Indicted Kremlin-Linked Firm Challenges Mueller’s Legal Authority

on June 21, 2017 in Washington, DC.
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 21: Special counsel Robert Mueller (L) arrives at the U.S. Capitol for closed meeting with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee June 21, 2017 in Washington, DC. The committee meets with Mu... WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 21: Special counsel Robert Mueller (L) arrives at the U.S. Capitol for closed meeting with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee June 21, 2017 in Washington, DC. The committee meets with Mueller to discuss the firing of former FBI Director James Comey. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) MORE LESS

The Russian firm that special counsel Robert Mueller has charged with funding Russia’s election meddling on social media and is run by an oligarch known as “Putin’s chef” challenged Mueller’s legal authority in court filings Monday.

The arguments that the company, Concord Management, presented to attack Mueller’s investigation were somewhat distinct from those previously put forward by former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, whose own efforts to challenge thescope of Mueller’s authority were rejected by a federal judge in D.C. in May. A separate Manafort challenge to Mueller’s legal authority brought in the Virginia case against him is still pending.

In its new filing seeking to have the charges against it thrown out, Concord Management argued that Mueller’s appointment was a violation of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and that the Justice Department’s regulations pertaining to special counsels were unlawful.

“Here, the Deputy Attorney General and the Special Counsel are attempting to exercise authority neither the Constitution nor Congress has conferred, and this Court should dismiss the Indictment to restore the checks and balances the Constitution demands,” the firm’s lawyers said.

Concord Management’s lawyers additionally said that even if the regulations were lawful, they would not permit Mueller to prosecute Concord Management.

Concord Management was among the defendants named in an indictment approved by Mueller’s grand jury in February. Mueller accused Concord Management of funding the organization of internet trolls who allegedly created fake social media accounts in the lead-up of 2016, and charged it with conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Concord Management has pleaded not guilty.

According to Mueller’s indictment, Concord Management is controlled by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a restauranteur with Kremlin ties who is also named as a co-defendent but hasn’t shown up yet in court to face the charges.

Concord Management in its filing takes issue with the Mueller appointment order’s sanctioning his takeover of an investigation ex-FBI Director James Comey confirmed in congressional testimony. Comey referred to the investigation as a “counter-intelligence investigation,” but Concord Management argued Monday, “Neither the statutes cited in the Order, nor the identified Special Counsel Regulations, however, authorize a counter-intelligence investigation.”

A footnote in the filing points out that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing Mueller’s probe due to Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal “likely is a fact witness” in the special counsel obstruction of justice probe of Trump, given that Rosenstein wrote the memo the White House used to justify Comey’s firing.

The appointment order “does not indicate why it was that the Attorney General had a conflict of interest—but his Deputy does not —with respect to the particularized aspects of the investigation actually being pursued,” Concord Management said.

The filings also used some of the points made by Mueller in the Manafort case and in the federal judge’s decision in his favor in that case to attack his authority.

“To begin with, the Special Counsel has taken the position in court filings that the Special Counsel Regulations are not binding and cannot be enforced in court,” Concord Management said. “If that is correct, then there is no limitation at all on the scope of an investigation and prosecution the Deputy Attorney General can delegate to a special counsel to pursue. And the byproduct is a powerful prosecutor, unguided, unconstrained, unfettered, and, indeed, foreign to this Nation’s three-branch constitutional order.”

Read the court filing below:

Dear Reader,

When we asked recently what makes TPM different from other outlets, readers cited factors like honesty, curiosity, transparency, and our vibrant community. They also pointed to our ability to report on important stories and trends long before they are picked up by mainstream outlets; our ability to contextualize information within the arc of history; and our focus on the real-world consequences of the news.

Our unique approach to reporting and presenting the news, however, wouldn’t be possible without our readers’ support. That’s not just marketing speak, it’s true: our work would literally not be possible without readers deciding to become members. Not only does member support account for more than 80% of TPM’s revenue, our members have helped us build an engaged and informed community. Many of our best stories were born from reader tips and valuable member feedback.

We do what other news outlets can’t or won’t do because our members’ support gives us real independence.

If you enjoy reading TPM and value what we do, become a member today.

Latest Muckraker
Comments
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Investigations Desk:
Reporters:
Newswriters:
Director of Audience:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: