Mueller has emails from Stone pal Corsi about WikiLeaks Dem email dump

[Lutherf]

What I find interesting is this:

1. The only reason anyone has seen these draft court papers is because Corsi made them available.

2. Stone's response:

Stone, who has repeatedly insisted that he had no advanced knowledge of the WikiLeaks email dump, said Tuesday that the newly-released emails don't suggest otherwise.

"None of these emails provide any evidence or proof that I knew in advance about the source or content of any of the allegedly stolen or allegedly hacked emails published by WikiLeaks," Stone said.

"Since when did gossip become a criminal offense? Where is the WikiLeaks collaboration? Where is the evidence that I received anything whatsoever from WikiLeaks and passed it on to Donald Trump? These emails prove nothing other than the fact that Jerry Corsi is an aggressive investigative reporter."​

3. Corsi discussed Mueller's perjury trap tactics on the Tucker Carlson show...




My take: Either Corsi is lying or Mueller is a rogue operator. Based on Mueller's actions in regard to others...Flynn, Manafort, Papawhatshisface...I have to lean toward the latter.

Furthermore, where is the crime in discussing hacked emails with Wikileaks? There might be a crime if Corsi and Stone were coordinating the leaks to assist the campaign but nothing along those line has come up.

 

[Samhain]

Furthermore, where is the crime in discussing hacked emails with Wikileaks? There might be a crime if Corsi and Stone were coordinating the leaks to assist the campaign but nothing along those line has come up.

Don't believe either Corsi or Stone were employees of the Campaign.

 

[beefheart]

The great thing about emails and texts are that they make such great evidence. And so nicely time/date stamped

 

[danarhea]

He is a regular on the conspiracy woo woo radio show Coast to Coast...along with Alex Jones.

Yeah, full on nutter.

He was more than that. He was the Bureau Chief of Infowars.

 

[Mycroft]

That tactic is exactly how Mueller brought down John Gotti. Start with the lower fish, and work up to the big fish.

I don't know anything about how Mueller brought down Gotti, but if he coerced lower fish to lie so he could get Gotti then I'd say that was dishonest and unethical, as well.

 

[apdst]

Yup, it's a witch hunt, and it keeps finding witches. LOL.

Expect to see Corsi indicted in the very next round of indictments. Or maybe his is already one of the more than 3 dozen sealed indictments on the DC docket.

Now back to the witch hunt........Nah, let's call it what it really is...... The turning of the wheels of justice.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...e-pal-corsi-about-wikileaks-dem-email-n940611

Note: Seems that Democrats are not the only ones with apparent email problems. LOL.

Still isn't a crime. What now?

 

[apdst]

I'm not sure about that.

Knowing ahead of time that Wikileaks possessed salacious emails regarding the DNC that they planned to release, is not itself a crime, unless you lie about it under oath, which it appears these idiots are doing.

Now, if it can be show that there was a coordination between Wikileaks and Trump's people, you'd have a criminal conspiracy on your hands. The way Mueller has circled Stone suggests the FBI might very well have at least Stone being party to a conspiracy.

If the WH can be shown to be apart of a cover-up (which they are) then the Democrats should absolutely hold impeachment hearings, even though Republicans are likely to give Trump a pass in the Senate if there is a trail.

That would destroy the claim that the Russians did it.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

I don't know anything about how Mueller brought down Gotti, but if he coerced lower fish to lie so he could get Gotti then I'd say that was dishonest and unethical, as well.

lmao you can't coerce someone to lie dude

 

[Athanasius68]

I don't know anything about how Mueller brought down Gotti, but if he coerced lower fish to lie so he could get Gotti then I'd say that was dishonest and unethical, as well.

He had the lower fish confess to their crimes in their roles in the Gotti operation, testify, and in turn had reduced sentences.

As has been more than amply noted, NOBODY has confessed to anything to do with Trump & Co. colluding with Russia to throw the 2016 election. Nor has Mueller charged any American with anything to do with collusion. That seems to be Mueller's pique and why all he is coming up with is meanigless perjury charges that have no bearing on what the whole issue is about.

 

[Mycroft]

lmao you can't coerce someone to lie dude

Oh?

That is what Corsi says Mueller is doing.

