A conspiracy so vast…

This past February Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought the dramatic indictment against Russian actors allegedly responsible for interference in the 2016 presidential election. The Department of Justice has posted the indictment online here. Politico covered the indictment in a good story by Michael Crowley and Louis Nelson. The indictment charged three Russian companies and 13 Russian individuals with election related crimes.

I don’t think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that one of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, Mueller seems to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch Project.

Mueller certainly thought that the Russian defendants would avoid any appearance in an American courtroom. When Concord appeared through counsel to defend the case, however, Mueller’s team expressed doubt that it has properly served the indictment on Concord. We noted at the time that has to be a first. It is certainly a new one on us.

Now in “A conspiracy so vast…(but where’s the crime?),” the Weekly Standard’s Eric Felten takes a look at the indictment itself. Eric notes that the indictment charges Concord with “conspiracy to defraud the United States.” No substantive underlying crime is alleged. This past March Andrew McCarthy explored Mueller’s use of this catch-all conspiracy statute in the case against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. Eric Felten’s intensely interesting article adds depth and dimension to the discussion, suggesting yet another respect in which Mueller madness is making its presence felt.

NOTE: I would like to express our continuing gratitude to the editors of the Standard for making their articles freely accessible to readers when linked on Power Line.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.