Replies

This case against the Russian company in St Petersburg (”Concord”) raises troubling issues concerning the crimes Mueller is trying to charge them with, some of which are probably illegitimate.

The charge that certain Russians engaged in identity theft under US law does seem legitimate.

But Concord’s role as alleged by Mueller is merely that Concord provided funding to those engaged in the identity theft. It’s not clear that that is enough to make Concord guilty of identity theft.

Beyond that, Mueller’s charges are problematic. He is charging people with “conspiracy to defraud the United States” in that they “impaired the lawful functions of the FEC, etc.”

This is a kind of totalitarian interpretation of the law that converts failure to file, say, a registration form with a government agency into a criminal conspiracy.

Let’s say you and your wife fail to get a license for your dog in your jurisdiction. Under Mueller’s soviet-like legal interpretation, you have just undertaken a criminal conspiracy to frustrate the lawful functions of the dog-licensing department by failing to license your dog.

I would be surprised if the Supreme Court ultimately were to allow these Orwellian legal theories to stand, even for an unsympathetic defendant like a Russian oligarch close to Putin.

Also, Mueller claims a general conspiracy to “interfere with US political and electoral processes.”

But like it or not, foreign persons do have free speech rights.

If say, the British prime minister while in DC during the election made a statement such as “I want Hillary to win. I encourage all Americans to vote for Hillary” then presumably under Mueller’s legal theory she is interfering with the election.

Or let’s say the British prime minister formed a Facebook group to encourage other foreign leaders to come out for Hillary. Would that really be illegal?

Beyond the allegations of identity theft, Mueller’s criminal charges against the Russians may be quite problematic and if they want to defend these, the litigation could go on for a long time and all the way up to the Supreme Court.

"But like it or not, foreign persons do have free speech rights."

Those of us who also frequent other sites like "Breitbart" have encountered many individual commentators who claim to be from other countries and are trying to interfere with American politics via their comments. Many other posters who don't admit to it might also be from other countries, and some may be bots generated by individuals or agencies based in foreign countries.

Since the Internet is kind of a borderless, international forum, I'm not sure if any of this should be considered illegal.