 

[Athanasius68]

lmao you can't coerce someone to lie dude

Mueller believes that Manafort has not been providing information as he had agreed in the plea deal. But as per the filing, Mueller also believes that Manafort believes he has been providing correct and proper information as agreed. So its really an issue that the prosecutor is not satisfied with what the defendant says he knows and thus has made a declaration that he is in violation of the deal and thus its null and void. And Manafort is saying that he is being coerced to say things that are not true.
It takes two to tango in a plea deal.

 

[MrShangles]

So we don’t investigate the message, only the messenger?
Wasn’t it Padestas emails that HE gave the password to, that had the emails that hurt democrats.
As long as it’s a criminal leak against Trump you liberals are ok with that, but no one better show evidence to hurt democrats!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markjs]

I'm not sure about that.

Knowing ahead of time that Wikileaks possessed salacious emails regarding the DNC that they planned to release, is not itself a crime, unless you lie about it under oath, which it appears these idiots are doing.

Now, if it can be show that there was a coordination between Wikileaks and Trump's people, you'd have a criminal conspiracy on your hands. The way Mueller has circled Stone suggests the FBI might very well have at least Stone being party to a conspiracy.

If the WH can be shown to be apart of a cover-up (which they are) then the Democrats should absolutely hold impeachment hearings, even though Republicans are likely to give Trump a pass in the Senate if there is a trail.

Agreed, because it's absolute folly, the notion that, like Clinton, an impeachment would backfire and help the GOP and Trump politically, like it did with Clinton. The notion is ridiculous, because only Trump's base is fooled by him anyway, and he's done nothing to endear himself to the opposition at all.

It's also crystal clear how perjury over a matter like the Lewinsky affair is bad, and he deserved his disbarring, but that it didn't show much in the way of corrupt intent as president. He retired one of the most popular presidents in history.

Trump, no chance impeachment doesn't damage him, even if not a single Republican in the senate votes for conviction.

Thing is, by then it should be apparent to the GOP what a cancer he is on the party and I doubt they will maintain that inpenitrable loyalty. Iam pretty certain even with what is just recently coming out, that at least a small handfullof senate republicans are reconsidering how far they will defend this guy, especially when you consider the subpeona cannon Schiff is gonna be aiming at the Trump regime.

 

[upsideguy]

What I find interesting is this:

1. The only reason anyone has seen these draft court papers is because Corsi made them available.

2. Stone's response:

Stone, who has repeatedly insisted that he had no advanced knowledge of the WikiLeaks email dump, said Tuesday that the newly-released emails don't suggest otherwise.

"None of these emails provide any evidence or proof that I knew in advance about the source or content of any of the allegedly stolen or allegedly hacked emails published by WikiLeaks," Stone said.

"Since when did gossip become a criminal offense? Where is the WikiLeaks collaboration? Where is the evidence that I received anything whatsoever from WikiLeaks and passed it on to Donald Trump? These emails prove nothing other than the fact that Jerry Corsi is an aggressive investigative reporter."​

3. Corsi discussed Mueller's perjury trap tactics on the Tucker Carlson show...




My take: Either Corsi is lying or Mueller is a rogue operator. Based on Mueller's actions in regard to others...Flynn, Manafort, Papawhatshisface...I have to lean toward the latter.

Given that Corsi makes a living dealing in the lies of conspiracy theories and Mueller is an attorney of impeccable credentials and a stellar reputation, there is little doubt that Corsi is the weak link here. Corsi is way out-gunned in the credibility department here.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...-partisan-case-against-robert-mueller/548015/

Interesting that you gravitate wanting to believe the bad actors in this scenario over truth, justice and the American way. I bet you rooted for Bane.

 

[JasperL]

As I understand it, Corsi is accusing Mueller of trying to get him in a perjury trap because Corsi didn't remember that he forwarded an email years ago. That is the basis of Mueller's contention that Corsi lied under oath.

Well, it's not a 'perjury trap' to ask someone a question that is at the core of the case being investigated and the person telling you a falsehood. And if "I don't remember" is a fool-proof get out of answering questions honestly card, then investigations become a farce.

And he didn't "forward" an email - he allegedly wrote an email to Stone claiming to have accurate (we now know) knowledge about the timing of events months into the future. Furthermore, if the story is accurate, he attempted to delete those emails off his devices, which seems odd if the only evidence in the emails he tried to scrub are unsupported speculation about those events.

I haven't said a thing to defend Manafort or say he should be excused for doing anything. Surely you know I was talking about tactics that Mueller used.

