The prosecutors and the defense for a Russian company named in one indictment are arguing over discovery issues: what evidence to disclose and how much. Defense has filed requests for a bunch of information as part of the discovery process. This is normal. The prosecutors are arguing that the discovery materials should be subject to a protective order that limits the degree to which it can be shared. This is not unusual. Defense is objecting to some of the proposed restrictions, which is to be expected. They are separately announcing an intent to move to dismiss the charges on other grounds, which is also a normal action to take. Some elements of the case are unusual, but the basic dance is familiar and the language offered about it is just histrionincs.
The article posted by
@second sight is, as you guessed, so much just vacuous cheerleading.
E.g. The lead prosecutor in this particular case is Michael Dreeben, and he argued at the hearing this article is purportedly describing, so we can assume that he is one of the prosecutors being described by the article as "ignorant and misguided," an "amateur," a "teletubby" against "marvel superheroes," etc. Dreeben has over 100 arguments before the Supreme Court. The article is ridiculous.
(Here are some drier takes on the recent developments:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rder-protecting-evidence-in-russia-troll-case
https://www.law.com/nationallawjour...n-court-defends-case-against-russian-company/)