A federal judge on Monday dismissed charges against a Russian company accused of funding the Kremlin's efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election, after federal prosecutors said the company has flaunted court rules and made the prosecution more trouble than it is worth.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich came hours after the Justice Department asked to drop the charges against Concord Management and Consulting.
"There is a substantial federal interest in defending American democratic institutions, exposing those who endeavor to criminally interfere with them, and holding them accountable, which is why this prosecution was properly commenced in the first place," the government said in a 9-page motion filed Monday. "In light of the defendant's conduct, however, its ephemeral presence and immunity to just punishment, the risk of exposure of law enforcement's tools and techniques and the post-indictment change in the proof available at trial, the balance of equities has shifted."
Part of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, a grand jury in February 2018 indicted Concord Management and Consulting, as well as 13 Russian nationals and two other companies in connection with Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential elections using social media troll farms and influence campaigns.
Concord Management was the only alleged conspirator to enter an appearance in court and vigorously contested the charges over the ensuing two years.
But prosecutors say Concord Management has never really participated in the prosecution, instead using court proceedings to collect information about how the U.S. government responds to and monitors efforts from foreign countries to interfere in its elections.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @02:18PM (32 children)
We had to drop the charges because taking this to trial would mean we needed to provide evidence.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday March 17 2020, @02:27PM (25 children)
True, but, we need remember something. Jurisdiction. We got none in Russia. Nada, zilch, zero.
Among the first lessons a leader must learn, if he hopes to be an effective leader, is to never give an order that you know won't be obeyed. Our "justice department" can sit at the edge of our yard, and/or at the edge of Russia's yard, and bark endlessly. That barking isn't going to get the people they want, though.
It's better to STFU, and crawl back under the porch, than to sit outside yapping away, annoying the neighbors.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @02:43PM (8 children)
The wrong department was used. The CIA was the one to use. Make the heads of the company worry. This is why you don't let the public know what's going on at the federal level. Public opinion should never guide high level decisions of a Corp or Country.
Ignore the SJW while they bark at the fence.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @05:40PM (7 children)
Oh come now. Do you think anybody actually cared about the alleged "meddling" in and of itself? Can you even define meddling? I damn sure can't in any way that makes it anything whatsoever unique. For instance take the same standard social media companies used to point to "Russian agents" meddling. That seemed to be somebody from Russia engaging in political actions around the US election. Ok, now take that same standard and tell me how many "American agents" meddling in Brexit? Or even back to our own election, how many "Israeli agents" or "Mexican agents" meddled?
It's a nonsensical allegation. This [google.com] is a Google Trends for "election meddling". It didn't exist (practically speaking) until we invented it as an allegation after Trump was elected. And it was never about any alleged crime. It was an effort to try to undermine Trump and undermine democracy. Because by suggesting it was the evil reds manipulating people, you don't have to accept that Trump was democratically elected. And indeed, the establishment has been trying to get Trump out of office since day 0 of his election.
The reason it was parroted out is because it was never about the offense. It was about trying to manipulate public opinion and spread FUD - fear, uncertainty, and doubt - a disinformation strategy used to manipulate people. To put it more succinctly - propaganda. Quite ironic.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 17 2020, @05:44PM (6 children)
It is illegal for foreign governments to help candidates win elections.
George Washington cared about meddling:
"A free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.” Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @05:48PM (1 child)
Russia hoax, fake news, deep state FBI. Umm, 12D chess!
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @07:44PM
...Fake president...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @07:19PM (3 children)
Ah, so when Obama chose to speak in Britain about Brexit and was overtly trying to direct Brits on who to elect, that was illegal?
This is the thing about the "meddling". No matter how you try to define it, it's mostly nonsensical. And that's the reason it only became a term in 2016. It's one of those things that sounds kind of scary and ominous, but when you actually ask yourself what is actually being alleged - it is mostly nonsensical, capricious, arbitrary, and above all - grossly exaggerated.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @07:41PM
Like the virus crisis.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday March 17 2020, @08:00PM
Hey A/C, can you tell us about Obama's tan suit or how awful it is to put mustard on a hamburger?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @10:38PM
Lol at Soylent for this having a troll mod
(Score: 5, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Tuesday March 17 2020, @02:44PM (15 children)
There well may have been evidence. The grand jury seemed to think so. But without jurisdiction, evidence is useless.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 17 2020, @03:14PM (10 children)
It's not like this would be hard to prove. The DNC hacking, maybe, but this is about the troll farm not the hacking.
