And playing the part of robert driscoll, who represents accused russian secret agent maria butina, as her defense attorney, that part will also be played by me. I know that sounds cheap. Its a delicate balance here. What were saving on the salaries of actors with speaking roles, were making up for in terrible acting by me. So whats going on here is that accused russian secret agent, maria butina, has been in jail a week and half. She was arrested last weekend right before the trumpputin summit in helsinki. She was actually arrested before the summit started even though we didnt find you about it at the time. The court didnt unseal the case against her until a few hours after the summit was concluded. The coincidence of those two events is interesting because she is accused of being an agent of the russian federation, right, secretly mounting an operation in this country on behalf of the russian government to influence the Republican Party around the 2016 president ial election. Since they unsealed her case, we have learned a lot of interesting stuff about what exactly the government is accusing her of. Its all fascinating. I think we are all hard wired as humans to think secret agent stuff is fascinating otherwise there wouldnt be books with shiny covers in bookstores. We love this stuff. In terms of the country and this presidency and the big scandal that has followed the president home from that summit with putin in helsinki last week, there does remain one really big as yet unanswered question about the maria butina case. Does her case stand alone or does it link into the larger russia scandal, the other prosecutions, the russian governments effort to swing the election . Does it link in to the crucial question whether the president and his campaign were somehow in on that russian operation to influence the election . So, today, Court Hearing for maria butina. I should tell you, the bottom line here is that part of what came out in this Court Hearing today is that prosecutors say her case is connected to the larger story, at least the evidence in her case is connected, they say, to other ongoing case and investigations. I should warn you in advance, there is a little argument about sex and her personal diary, i swear it is relevant to the larger questions here, but you should know what happens. Here goes. This is the initial discussion in court, starts right away. Its about discovery. Its about the evidence and materials, the prosecution has seized in their case against maria butina. Theres questions now being litigated in court as to whether and when and how her defense lawyer is going to be allowed to see all that stuff the government has seized. Here we go. Mr. Saunders, the prosecutor. Good morning, your honor, thank you very much. The judge, good morning. Prosecutor, weve had preliminary discussions about discovery. Where we are the government has substantial discovery theyre ready to turn over right away. Right now we already have about 4 to 6 terabytes of data the equivalent of over 1. 5 million files that were ready to turn over just as fast as it can be loaded onto a portable hard drive. Another batch of data of the court. Let me stop you. With regard to that first batch, how long do you think that will take to trans fer . Mr. Saunders barring the issue of protective order it shouldnt take more than a couple of days. The second batch should be route in maybe two weeks . Once its ready it shouldnt take more than a couple of days to put it onto a hard drive and provide it to defense counsel. Judge, okay. Bottom line is the government wants to provide this to the defense right away immediately so they can begin to prepare their defense in the courtroom. The problem were having is, your honor, agreeing on a protective order. A protective order from the governments position is essential, not just for the normal reasons of protecting third parties personal identifying information, but also to protect potential Ongoing Investigations. And just given the sensitive nature of this case. In our discussion, the question that seems to be overlying the conflict between the two party, to put it frankly, is whether or not the defense counsel wants this information right away so he can prepare for a defense in this court or defense counsel wants this information so they can use it on cable news. The reason i put it that way, your honor, we proposed a basic protective order that says the information can be used for defense in this case. It gives the defense wide latitude to use it in this case, including showing it to the appropriate witness, showing it to those witnesses attorneys. Defense rejected that offer and the defenses response is, no, we should have free rein to use that material however we want. Our protective order says you can use it for this case but you cant use it for other purposes including public disclosure, like going on the press. The defense says, no, no, no. We should have free rein. An exact quote from defense counsel. Our concerns about protecting this information the judge jumps in, other than personal identifying information, what are your other security concerns . Prosecutor. Our concerns are protecting integrity of potential Ongoing Investigations not just related to this case but potential other cases as well. The judge says, all right. Potential other cases as well. That might be affected by the disclosure of the evidence in the maria butina case. So the prosecutors here are telling the judge its bad Maria Butinas defense lawyer has been going on dreaded cable news and talking about her case and defending her in the court of public opinion. During the course of this hearing today they go on to fight with him why that is bad at one point. The judge says to butinas defense lawyer, do you think its in your clients best interests to have your case tliin the press. I dont want to impose a gag order as other judges have in this court but i will entertain a motion to do so if i think it crosses the line and violate our