its like they read our critique of the indictment... and why I found it so offensive to american liberty. Mueller basically created his own version of a "Crime against the United States". https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...equest-to-view-secret-grand-jury-instruction/ the motion notes, “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.” The motion continues, “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.” Concord Management’s Monday motion contains at least one reference to U.S. case law where similar indictments were dismissed because they failed to adequately track statutory language. In other words, Concord Management is arguing that Mueller and his army of attorneys charged Concord Management (and other Russian entities) with a vague-sounding “crime” that isn’t actually a crime. In fact, Concord Management’s motion explicitly says as much, claiming, “[T]he 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.” Because Mueller’s indictment was apparently sloppy (or intentionally vague) in this regard, Concord Management is asking the court to inspect the language of the grand jury instructions–with the hope that the court agrees the indictment actually failed to include all of the elements of the crime charged. As the motion notes, under U.S. law, indictments must contain all such elements. The motion also takes some rhetorical license to savage Mueller’s mandate and his apparent focus on private Russian businesses. A representative section reads, in relevant part: more at the link.
"[T]he Deputy Attorney General acting for the recused Attorney General has rejected the history and integrity of the DOJ, and instead licensed a Special Counsel who for all practical political purposes cannot be fired, to indict a case that has absolutely nothing to do with any links or coordination between any candidate and the Russian Government. The reason is obvious, and is political: to justify his own existence the Special Counsel has to indict a Russian – any Russian."
In Feb I explained that some of the Mueller's counts were very suspect. after looking the statue up... I wrote this... "The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government." https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us I also wrote... "I was wondering if much of that indictment would withstand a motion for lack of specificity and or failure to state and offense with respect to some or all of the defendants." https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...supposed-to-be-guilty-of.318412/#post-4609099
1. that was to be statute not statue -- 2. when you think about what Mueller did there... leaving out important elements of the crime.. Vague or purposefully poorly crafted counts are a tremendous affront to the laws which are charged to uphold. Its the rule of law and it being accurately charged and prosecuted which separates blind justice from a police state. Prosecutors should hold themselves to the highest standards.... and many do.