I mean, crap, they couldn't even remember to turn their VPN on first! [twitter.com]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @03:25PM (9 children)
The DNC "hacker"/leaker is a true American hero! He needs to get the presidential medal of freedom. We desperately need more like him!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @03:51PM
Unfortunately he fell victim to an all-too-common occurrence these days:
Happens all the time.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @08:16PM (7 children)
Check out all the downmods!
Democrat BrownShirts are hyperactive today!
They are doing Trump's dirty work for him. They actually prefer him to their own candidate!
(Score: 2, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 17 2020, @09:12PM (6 children)
WAAAAAAHHHH! People don't like my internet post.
I was also downmodded but you don't see me crying about it like a little bitch.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @10:03PM (4 children)
WAAAAAAHHHH! People don't like my internet post.
Nah, it's democrats saying, WAAAHH! you hurt my feels!
Then they try to filter out the post for everybody.
Downmodders are the whiny little bitches. We need to publicly shame them more.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 18 2020, @10:48AM (3 children)
You're not even starting to do that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2020, @04:47PM (2 children)
That's right The little psychos are loving the attention, so they'll probably do it more. I don't mind. The visiting aliens can see right through them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2020, @12:26AM (1 child)
Guess I'll be the one to let you know, you're the one coming off as a little psycho right now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2020, @10:59PM
Yeah well, at least I'm not a democrat! So there's still hope...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2020, @07:47PM
That's probably because you downvote more than anybody on this site. I'll grant you that sliver of self awareness to see the irony in complaining about it. Anyhow, you always hand the handful of 2 or 3 suspects to give you a bump right back.
(Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 17 2020, @03:58PM
LOL: https://johnhelms.attorney/grand-jury-indict-ham-sandwich/ [johnhelms.attorney]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Tuesday March 17 2020, @04:21PM
Well, that at least puts defendants up there with a ham sandwich :-\
Dropping the charges because a defendant is doing what defendants do leans towards there being an expectation that no defense would be mounted and the purpose of charging was more strongly weighted towards the visuals of indicting Russians than any serious interest in prosecuting. There is likely some evidence under the covers, but it could easily be rationalization of a pre-existing view vs. anything concrete.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Captival on Tuesday March 17 2020, @05:04PM
Jurisdiction was a problem from the very beginning, so why did they spend all this time and money and wait until now to cancel? Clearly because it was all a dog and pony show to begin with.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @05:21PM
In a related story, the same House members who said during the Impeachment that it was absolutely vital to question John Bolton, have decided not to bother. That attempt to destroy Trump failed, and besides, they have this new shiny thing (Corona virus) that will bring Trump down, this time definitely!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @03:21PM (2 children)
You know, when you go around demanding actual evidence, you're going to trigger a lot of democrats. That is why you got modded down. They are still enraged over their election loss. And demanding things like evidence only means that you are pro-Trump. Notice if you will, that absolutely none leaked out during the entire impeachment charade, and the man is still securely on the job. Infuriating, ain't it?
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 17 2020, @05:40PM (1 child)
That's what trials are for, presenting evidence.
Barr decided enforcing the law was just too darn hard and would make Trump look bad so why bother.
The only ones choosing to present zero evidence are Barr's prosecutors.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @05:58PM
*sigh* same old partisan bullshit...
Democrats hardly made any effort. Aside from bringing in more money, they have failed in every way, to the point of it being intentional to cover their own asses. Enforcing the law will make them all look bad. There's so little demand, from the voters that just will not elect a competent congress.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 17 2020, @03:48PM
Agree. And this line is the most ridiculous excuse ever -- like my dog ate my homework level: " federal prosecutors said the company has flaunted court rules and made the prosecution more trouble than it is worth."
Federal prosecutors are overly aggressive assholes. This reason is pure BS.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Tuesday March 17 2020, @04:22PM (1 child)
taking this to trial would mean we needed to provide evidence.
Yes, and that evidence would implicate everybody, it would expose their world to the public.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2020, @04:37AM
Troll
Democrats are so defensive about their dirty little secrets!
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 17 2020, @03:48PM (7 children)
Better translation:
Federal prosecutors, working for the corrupt William Barr, don't want to remind people Trump only won with the illegal help of a hostile foreign government.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @03:51PM (1 child)
Yeah. All those career workers are so pro-trump, they would never lie in order to trigger FISA court surveillance or participate in other constitution shredding acts. /sarc
(Score: 4, Informative) by Aegis on Tuesday March 17 2020, @08:07PM
Yes, because all the ethical DOJ prosecutors are gone now.