local rules. I am cautioning you. Theres this fight in court over the defense lawyer of maria butina talking to the press about her case and the prosecution is pressing their argument and the judge seems to basically agree butinas defense lawyer shouldnt be doing that. The judge warns her defense lawyer he should watch it. She also later tells the defense counsel there will be a protective order in this case, at least for some material, which means the judge said today in open court she will set limits on what butina can do and cant do with the evidence against her the government has turned up once the government has to hand that over to them so they can prepare their defense. They had this fight today. It definitely lands in a very onesided way. For us watching this case and thinking about the National Significance of this case and how it looms over the extensional scandal of the presidency, does this dramatic case against this accused russian agent play into the russia, election and other indictments that have come out, the prosecutors said today, yeah, this case is connected. Its connected to other ongoing cases and other potential cases as well. Theyre saying thats related to why we need to stop her attorney from putting the evidence against her out in the press. That stuff is sensitive and relates to ongoing cases and potential cases as well. The judge goes with that. The defense lawyer quote your honor the governments theory that the documents and items possessed by my client before they were seized by the government somehow become confidential once theyre seized by the government. When the government gives them back they can protect them under a protective order. The judge jumps in, mr. Driscoll, the if its in an Ongoing Investigation merely because its in the possession of your client the fact its in your clients possession doesnt give it possession. Im not clearly understanding your position. Defense lawyer. Its my position its the governments burdton say what needs to be protected and why. For example, my clients diary and my clients notes, documents of my client. P my clients immigration records simply because they came into the possession of the government she doesnt lose her First Amendment rights or ability to do with those documents what she wants. The judge well, this is a pending criminal case. Im curious what you would be planning to do with her immigration documents or diary in advance of the trial. Defense lawyer well, i mean, they might be evidence at the trial but there might be other purposes for which they would be used. There are ongoing congressional investigations weve been dealing with. A lot of these same documents have already been introduced to the intelligence committee. The judge if those documents are the result of a subpoena you can go and say they are the subject of a subpoena. This is the judge whittling the defense lawyer down to a toothpick here. Hes saying, hey, this was her stuff the government seized. We should be able to do whatever we want with it. You cant stop us from giving it to the press. The judge says, seriously, its evidence in a criminal trial and if what is seized from her is relevant to other ongoing open investigations of course you cant do anything you want with it. On that last point of the transcript how his client has already been questioned by other parts of the government he raises congressional investigation and stuff that is critically important. Well come back in a second. Theres this one last thing you should see from the hearing today. I mentioned there was a discussion about sex related allegations. This is that part. It does not go well for the defense lawyer. Remember where this came from. Last week, the prosecutors laid out a case for the judge maria butina shouldnt be released on bail. They were arguing shes a flight risk and might go back to russia. Theres no reason to expect she would feel bound to stay in the United States and face this trial. In order to make that case the prosecutors argued what appeared to be her personal ties, even her emotional ties to the United States, they argued those ties werent real. This is what they filed with the Court Last Week under the headline butinas quote tie to the United States is a duplicitas relationship. During the course of the investigation the fbi determined maria butina gained access through u. S. Person 1 to an Extensive Network of u. S. Persons in positions to influence Political Activities in the United States. Butina, age 29 and u. S. Person 1, age 56, are believed to have cohabitated and been involved in a personal relationship during the course of butinas activities in the United States. But this relationship does not represent a strong tie to the United States because maria butina appears to treat it as simply a necessary aspect of her activities. For example on at least one occasion butina offered an individual other than u. S. Person 1 sex in exchange for a position within a special interest organization. Further in paper seized by the fbi butina complained about living with person 1 and expressed disdain for continuing to cohabitate with u. S. Person 1. That was the prosecution last week. Theyre saying, listen, shes a spy, shes only involved with this guy because its part of her cover as a spy. Today, butinas defense lawyer went off on that. He and his client are absolutely not going to stand for that from the prosecution. He went after them on this specific issue in court today and it didnt go well. Defense lawyer we did make a special request with the government to receive on an expedite basis any evidence they had to back up their claim miss butina traded sex for a job. That has become unfortunately a big issue in the media. As proffered in the bond hearing before we have no idea what the government is talking about and dont believe it is true. The government has we presume they could give that part of it to us so we could see what it is. The government has not agreed to do that. They said we can wait for