WASHINGTON -- A Russian company indicted in the special counsel investigation attacked the case in a court filing Monday that accused the government of inventing a "make-believe crime."
The sharp rhetoric from Concord Management and Consulting LLC suggests the makings of a pitched court fight and a fresh challenge to the authority of special counsel Robert Mueller, who was appointed by the Justice Department last May to investigate potential coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign.
The company was indicted in February on charges of conspiring to meddle in the 2016 presidential election by funding a covert social media campaign aimed in part at getting Republican Donald Trump elected president. The indictment, which also named two other Russian companies and 13 individuals, was the first brought by Mueller's team to directly attach criminal charges to Russian attempts to interfere in the election.
Concord is controlled by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a wealthy businessman with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin who was placed on a U.S. sanctions list earlier this year. It is accused of providing funding for a Russian troll farm that directed a hidden social media campaign that investigators say was aimed at sowing discord among Americans and at favoring Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.
Lawyers for the company argued in their new court filing that the Justice Department had never before alleged a conspiracy by a foreign corporation to interfere in American politics "by allegedly funding free speech."
"The obvious reason for this is that no such crime exists in the federal criminal code," the lawyers wrote.
The company says there is no allegation in the indictment that it intended to break the law, even though the specific federal campaign and foreign agent registration laws at issue require the government to show willfulness.
The company wants the judge to review the instructions that prosecutors gave to the grand jury that issued the indictment to "determine whether or not they include information that would support a motion to dismiss" the case.
Separately, Mueller urged a federal judge to reject a request by Paul Manafort, the indicted former Trump campaign chairman, for a hearing to determine whether government officials improperly leaked secret grand jury information to the news media.
U.S. prosecutors said in a filing Monday that defense attorneys had failed to provide evidence that news reports about Mueller's investigation of Manafort were based on matters before a grand jury in Alexandria, Va., that indicted him in February on tax- and bank-fraud charges.
Manafort had asked the judge to identify and punish government officials who he says disclosed secret information that appeared in reports by The Associated Press, The New York Times, CNN, NBC News and BuzzFeed. Mueller called Manafort's claims "speculative" and said Manafort had failed to meet the standard for a hearing.
Still, prosecutors said they gave the judge a secret filing with additional information about one of the 10 articles cited by Manafort. While they urged U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III to forgo a hearing, they also said that courts have rules that testimony by prosecutors should be avoided, if possible. Instead of a hearing, they said, the judge should carefully question potential jurors before the trial to eliminate any potential harm to Manafort.
Manafort had said leakers subjected him to "a torrent of negative and apparently false press generated by numerous unlawful disclosures," according to a May 1 filing. "These government-sourced disclosures have violated the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, internal government policies and procedures, federal statutes and Mr. Manafort's constitutional rights."
Ellis has scheduled a May 25 hearing to consider Manafort's motions. Manafort's trial is set for July 10.
Manafort, 69, also faces a federal indictment in Washington over allegations of money laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent for his political consulting in Ukraine.
In another filing on Monday, Mueller urged the judge to reject Manafort's request to suppress evidence gathered by the FBI during a raid on his home in Alexandria, Va., on July 25, 2017. Manafort argued that a 41-page warrant affidavit allowed an overly broad search of his electronic devices.
Prosecutors said they copied Manafort's devices and left him the originals, used a filter team to avoid seizing material protected by attorney-client privilege and returned evidence to him that it considered irrelevant. The affidavit satisfied the legal requirements for detail and a showing of probable cause, according to prosecutors.
Information for this article was contributed by Eric Tucker of The Associated Press; and by David Voreacos and Andrew Harris of Bloomberg News.
A Section on 05/15/2018