The indictment details highly specific allegations—including names, dates, and the text of private messages—that appear to substantiate central elements of the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment [ICA] that Russia made an active, concerted effort to subvert American democracy.
We've known ever since the ICA was issued in January, 2017, that it was a key part of the Russia Hoax narrative, both in defense of Deep State crimes during the 2016 election and as justification for the Mueller Witchhunt and the ensuing Impeachment Theater. Bill Barr knows that, too, and that's why John Durham has been focused on the who-what-when of the ICA--to the consternation of the Deep State. The dismissal of the Concord Management case knocks a critical underpinning from under that narrative.
The rout of Team Mueller is now complete, but Johnson does well in reminding us that it was inevitable as long ago as April, 2019, when Judge Dabney Friedrich admonished Team Mueller for making "false allegations" about one of the defendants--the Internet Research Agency (IRA). The main false allegation was that the IRA had anything at all to do with the Russian government:
The Mueller team folded in the face of a real lawyer, hired by Concord Management. That is what the Mueller team never counted on.
But this was not the first setback for the Mueller team in this case. They were admonished by the Judge last year for falsely and improperly allegeding [sic] that the IRA was a Russian Government tool for intelligence operations.
The Judge's order for the Prosecutors to cease linking the alleged conspiracy in the indictment to the Russian government was vindicated with the final decision to throw the case out for good. If the Mueller prosecutors actually had real evidence that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 US Presidential contest then they would not have dropped the case permanently. If it was a matter of figuring out how to introduce intelligence information to buttress their evidence they would have left the door open for a future revival of the case. But they did just the opposite. They asked that the charges be dropped completely and permanently.
The dismissal of the case with prejudice eliminates an important narratival defense and talking point. Any attempt to explain it away will fall on deaf ears because it will simply be too complicated for most people to listen to--not to mention, false.