at the March hearing that there was a “strong public interest” for the judge to exercise her discretion to unseal records in the case and identify the corporation.
The company at the center of the mystery, represented by Alston & Bird, has mounted a months-long subpoena challenge, arguing that it cannot be compelled to provide information to the grand jury.
The foreign government-owned corporation has incurred a $50,000 daily fine for contempt of court since January after refusing to comply with the grand jury’s subpoena. The company argued that it is protected by sovereign immunity and that complying with the grand jury subpoena would violate the laws of its home country.