In the case of Manafort, Mueller pushed against Manafort for charges that could have...and should have...been handled by rank and file DOJ prosecutors or by the IRS. Mueller took them on for the sole purpose of trying to get Manafort to give him something on Trump.

First of all, what should have or could have been farmed out is your opinion. If Mueller's team chased down the money trails as part of their core investigation, and they would, it would seem appropriate that those most familiar with the facts and uncovered the crimes would prosecute the crimes. But even if career could have handled it, why 'should' Mueller hand off leverage? You're demanding he disarm for some reason. It's not how any other DoJ prosecution would work - if a target was prosecutable on other crimes, are you alleging it's normal for that team to NOT use that leverage in their core investigation?

I find that just as dishonest and unethical as hitting Corsi with the threat of charges of lying because he couldn't remember something from years ago for the sole purpose of trying to get Corsi to give him something on Trump.

You're assuming that a guy who scrubbed his emails to try and fail to get rid of the damning ones simply didn't remember accurately predicting momentous events. Seems more likely, unless he's suffering from age related dementia, that he lied.

And the "years ago" excuse is laughable because the event he accurately predicted with a key figure in the controversy has been a subject of great controversy ever since the leaks happened. They're not asking him about lunch but his role in a controversy that's been front and center of all our world since October 2016, and certainly since the the winter of 2016/2017.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Oh?

That is what Corsi says Mueller is doing.

If Corsi lied he chose to. He didn't have to lie about anything.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Mueller believes that Manafort has not been providing information as he had agreed in the plea deal. But as per the filing, Mueller also believes that Manafort believes he has been providing correct and proper information as agreed. So its really an issue that the prosecutor is not satisfied with what the defendant says he knows and thus has made a declaration that he is in violation of the deal and thus its null and void. And Manafort is saying that he is being coerced to say things that are not true.
It takes two to tango in a plea deal.

Manafort can't be "coerced to say things that are not true". If Manafort lied, he chose to.

If Trump lied in his written statement to the Special Counsel, he chose to.

 

[markjs]

Corsi is lying. Read the article. One of the emails from Corsi says there will be 3 dumps, one now, one later, and the third in October. Corsi's claim that he was guessing, as an **cough** investigative reporter **cough** addressed the October dump. Corsi, however, knew exactly when all 3 dumps would occur, according to his own emails.

These emails tie the Trump campaign directly to Russia. Russia stole the emails, Wikileaks obtained the emails from Russia, and Wikileaks dumped them, apparently after coordinating the timing of those dumps with the Trump campaign. 2 questions remain:

1) Did the Trump campaign know that the emails came from Russia, or did they believe that they were dealing with Wikileaks only?

2) In either case, did Trump himself know what was going on, or was this all done behind his back? People can make a case either way, but only Mueller knows the answer. There are presently more than 3 dozen sealed indictments on the DC docket. Once the investigation is complete and the report issued, if sealed indictments remain, they are most likely waiting to be unsealed the day after Trump leaves office.

REally, it's just as criminal even if they can't prove anyone in the Trump campain "knew" they were cooperating with the Kremlin or not. EVen if it can't be "proven" they were knowlageable about working with Russia, Wikileaks is still considered a hostile intellegence serice, and not journalists, and the Assange indictments are part of Mueller's brilliant plan to make certain this president be confronted publicly with his corruption.

I think anyone with a brian knows, they knew exactly who they were conspiring with, but suggestive evidence and enough evidence to prove a thing beyond a resonable doubt is another matter entirely, but because of Wikileaks status after the Assange indictment, it's not a key point that they prove much beyond that IMO.

 

[akyron]

Why should these peoples’ lives be ruined just because of the crimes they did?

What crimes?

 

[Integrityrespec]

So odd that the investigation into the possibility of collusion has turned into a search for any possible crime that might exist if it concerns people in any way attached to Trump. In the first place there was no evidence of a crime to begin with that involved Trump or his campaign regarding collusion. The special council is only supposed to be impowered if there is a crime first then they search for the perpetrator. It is a witch hunt because they are doing it backwards and only searching those attached to Trump. Why would the very questionable acts of the DNC, and the Hillary campain are either ignored or as claimed by Comey, "no prosecutor would take this case". Hogwash. Destroying 33,000 emails that were under supeana is a crime plain and simple, having a private and separate server in he basement that was outside the Dept of State security and storage is at least a breach of State Dept regulation and very possibly illegal if there is intent to decieve. Of course she knew the rules because she was head of the State Dept and was briefed. A crime. Yet no democrat cares that she did these things but its ok to search for any crime, most of which have been found were crimes that existed years prior to Trump being a candidate and have nothing to do with him. Others are crimes of lying to FBI. Well what do you do when faced with $100's of thousands of dollars of legal bills, sell your home, go bankrupt to try to defend yourself against those accusations even if they are false. So when offered a small lie that the FBI or Meuller investigators want you to tell and they will leave you alone or give you 2 weeks in jail instead of 10-20 years, yes some people will give in.

