US court approved the indictment in the case of the "factory of trolls" Eugene Prigogine

The District of Columbia Federal Court rejected the petition of Concord Management and Consulting, a Russian company, to drop the charges that Special Prosecutor Robert Muller presented to her, investigating Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with the Kremlin.
On February 16 of this year, the Washington grand jury approved the indictment in a case filed against 13 Russians and three Russian companies by businessman Yevgeny Prigogine, who allegedly financed the Troll Factory, the St. Petersburg Internet Research Agency. The indictment consists of 8 points and imposes those involved in intervening in the 2016 presidential election in the United States and trying to sow discord among Americans.

Most of the defendants did not respond to this document, but one of these companies, Concord Management, hired selected American lawyers, who sent two petitions to close the case to Judge Debni Fridrik.

The first was based on the argument that Special Prosecutor Muller was appointed to the post illegally and contrary to the US Constitution. This position is consistent with the opinion of Trump, who describes the Mullerian investigation as a "witch hunt." But Judge Fridrik, appointed last year by none other than Trump, rejected this defense argument.

In July, Concord’s main attorney, Eric Dubelje, sent a second motion to close the case to the judge. It counted 57 pages and was supplied with a bunch of applications. This time, Dubell tried to refute the charges against the company.

Their essence is that Concorde and other defendants were participants in a criminal conspiracy, the purpose of which was to prevent the normal functioning of the three American government departments, namely the Federal Election Commission, the Justice Ministry and the State Department. Specifically, the defendants allegedly conspired to prevent these three agencies from tracking foreign interference in American elections.

As the lawyer Dubbelie wrote to the judge, “an unprecedented accusatory document” lies in front of her, because “there has never been a foreign corporation, such as Concord, not located in the United States, there were no criminal charges for funding political statements on social networks, at rallies or in advertising announcements during the US presidential election campaign. ”

According to the lawyer, Special Prosecutor Muller “is trying to create an imaginary crime where there really wasn’t a crime, much less a premeditated one.”

Judge Friedricks thought over the answer for several months and last Thursday sent a 32-page document to the parties, in which she examines in detail the defense arguments and finds them untenable.

Some American lawyers are wondering why the Concord company went to such expenses, given that even with the most unfavorable outcome of the case, it threatens it little. Working hypothesis - the company conducts "reconnaissance in force" to find out the methods and extent of awareness of Special Prosecutor Muller.