Just because a defending legal team makes a motion to dismiss, THAT does not amount to a “snag”. Motions to dismiss are normal regular every-day mundane applications that RARELY work.
This one is classic bull crap: the Russian side - Concord Mgt - is claiming that the government must prove “knowledge of the state of law”.
The legal maxim that applies here is this:
Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat
Ignorance of the law is not a legal excuse [or defense]
Dabney Friedrich is a Trump nominee, a GOper and a Federal Society member, but she’s also a Harvard Law grad and she’s perfectly aware that she’s required to FOLLOW legal precedent not make it, plus she’s ambitious for advancement in a context where it’s far from unreasonable to expect she’ll need some support or at least a lack of concerted opposition from Democratic senators.
She did not, however, come to this case with a history of practical experience with the legal concept of criminal conspiracy. The additional briefing she’s seeking is at least CONSISTENT with a good faith effort to overcome that deficiency.
Moreover, if she screws up here, the OSC’s appeal is to the DC Circuit, which is dominated by Obama and Clinton appointees, and led by Merrick Garland.
I continue to be intrigued by this TPM reporter’s attraction to advancing the goals of RW hype.