Every prosecutor on Roger Stone case quits in protest after DOJ lightens sentencing recommendation [msnbc.com]
Another example of William Barr totally not corrupting justice!
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @04:30PM
:-) Really, man! There's just no way Hillary could have lost, right? I mean, she was sooo popular! If it weren't for the Russians, she would have won 80% of the vote...
Them Russians is real smart!
-----
Ok, you fished me in... Who are you really poking at?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by shortscreen on Tuesday March 17 2020, @05:56PM
Because it was Russia that gave us two of the worst, least popular candidates in recent history, and also convinced 95% of voters that they HAD to pick one of them. Oh wait, it was our own corporate media that did that, like they do every time.
BTW, you should see my new bumper sticker. It says
"Four Years of Whinin'...
and All You've Got is Biden!?"
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @06:03PM (2 children)
The main evidence against the "Russians" was about 470 social media accounts and around $100k in advertising - about $33 per ad. In the 2016 election a total of around $6,800,000,000 [cbsnews.com] was spent trying to influence people using extensive databases on voter information, behavior, and trends - and decades of experience doing exactly that. So the "Russian Conspiracy" works out to a 0.001% share all spread about a random smattering of topics.
I find it inconceivable for anybody to genuinely believe that those accounts had any meaningful role whatsoever. The whole conspiracy theory seemed dubious from the onset because of these simple numbers issues. I think the only reason "we" bought into it was because people were looking for any excuse for how Trump could have been elected. People have become so polarized, they literally cannot even imagine how some would see Trump as more favorable than Clinton, or vice versa for those on the other side. When people start to lose their grounding to reality, they become easy to manipulate.
(Score: 2) by corey on Wednesday March 18 2020, @01:05AM (1 child)
Can you provide citations on those figures?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2020, @03:47PM
I think most of the reporting on Russigate has been, at best, abysmal so I'll let you pick a source. To find information duckduckgo for "russia $100000 470 accounts", quotes excluded. You'll get about a million hits.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by loonycyborg on Tuesday March 17 2020, @04:18PM (2 children)
They can prove wrongdoing only if you don't contest it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @07:41PM (1 child)
They can prove wrongdoing only if they reveal methods and sources.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 17 2020, @08:17PM
They don't want to reveal the methods and sources because that would expose the house of cards. You know, one person makes up some shit, leaks it to NYT and WAPO, then uses those stories for a press conference to generate more friendly media, then uses the massive amount of media coverage to justify a constitution bending level of surveillance, which sadly shows nothing but a few people get gotcha'ed on process issues like lying to the FBI and then they can tout those convictions as evidence of something nefarious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @04:55PM
And eventually, they will just go away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @05:37PM
is this game any good?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Mojibake Tengu on Tuesday March 17 2020, @07:23PM (2 children)
It is a pretty shame American democracy was toppled by... a network of Russian restaurants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord_Management_and_Consulting [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_Research_Agency_Indictment_Feb_2018_with_text.pdf [wikipedia.org]
I can't stop laughing. Pubs mobsters toppled a planetary Empire. As a sci-fi, it would be unbelievable. Maybe, you guys really deserved that.
Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @08:57PM
They weren't expected to defend themselves but did, a problem for those manufacturing this.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 17 2020, @09:30PM
Yeah, 'cause those Russians are just too dumb to use a shell company to finance their criminal enterprise!
From the indictment:
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2020, @09:34PM (1 child)
Russia's Alfa Bank [cbsnews.com] runs a chunk of Edelman [wikipedia.org] which had executives on the Atlantic Council and the US-Muslim Engagement Project where they decided US national security policy while on the payroll of Saudi Arabia [theintercept.com]. Nobody is looking into that because it would tarnish Obama's legacy and implicate several foreign Jewish bankers that you're not supposed to believe exist. They laundered their Russian money as the Genesis Prize through Benjamin Netanyahu's office but the people investigating him for corruption somehow missed that, and one of the first recipients was Michael Bloomberg but it was never an issue during his campaign.
I would bet money that Edelman and its Alliance of Youth Movements (Movements.org) [wikileaks.org] had more influence on the 2016 election than Concord Management did.
(Score: 2) by corey on Wednesday March 18 2020, @01:15AM
Interesting. But I had a look on Wiki, the prize is only one million which is peanuts for Bloomberg. And supposedly he donated all of it to a number of philanthropic projects. Are you saying there's more to it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2020, @04:52AM
“The Cold War is over, Romney!” - BHO 2012 election debate. I guess it wasn’t.