Feds Drop Charges Against Russian Troll Farm for 2016 Election Meddling

[Dashinka 24,591]

So more wasted efforts by the Mueller/Wisemann team?

 

Feds Drop Charges Against Russian Troll Farm for 2016 Election Meddling

 

Federal prosecutors are dropping charges against the parent company of Russia’s infamous troll farm, saying that pursuing the case isn’t worth the risk of disclosing classified secrets to the Russian intelligence-linked firm.

In a motion filed late Monday, prosecutors argued that the government should drop conspiracy charges against Concord Management because the “balance of equities has shifted” in seeking justice against the company. Concord Management, owned by a former catering entrepreneur who grew close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, is the parent company of the Internet Research Agency, the St. Petersburg-based troll farm responsible for cranking out thousands of Facebook posts, advertisements, and tweets aimed at tipping the balance of the 2016 election in President Trump’s favor on behalf of the Russian government.

Concord made the unusual decision to contest the charges against it, despite the fact that it refused to send a corporate representative to the U.S. to answer for the company. Throughout the trial, the company refused to comply with subpoenas for documents and its attorneys at times appeared to mock the proceedings—earning a rebuke from Judge Dabney Friedrich for one profanity-laced filing.
 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/feds-drop-charges-against-russias-concord-management-in-2016-election-meddling

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

39 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

So more wasted efforts by the Mueller/Wisemann team?

 

Feds Drop Charges Against Russian Troll Farm for 2016 Election Meddling

 

Federal prosecutors are dropping charges against the parent company of Russia’s infamous troll farm, saying that pursuing the case isn’t worth the risk of disclosing classified secrets to the Russian intelligence-linked firm.

In a motion filed late Monday, prosecutors argued that the government should drop conspiracy charges against Concord Management because the “balance of equities has shifted” in seeking justice against the company. Concord Management, owned by a former catering entrepreneur who grew close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, is the parent company of the Internet Research Agency, the St. Petersburg-based troll farm responsible for cranking out thousands of Facebook posts, advertisements, and tweets aimed at tipping the balance of the 2016 election in President Trump’s favor on behalf of the Russian government.

Concord made the unusual decision to contest the charges against it, despite the fact that it refused to send a corporate representative to the U.S. to answer for the company. Throughout the trial, the company refused to comply with subpoenas for documents and its attorneys at times appeared to mock the proceedings—earning a rebuke from Judge Dabney Friedrich for one profanity-laced filing.
 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/feds-drop-charges-against-russias-concord-management-in-2016-election-meddling

Wait, wasn't this a huge development on here a few years back showing that the Russians were in bed with Trump?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Lost here:

 

Quote

responsible for cranking out thousands of Facebook posts, advertisements, and tweets aimed at tipping the balance of the 2016 election in President Trump’s favor on behalf of the Russian government.

 

As we know, Hillary had this in the bag until the mean ol' Vlad came along with his election interfering Facebook/Twitter posting. Before that, Americans were not influenced at all by foreign governments, companies, entities, or people. It magically just happened in 2016.

 

The Russia conspiracy stuff won't ever not be funny.

[Dashinka 24,591]

7 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Lost here:

 

 

As we know, Hillary had this in the bag until the mean ol' Vlad came along with his election interfering Facebook/Twitter posting. Before that, Americans were not influenced at all by foreign governments, companies, entities, or people. It magically just happened in 2016.

 

The Russia conspiracy stuff won't ever not be funny.

And all for the bargain basement price of $200k.

Edited March 17, 2020 by Dashinka

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Just now, Dashinka said:

And all for the bargain basement price of $200k.

You are getting hypnotized.. 

 

 

 

... very hypnotized..

 

 

 

.. vote Trump!

[90DayFinancier 910]

This is the reason

"In short, a trial which could risk the exposure of classified information to a Russian intelligence-linked company “with no presence in the United States and no exposure to meaningful punishment in the event of a conviction, promotes neither the interests of justice nor the nation’s security,” the government concluded. "

[Dashinka 24,591]

47 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

This is the reason

"In short, a trial which could risk the exposure of classified information to a Russian intelligence-linked company “with no presence in the United States and no exposure to meaningful punishment in the event of a conviction, promotes neither the interests of justice nor the nation’s security,” the government concluded. "

Exactly my point.  Then why did the Mueller team proceed with this in the first place if they knew they would never see it through?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

30 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Exactly my point.  Then why did the Mueller team proceed with this in the first place if they knew they would never see it through?

