In an effort to take advantage of the Tony Blair rule of politics (bury bad news during a disaster), the Mueller investigation suffered yet another blow yesterday. According to Time:
The Justice Department is moving to drop charges against two Russian companies that were accused of funding a social media campaign to sway American public opinion during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. . . .
Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering were among three companies and 13 individuals charged in 2018 by special counsel Robert Mueller in a conspiracy to spread disinformation on social media during the 2016 presidential race. The effort was aimed at dividing American public opinion and sowing discord in the electorate, officials said. . . .
The case was one of the signature indictments from Mueller’s two-year Russia investigation.
The details do not show the Mueller investigation in a good light:
“In Monday’s filing, U.S. prosecutors accused Concord of appearing in the case to force the government to turn over trial evidence that might expose or undermine the broader investigation."
As RNLA Member and Supreme Court Litigator Trey Mayfield said; “The DOJ is complaining that the company it indicted showed up to defend itself.”
This is another example of the politicizing of justice. As the defendant’s attorney said:
Concord lead attorney Eric A. Dubelier said that the United States sought an indictment “to make a political statement regarding the outcome of the 2016 election that was grossly overstated.”
“The government’s evidence was completely devoid of any information that could establish that the defendants knew what they were doing was in violation of highly complex U.S. laws and regulations,” Dubelier said. “This was a make-believe charge to fit the facts solely for political purposes.”
This is yet another example of the Democrats' 2016 Russian collusion narrative falling apart. New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler was famously quoted by Tom Wolfe in The Bonfire of the Vanities that "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." In this case the ham sandwich fought back.