discovery to do that. The judge jumps in, mr. Saunders, speaking to the prosecutor now, whats your position with regard to the information mr. Driscoll just requested. Our position is twofold, we want to make sure the protective order is in place before giving over anything. Second, were concerned as to what use anything will be put. If the defense is seeking particular pieces of evidence to take them to the news media we dont want that violation of local rules. The judge. Right. I think, mr. Driscoll, youre certainly entitled to discovery and to know the basis of the charges against your client in accordance to the local rules but not sure youre entitled to certain pieces of evidence to rebut media reports. Im sure its not pleasant to read incorrect things about your client. No lawyer likes that. And my goal is to get this case resolved in an expeditious and fair manner. As to when you get that information you will get it as any other in this trial. No, im not helping you figure out why the golf said that thing about you and your client and trading sex for a job. The prosecution said part of butina ease operation in this country was she was supposedly involved with this older man a political activist in south dakota. The government is making that case because they say that relationship wasnt an earnest relationship, it wasnt real, theyre saying that was part of their cover story as a secret agent carrying off this influence operation on behalf of the russian government. Whether or not it turns out to have been true love, this ends up being sort of a key element in how the maria butina secret agent case relates to the rest of the russia scandal and potentially the president s campaign. Theres a few of these connections, actually, this is one of them. One of the links already established, prosecutors say maria butina was funded for this u. S. Operation by a russian billionaire. The Washington Post has since named that russian billionaire and reported that russian billionaires son worked on the Trump Campaign. We contacted the Trump Campaign to ask them whether that was true and what role he funded during the campaign. So far we have not heard back from the campaign on that and let you know when we do. Another link is this guy, u. S. Person 1, the unnamed american citizen maria butina was involved with in this personal relationship. He lives in south dakota. I am here to sing the praises of a local hero south dakota journalist named seth tupper from the south dakota journal because he tracked down a proposed order of cooperation between maria butina and federal prosecutors in south dakota, an offer that dates back to may of this year. Maria butina was apparently considering offering testimony or evidence to federal prosecutors for their investigation of her supposed boyfriend in south dakota. She was offering the u. S. Attorney in south dakota or considering an offer from the u. S. Attorney in south dakota she would cooperate with them in their investigation of her supposed boyfriend. Depending how things worked in that particular relationship that would seem to bolster the prosecutions case maybe this wasnt true love, if she was talking to prosecutors about what evidence she might be able to give them against her guy. Well, her guy, this american man, has not been charged with anything as far as we know but he has been described in Court Filings basically as a c coconspirator with her efforts in large part through the nra. It is remarkable the nra has had no comment on this case at all. No comment on this indictment since it was first unsealed. This is federal prosecutors including veteran espionage prosecutors saying there is evidence in court used by the russian government in an illegal intelligence operation. Really . No comment by that nra, for more than a week now . In january, mcclatchy reported whether the russian money help trump but that was before we got information how else russia was trying to influence the election before butinas defense lawyer said in court she was contacted by the fec in march whether certain political donations had been made to campaigns before the Washington Post said butina testified to the Intelligence Senate Committee one of her sources of funding in 2016 was a 5,000 a month consulting deal she had with the Outdoor ChannelTelevision Network to provide advice on a planned program on hunting in russia. How did she get hooked up with the Outdoor Channel . Quote, the Outdoor Channels chief executive, jim liberator accompanied to moscow in 2015 and there he is with accused russian agent maria butina. December 2015 exactly the same time that Trump National security advisor, mike flynn, was also in moscow sitting next to vladamir putin at a banquet for russian tv. Same time period, right before the republican president ial primary started. What was the nra all doing in moscow right before then . What was mike flynn doing in moscow before then . The Outdoor Channel would not confirm to the Washington Post today they did have this accused russian agent on their payroll for 5,000 a months in 2016. We were able to reach them late in the day today and they did confirm to us that, yes, they did, they had her on the payroll, 5,000 a month. Theres no reason to think that the Outdoor Channel knew at the time that the person they had put on their payroll was a secret agent who is now accused of running a russian government influence operation to influence our election, no indication that they knew thats what they were doing at the time but that is what they did. So, last point here. Were these gun rights folks potentially a conduit for russian money alongside other forms of russian government influence on our 2016 campaign . Mcclatchy was on that story first. Honestly they took tons of heat for that story and stood by it throughout. But now i dont think theyd take heat for that story today. Now, it is a much more open question. It would be really really good to find that out. The nra, according to federal prosecutor