Mueller Hits Snag In Russian Internet Troll Case

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 19:   Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert Mueller testifies during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee June 19, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Mueller confirmed that the FBI uses drones for domestic surveillance during the hearing on FBI oversight.  (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 19: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert Mueller testifies during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee June 19, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Mueller conf... WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 19: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert Mueller testifies during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee June 19, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Mueller confirmed that the FBI uses drones for domestic surveillance during the hearing on FBI oversight. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Special counsel Robert Mueller has run into some skepticism from the federal judge overseeing the case he brought against Russians allegedly behind a social media campaign to influence the 2016 election — skepticism that could lead to the dismissal of the count against a company run by the Russian oligarch known as Putin’s chef.

The company, Concord Management, surprised observers by hiring lawyers to show up in court to fight the charges. Mueller has already survived Concord Management’s challenge to his legal authority to prosecute the case. Now U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich is weighing a motion by Concord Management seeking to throw out one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States on the basis of that indictment itself doesn’t allege an actual crime.

The issue is a complicated point of criminal law, but it could jeopardize the only count in the indictment that implicates Russian oligarch Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin. Concord Management, along with Prigozhin and his other company Concord Catering, are alleged to have funded the internet trolling effort, and have been charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. Unlike Concord Management, Prigozhin has not submitted to the court’s jurisdiction and is not actively defending the case.

In a troubling sign for Mueller, Friedrich on Thursday evening ordered prosecutors to file more briefings on the conspiracy to defraud the United States count. The judge’s order came after a hearing Monday, where she grilled prosecutors on what they would need to prove in court.

“If Congress wanted to prohibit any foreign involvement in an election, they could do it, but they didn’t do that,” Concord Management’s attorney Eric Dubelier said at a hearing Monday. “They carved out what you can’t do. They never said to foreign people you can’t talk and say what you want to say about a political candidate in the United States.”

The hearing centered on two of the three government agencies Concord Management is explicitly alleged to have defrauded, the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission. Mueller alleges Concord Management, along with other defendants named in the indictment, conspired to impede the ability of the Justice Department to enforce the Foreign Agents Registration Act — which requires people who are lobbying in the U.S. on behalf of foreign individuals or entities disclose that lobbying — and the ability of the FEC to administer its ban on foreign expenditures in elections, under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) .

Concord Management is arguing that Mueller has not shown in the indictment that the Russians knew about their legal obligations under those regulations, which according to Dubelier is required to bring criminal charges under the law, and is using the conspiracy charge as a workaround.

“They don’t have the evidence to charge a substantive violation of FARA or a substantive passport violation or a substantive FECA violation, because there is no evidence anywhere that any of these foreign people knew anything about any of these laws or regulations, none,” Dubelier said at the hearing.

Prosecutors argued that to bring the conspiracy count, all they need to show is that defendants had some knowledge that the government regulated those areas and that they took actions to impede that enforcement through acts of deception.

“It doesn’t matter if they knew it was the FEC or the DOJ or some other agency,” Mueller prosecutor Jonathan Kravis argued Monday. “They know that there is a lawful government function here, and they are acting with a purpose of interfering with it.”

Kravis pointed to the Russian trolls’ alleged move to disguise not just their identities, but the origin of the computer networks they used to influence the election on social media.

The deception there wasn’t just directed at the Facebook user reading their posts, who wouldn’t see the network information, but was “deception that is directed at a higher level,” Kravis said.

Dabney, in her order Thursday night, is now asking for prosecutors to square their arguments during the hearing with what’s alleged in the indictment. She specifically pointed to lines in the indictment about defendants’ alleged failure to report their lobbying to the Justice Department or their expenditures to the FEC. She also noted the case law prosecutors cited that she said, in doing so, showed them conceding that they have to show that the defendants had a duty to report.

“Should the Court assume for purposes of this motion that neither Concord nor its co-conspirators had any legal duty to report expenditures or to register as a foreign agent?” Friedrich asked in the order. “Specifically, should the Court assume for purposes of this motion that neither Concord nor its co-conspirators knowingly or unknowingly violated any provision, civil or criminal, of FECA or FARA by failing to report expenditures or by failing to register as a foreign agent?”

If the conspiracy charge that Concord Management is attacking is thrown out, other charges in the indictment will stand against other Russian individuals and companies. The Internet Research Agency — the organization that according to Mueller, employed the social media trolls — was charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud, as were two individual Russians. Internet Research Agency along with four Russian individuals, have also been charged with aggravated identity theft.

Neither Prigozhin nor his companies are charged in those counts.

Latest Muckraker

Notable Replies

  1. Robert Mueller isn’t going to save us.

  2. At least the NAMES of the traitors working for those dirty Russian pigs is out in the media. Those scumbags need to be targeted for prosecution themselves - anyone working for the Russians is working for a dirty criminal regime and suborning treason.

    That’s one thing that needs to come out of this in a big way - Russia must be truly punished. It needs to be brutal and fearsome. These dirty parasites have infested the world with their scum and villainy too long.

  3. A big problem I have with the Russian trolling is the level of sophistication that occurred over time. When I personally started noticing the trolling back in the summer of 2014 after the downing of the Malaysian airline, it seemed a lame attempt to influence American opinion on sites that covered politics and allowed commenting. The sophistication in 2014 was low. By late spring of 2016, the sophistication had jumped significantly. The increase in sophistication could have only have taken place with American help. And the sophistication was designed to deceive readers into assuming the writers were somewhat informed Americans. Also, when so many trollers were involved, money was clearly involved. Foreign trollers, don’t troll for free. If nothing else, it amounted to illegal campaign donations through a foreign government.

  4. Wait. Are you suggesting that we should project against the attorney’s the alleged crimes of their clients… We definitely should not do that. Our entire adversarial justice system works because attorneys are able to defend clients without risking personal credibility as long as they adhere to a shared set of rules.

    I’m all for taking down bad actors, but the burden is and always has been on prosecutors to prove the case.

  5. Yes – And that is the case. And their actions to cover their tracks prove that they understand the legal liability of their actions. Claiming ignorance only works for the President.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

90 more replies

Participants

Avatar for footballreddog Avatar for littlegirlblue Avatar for ncsteve Avatar for avattoir Avatar for cervantes Avatar for dave_adams Avatar for Lacuna-Synecdoche Avatar for inversion Avatar for sniffit Avatar for tomanjeri Avatar for bboerner Avatar for tena Avatar for clauscph Avatar for georgeh Avatar for readerfromcalif Avatar for eddycollins Avatar for timbo Avatar for spin Avatar for curioust Avatar for tompaine73 Avatar for occamscoin Avatar for holywah Avatar for thisisourcountry Avatar for majesticunicorn

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: