posted on May, 15 2018 @ 10:49 AM
In yet another fun-filled way for lawyers to rack up billable hours, Concord has filed a
seeking access to the grand jury legal instructions
provided by Mueller pre-indictment.
So what, you ask.
Well, unlike gross-negligence in handling classified information, there is
a knowledge-requirement for Count One under the indictment of the
statutes Concord and the other Russians were indicted under. Nowhere in the count does such language appear, and Concord wishes to know if Team
Mueller properly advised the Grand Jury of the language and meaning of the statute.
violations of the relevant federal campaign laws and foreign agent registration requirements administered by the DOJ and the FEC require the
defendant to have acted ‘willfully,’ a word that does not appear anywhere in Count One of the Indictment.
As such, Count One of the Indictment appears to be facially invalid because it fails to charge an essential element of the offense of conspiracy to
defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing and defeating the functions of the FEC and the DOJ, that is, that the Defendant acted willfully,
in this case meaning that Defendant was aware of the FEC and FARA requirements, agreed to violate those requirements, and ultimately acted with intent
to violate those requirements.
DOJ never brought any case like the instant Indictment, that is, an alleged conspiracy by a foreign corporation to ‘interfere’ in a Presidential
election by allegedly funding free speech. The obvious reason for this is that no such crime exists in the federal criminal code.
Count One of the Indictment is devoid of any specificity about what any officer or employee of Concord actually did other than to generally allege
that Concord funded an ‘Organization’ that the Special Counsel imagined and created.
This lawyer is particularly sassy, which makes reading what are often times dull filings entertaining.
Will this work? Quite possibly. Like the "arise from" language in the Manafort case, legalise means something. It can't be easily hand-waved away as
a technicality. In fact, more so since this deals with the language of an actual statute clearly intended to guide prosecutors in what constitutes
this crime. A motion could come to dismiss from either misapplication of the statute (no willful behaviour is even alleged) or from a failure to
instruct the jury on the statute in regards to willful intent being a necessary component of actions rising to a crime under this statute.
If the charge is dropped, then what? Well, it's another embarrassment for what should be a veteran legal team. Either they are trying real hard to get
something/anything or they are not quite the Dream Team, they thought they were. If the count is vacated by the bench, then Mueller can try bringing
the same facts to another Grand Jury and explain that they must also find intent to indict under this charge. Which is not impossible, though
supporting evidence for that allegstion is curiously absent in the charge.
edit on 15-5-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)