Russian company seeks to dismiss U.S.
charges brought by Mueller
Send a link to a friend
[June 26, 2018]
By Sarah N. Lynch
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Russian company
accused of helping fund a propaganda operation to sway the 2016
presidential election in Donald Trump's favor asked a federal judge on
Monday to dismiss charges brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller,
saying Mueller was unlawfully appointed and lacks prosecutorial
authority.
Concord Management and Consulting LLC, a firm that prosecutors say is
controlled by a businessman dubbed by Russian media as "Putin's cook,"
argued in a filing in U.S. district court in Washington that Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein violated the Appointments Clause of the
U.S. Constitution when he hired Mueller in May 2017.
Concord is one of three entities, along with 13 Russian individuals,
indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office in February in an
alleged criminal and espionage conspiracy to tamper with the U.S. race,
boost Trump and disparage his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

The indictment said Concord is controlled by Russian businessman Evgeny
Prigozhin, who U.S. officials have said has extensive ties to Russia’s
military and political establishment.
In it, Concord is alleged to have controlled funding, recommended
personnel and overseen the activities of the propaganda campaign.
Concord is the only one of the defendants in the case to have formally
responded to the charges in federal court. Earlier this year, it hired
American lawyers to fight the indictment.
Under the Constitution's Appointments Clause, principal officers such as
cabinet secretaries are appointed by the president and confirmed by the
United States Senate while "inferior officers" may be appointed by
courts or department heads if permitted by Congress.
[to top of second column]
|

Evgeny Prigozhin (L) assists Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin
during a dinner with foreign scholars and journalists at the
restaurant Cheval Blanc on the premises of an equestrian complex
outside Moscow November 11, 2011. REUTERS/Misha Japaridze/Pool/File
Photo

Concord's lawyers say that Mueller qualifies as an "officer" under
the clause and not a routine federal employee under the law because
of his vast prosecutorial authority.
They say that no matter whether Mueller is deemed an "inferior" or
"principal" officer, his appointment still violates the
Constitution.
As a principal officer, they say, he should have been appointed by
the president and confirmed by the Senate.
But even if a court disagreed and ruled that Mueller was an inferior
officer, they say, his hiring is still unlawful because Rosenstein
lacked "express and specific statutory authorization" from Congress.
That legal argument is similar to one put forth last month by Steven
Calabresi, co-founder of the conservative Federalist Society, who in
a call with journalists and lawyers said that all of Mueller's
actions are illegal because he was improperly appointed.
(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Cynthia Osterman and Steve
Orlofsky)
[© 2018 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2018 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
 |