Because it is likely that they did not know at the time of filing the totality of the circumstances. Facts develop during the progression of a prosecution or a civil proceeding that may cause a prosecutor or plaintiff to determine that continuing to pursue an action is not warranted in the circumstances. Dismissals are not the same as an acquittal or a court's determination that a defendant is not civilly liable. 

[Dashinka 24,591]

1 hour ago, elmcitymaven said:

Because it is likely that they did not know at the time of filing the totality of the circumstances. Facts develop during the progression of a prosecution or a civil proceeding that may cause a prosecutor or plaintiff to determine that continuing to pursue an action is not warranted in the circumstances. Dismissals are not the same as an acquittal or a court's determination that a defendant is not civilly liable. 

So what you are saying is that these Mueller lawyers were not very smart with the taxpayer’s money.

[TBoneTX 45,498]

[T-B.'s ears perk up at the hint of potential tortfeasin']

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Another "we hate Trump and will do anything possible to remove him" scenario.

 

*yawn*

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

3 hours ago, Dashinka said:

So what you are saying is that these Mueller lawyers were not very smart with the taxpayer’s money.

What I'm saying is that at the time of bringing the charges there was a case that could be made for prosecution given the facts known at the time of bringing the prosecution. Sometimes additional facts are discovered during the prosecution which make it unwise to continue. It doesn't mean that the defendant was innocent or guilty; it means that additional information makes it difficult to proceed.

 

Discovery can sometimes turn up things like, say, that the plaintiff blew the statute of limitations on his claim but thought that he didn't when he filed his complaint. Or the prosecution, based on the facts it has, believes that it can prove every element of a crime, but it turns out some element is missing, or the search that turned up some evidence that's crucial violated the defendant's 4th Amendment rights. These things happen. It always looks huge when it's a huge case, and sometimes, yes! It is huge, and hugely embarrassing. And sometimes it's nothing but a damp squib, something thrown out on a technicality. Or here the risk of exposure of classified information is too great, on balance, to warrant further prosecution.

 

This isn't a "Mueller's an idiot" matter (full disclosure: I went to school and college with several lawyers on Mueller's team, but am not close with any of them -- though I know how bright they were when we were classmates). Rather it's that sometimes justice cannot be pursued because on balance there are impediments to its pursuit.

2 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

Another "we hate Trump and will do anything possible to remove him" scenario.

 

*yawn*

You're better than that, friend.  

3 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

[T-B.'s ears perk up at the hint of potential tortfeasin']

Sorry, this was really more in the realms of the criminal. My apologies for disappointing.

[TBoneTX 45,498]

3 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

sometimes justice cannot be pursued because on balance there are impediments to its pursuit.

Like torts that get feased, si man!

3 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Sorry, this was really more in the realms of the criminal.

How uncivil of you, sigh ma'am.

3 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

My apologies for disappointing.

[T-B. refers to and contemplates sign on wall that says, "sue the illegitimate male children"]

[Dashinka 24,591]

9 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

What I'm saying is that at the time of bringing the charges there was a case that could be made for prosecution given the facts known at the time of bringing the prosecution. Sometimes additional facts are discovered during the prosecution which make it unwise to continue. It doesn't mean that the defendant was innocent or guilty; it means that additional information makes it difficult to proceed.

 

Discovery can sometimes turn up things like, say, that the plaintiff blew the statute of limitations on his claim but thought that he didn't when he filed his complaint. Or the prosecution, based on the facts it has, believes that it can prove every element of a crime, but it turns out some element is missing, or the search that turned up some evidence that's crucial violated the defendant's 4th Amendment rights. These things happen. It always looks huge when it's a huge case, and sometimes, yes! It is huge, and hugely embarrassing. And sometimes it's nothing but a damp squib, something thrown out on a technicality. Or here the risk of exposure of classified information is too great, on balance, to warrant further prosecution.

 

This isn't a "Mueller's an idiot" matter (full disclosure: I went to school and college with several lawyers on Mueller's team, but am not close with any of them -- though I know how bright they were when we were classmates). Rather it's that sometimes justice cannot be pursued because on balance there are impediments to its pursuit.

You're better than that, friend.  

Sorry, this was really more in the realms of the criminal. My apologies for disappointing.

I understand what you are saying, but in this instance the filing of charges seemed more like a ####### shoot from those lawyers that made this decision.  If in fact any of the Russian entities charged decided to fight, the DOJ was never going to allow for discovery leading to an eventual dismissal.  I would think those lawyers making that decision would have comprehended that ahead of time before wasting taxpayer money as well as the courts time just to get a headline.