U.S. Attorney General William Barr and Robert Mueller III violated court rules in public statements about a Russian firm accused of interfering in the 2016 presidential election, a federal judge in Washington has ruled, while stopping short of disciplining either Justice Department leader.

In a July 1 opinion, unsealed Monday, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich said Barr and Mueller inappropriately linked a defendant, Concord Management and Consulting, to the Russian government, even though prosecutors have not expressly drawn a connection between the firm and the Kremlin. Friedrich, citing language in the Mueller report and Barr's public comments on the Russia investigation, said the statements violated a court rule that prohibits lawyers in criminal cases from sharing information or opinions that could compromise the fairness of a trial.

Some of the statements could be viewed as ambiguous individually, Friedrich said in her ruling. But taken together, the statements “drew a clear connection between the defendants and a foreign government accused of interfering with the 2016 presidential election.” Friedrich said in her ruling: “The government's statements were also prejudicial for another reason: they provided an opinion about the defendants' guilt and the strength of the evidence.”

The dispute had unfolded largely under seal until Monday. Friedrich referenced a closed-door hearing in May at which she ordered ordered the government “to refrain from making or authorizing any public statement that links the alleged conspiracy in the indictment to the Russian government or its agencies.” Friedrich said the lack of any “bad faith” by prosecutors counseled against proceeding with a criminal contempt action.

Concord Management, represented by a defense team from Reed Smith, had argued in April that Barr and Mueller should be held in contempt for releasing “prohibited information and opinions” in the 448-page report on the special counsel investigation and public statements that followed its release.

Describing the report and Barr's public statements as a “broadside,” Reed Smith partner Eric Dubelier argued that the attorney general and special counsel had effectively proclaimed that Concord Management, along with other Russian companies and individuals charged in the case, participated in an interference campaign led by the Kremlin. “This despite the fact that the indictment contains no such allegation,” Dubelier said.

Eric Dubelier Eric Dubelier of Reed Smith, a lawyer for Concord Management and Consulting LLC, charged in a special counsel's case, exits federal court in Washington, D.C., on June 15,2018. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi / National Law Journal

Prosecutors disputed that any of the statements were prejudicial considering the trial is months away.

Friedrich focused on language in the special counsel's report that did not draw a clear distinction between the Russian government and Concord Management. In the section about Concord Management, she said, the report states that Mueller's “investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election through the 'active measures' social media campaign carried out by” the Internet Research Agency, a Russian firm that was charged alongside Concord Management.

“By attributing IRA's conduct to 'Russia'—as opposed to Russian individuals or entities—the report suggests that the activities alleged in the indictment were undertaken on behalf of, if not at the direction of, the Russian government,” Friedrich wrote.

Barr made a similar misstep, Friedrich said, during a press conference in which he described the Internet Research Agency as having “close ties” to the Russian government.

“Thus, the attorney general 'confirmed' what the indictment does not allege—that Concord's and its co-defendants' activities were 'sponsored' by the “Russian government' and part of a two-pronged attack on our nation's democratic institutions,” she wrote.

Friedrich said the government's statements “amount to a single violation” of court rules. Contempt proceedings, the judge said, generally should be reserved for “repeated and flagrant abuses” that show disregard for the courts.

“In this case, nothing about the government's conduct to date suggests a flagrant disregard for the court's authority,” Friedrich wrote.

The judge said she “remains confident that any prejudice can and will cured through the passage of time, voir dire and jury instructions.”

|

Friedrich's ruling, unsealed Monday, is posted below:

|

Read more: