I've read those questions about five times now and I'm still not sure what the court is actually asking.
For purposes of the Motion to dismiss is the court to assume that none of the defendants nor their co-conspirators had a legal duty to file under either the FEC or FARA? If there is no such legal requirement, then how could failure to do constitute the crime of somehow defrauding those agencies and interfering with their agency business?
This type of circular reasoning and logic was also present in the Papadopoulus pre-sentencing report when Team Mueller falsely stated that Papadopoulus interfered with the FBI's ability to interview Josef Mifsud while he was in DC for a symposium. Team Mueller conveniently omitted the narrative that it was the Papadopoulus meeting that started Operation Crossfire Hurricane in July 2016 yet the supposed false and misleading statements of which they complained Papadopoulus uttered were in January, 2017.
Mifsud wasn't in hiding during that period. The FBI knew where he was, hell they sent agents to his training classes in years past. Dispatch a couple of agents to Rome and interview the guy the moment Crossfire Hurricane began.
Between this Conchord case and Papadop, Team Mueller has a penchant for turning a failure by any government agency into someone else's fault and a crime to boot. That's the very definition of ambiguity that were it actually codified into a federal statute would be struck down immediately because it did not adequately convey to the public just what constitutes criminal activity until after the fact.
