A soon-to-be red-faced Robert Mueller is backing off the only Russian indictments in the Russian interference case he was supposed to be working on. In fact, that’s all he was charged to do originally.
The Special Counsel is left only with process crimes by General Flynn, George Papadopoulos, and Paul Manafort [crimes of lying, for example, committed during the probe]. Manafort’s crimes have nothing to do with the Trump campaign and took place years ago. Manafort is in isolation in jail for allegedly communicating with a witness. The only problem is Manafort has no idea who the witnesses are, according to his lawyer.
Why is Mueller backing off the Russian trolls?
Devlin Barrett writes in the Washington Post:
In a pair of court filings Friday, the special counsel added four assistant U.S. attorneys to the case against Russian entities and people accused of running an online influence operation targeting American voters.
People familiar with the staffing decision said the new prosecutors are not joining Mueller’s team, but rather are being added to the case so that they could someday take responsibility for it when the special counsel ceases operation. The case those prosecutors are joining could drag on for years because the indictment charges a number of Russians who will probably never see the inside of a U.S. courtroom. Russia does not extradite its citizens.
The troll case was for show and an attempt to give legitimacy to the claim of Russian interference in the election.’ Robert Mueller indicted the trolls thinking they would never show up to court, but one Russian company did.
The company, Concord Management and Consulting, sent lawyers to defend them and they want to see the evidence.
The bottom line is Mueller likely attempted to drag out the Russian Troll Farm Case which was supposed to go nowhere and act as a show trial. His request was denied after some lawyers for the Russians actually appeared — unexpectedly.
Last February, Mueller indicted 13 Russian citizens and three Russian companies with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” Politico reported.
The company pleaded ‘not guilty’.
Concord can and has demanded discovery about how the case was put together and what evidence was collected. It could expose intelligence.
Mueller wanted a delay to find out if Concord was properly served. Concord said they have appeared voluntarily and are not contesting anything. They are not trying to quash the summons.
Mueller sought delays and was denied by the judges on the case.
Concord wants all the records in the case. They want to know how the special counsel arrived at his conclusion and they want to see the evidence. The judge sided with the Russians.
THE EVIDENCE WAS A JOKE
When Mueller claimed to have presented evidence, it was mostly old news reports. He was clearly unprepared. As the lawyer for the Russians said, most of the ads presented were still in Russian, not even translated.
Much of the information in the indictment is available on the Internet. With this available information, the FBI still did nothing until the Trump witch hunt began. In fact, John Kerry’s State Department gave three of them visas to travel through the U.S. to collect data.
The Mueller team did not properly respond to the demand for discovery. Instead, they asked the judge to hide the evidence from the Russians.
MUELLER WANTS TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE FROM THE RUSSIANS
Mueller indicted these Russians and won’t let them have the data they need to defend themselves. Since when do we indict anyone in this country and not allow them to see the evidence that got them indicted?
Colin Kalmbacher, writing for Law & Crime explains:
In English, Mueller’s team is suggesting that Concord Management not have access to the evidence being used against them–at least not at first. The special counsel contends that only Concord Management’s attorneys be given access to said evidence and that maybe, at some point in the future, with the court’s permission, two additional legal teams–one provided by the defense; one provided by the government and putatively unaffiliated with the prosecution–might huddle together and come to an agreement that Concord Management actually be afforded an opportunity to view the evidence in question.
He wants to afford them the possibility of maybe seeing the evidence eventually.
As the author, Colin Kalmbacher writes, it’s likely Mueller is posturing and trying to weigh the case down with red tape.
There is more that made Mueller and his team look very foolish but, in the interest of expediency, we’ll give a brief summary of the final mess.
MUELLER WANTS TO FOREGO THE LEGAL RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL
Mueller will soon be forced to try the case. Or he can face humiliation and withdraw the charges. There is always a chance some judge grants his outlandish request.
Last month, he asked the judge to forego a speedy trial. A speedy trial is a centerpiece of American jurisprudence.
They claim it’s too complex a case to be speedy. But as former US Attorney Andy McCarthy said:
“Speedy trial rights belong to the defendant, and if the defendant pushes for a trial within the 70 days, the government has little cause to complain,” McCarthy said. “If the case was too complex, the government had the option of holding off on seeking an indictment until it was ready to proceed to trial. When a prosecutor files an indictment, it is tantamount to saying, ‘We are ready to go.'”
Mueller’s other gambit is to flood the docket with enough data to fill 3,000 CD-ROM discs. McCarthy rejected that tactic as well:
It’s “inappropriate for a prosecutor to manufacture complexity and then contend that things are too complex,” McCarthy told TheDCNF. “If a prosecutor is disclosing mountains of foreign language materials without an understanding or explanation of their relevance to the case, that is a delaying tactic and an attempt to chew up the defendant’s resources.”
The tactic “is apt to make the presiding judge very angry,” he added.
That brings us to June 22nd with Mueller stating outside prosecutors may take over the case eventually. He’s trying to pawn it off.
It could drag on for years, says WaPo’s Barrett. The author ignored the facts of the case and the embarrassing details. Instead he chose to write about the acts of the trolls. These trolls have been around since the beginning of the Internet and everyone knows about them.
The blog, The Gateway Pundit, has been reporting about this and the leftist media is accusing him of siding with and promoting Russians. The media is lost.