 

[Mycroft]

Given that Corsi makes a living dealing in the lies of conspiracy theories and Mueller is an attorney of impeccable credentials and a stellar reputation, there is little doubt that Corsi is the weak link here. Corsi is way out-gunned in the credibility department here.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...-partisan-case-against-robert-mueller/548015/

Interesting that you gravitate wanting to believe the bad actors in this scenario over truth, justice and the American way. I bet you rooted for Bane.

"impeccable credentials and a stellar reputation"???

LOL!!

 

[PLizzy]

Agreed, because it's absolute folly, the notion that, like Clinton, an impeachment would backfire and help the GOP and Trump politically, like it did with Clinton. The notion is ridiculous, because only Trump's base is fooled by him anyway, and he's done nothing to endear himself to the opposition at all.

It's also crystal clear how perjury over a matter like the Lewinsky affair is bad, and he deserved his disbarring, but that it didn't show much in the way of corrupt intent as president. He retired one of the most popular presidents in history.

Trump, no chance impeachment doesn't damage him, even if not a single Republican in the senate votes for conviction.

Thing is, by then it should be apparent to the GOP what a cancer he is on the party and I doubt they will maintain that inpenitrable loyalty. Iam pretty certain even with what is just recently coming out, that at least a small handfullof senate republicans are reconsidering how far they will defend this guy, especially when you consider the subpeona cannon Schiff is gonna be aiming at the Trump regime.

The things is, those Senate Republicans that will be running for reelection in competitive states know full well that people opposed to Trump are not going to vote for them, regardless of whether they support a credible removal from office, so I just don't see but maybe a handful ever crossing party lines.

I'd rather the Democrats hold public hearings as to Trump's crimes, everyday until 2020. Put every witness on the stand, put every document in the public domain, and put the responsibility at the front door of the RNC for not conducting proper oversight.

That will virtually guarantee they lose the Senate by a wide margin in 2020, which is as important as the presidency, IMHO.

 

[Mycroft]

If Corsi lied he chose to. He didn't have to lie about anything.

Ummm…

According to Corsi, Mueller wants him to lie to avoid the charges that were trumped up in a perjury trap. Corsi refuses to lie.

 

[markjs]

The things is, those Senate Republicans that will be running for reelection in competitive states know full well that people opposed to Trump are not going to vote for them, regardless of whether they support a credible removal from office, so I just don't see but maybe a handful ever crossing party lines.

I'd rather the Democrats hold public hearings as to Trump's crimes, everyday until 2020. Put every witness on the stand, put every document in the public domain, and put the responsibility at the front door of the RNC for not conducting proper oversight.

That will virtually guarantee they lose the Senate by a wide margin in 2020, which is as important as the presidency, IMHO.

More important than the presidency, outside of nominating SCOTUS people, and I think if the last few years of that ****show shows us anything, it's that we ought to find a less partisan process for that and implement it just like re-districting by non-parisan means. It's supposed to be about the law an adherence to it, not political power in the judiciary.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Ummm…

According to Corsi, Mueller wants him to lie to avoid the charges that were trumped up in a perjury trap. Corsi refuses to lie.

He admitted to lying to the FBI:

"They want me to say I willfully lied. I did not intentionally lie to (the) special counsel," Corsi told NBC News.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...ays-he-plans-reject-mueller-plea-deal-n940096

Unfortunately, perjury is based on lying, not "intentionally lying" whatever that means. Admitting you "accidentally" lied (which is impossible btw) is still admitting you lied.

But going back to the original topic, Mueller can't coerce him to lie because, if he told the truth, he can just go to court where the burden of proof is on the SC office to prove he lied. And if he didn't lie, they can't prove it.

Wonder why he's talking about rotting in jail instead of clearing his good name and defending his reputation for honesty in court.