Thread by @Techno_Fog

We've obtained the transcript on the Oct. 15 Concord Mgmt hearing (Russian Troll Case)

Very significant arguments on why the Special Counsel's indictment is deficient and should be dismissed.

[Thread]

The heart of the Defense argument is that the indictment doesn't charge a crime.

"It charges conspiring to interfere with an election... There is no statute of interfering with an election."

Court: They charged your client with conspiring to defraud the FEC

Defense: "If they haven't delineated that in the indictment, how do we know what we are charged with, and what did the grand jury actually indict us with doing?"

Judge asks about an alleged conspiracy re: State Dept and whether those charges could stick.

Defense: I'm not going to concede that b/c "part of it relates to discovery that I can't talk about... I can't talk about it publicly."

Judge brings up a sealed case that's on the side of Concord

Court: "Let me ask you about In re: Sealed. It's nice to have a sealed case on your side this time; right?"

Defense: "Yes"

[I suspect the sealed case has to do with failure of a foreign entity to report with the FEC]

The Defense hits the Special Counsel for relying on a "100 year-old Supreme Court case which doesn't stand for the proposition that they want it to stand for"

"The Special Counsel..never advised you" that the case required a willful violation of the law.

Defense: the Special Counsel is saying our legal acts were "deception"

Court: It alleges they were supposed to report to the FEC

Defense: Who was supposed to report? The indictment doesn't say

The Defense hits at the Special Counsel.

"The real Department of Justice" never would have brought these charges.

How is the Special Counsel is twisting the law to put ordinary Americans at risk?

Defense: If Americans "pretend to be someone they are not on social media and the gov't wants to, they can indict you for a [conspiracy] violation later"

The blistering critique continues.

The Special Counsel didn't have the evidence, so they "make up a new crime that has never been charged in the history of the United States"

The Special Counsel lawyer appears.

Court: Don't you need to show they had a legal duty to report w/ the FEC to proceed with a conspiracy charge?

SC: No.

[Note: this means they can be charged even if their conduct and goals were legal]

Further into the Special Counsel's argument the Judge expresses some skepticism.

Court: It's hard to see how concealing identities at political rallies and on social media "is evidence of intent to interfere with a US gov't function"

The Defense gets back up, hitting the Special Counsel for interpreting the law so broad that it'd turn anonymous internet users into criminals.

"The supervisors from the Dept of Justice ought to be over here listening to this argument, because this argument is beyond belief"

A very important quote on what may be the real goal of the DOJ and the Special Counsel:

"They want to be able to regulate what people say on the internet" by removing anonymity.