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

[TU Curmudgeon]

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.

On that specific point, you do realize that, under American law, it is perfectly legal to use evidence obtained by means that would be illegal under American law PROVIDED that it was obtained by means that were NOT illegal by the party that obtained it, and PROVIDED that it was not illegal under American law for the party that obtained the evidence to transmit it to the party using that evidence, don't you?

Since it was NOT illegal, under Russian law, to hack into the DNC's servers, then the evidence that the Russians obtained was "legally obtained".

Since it was NOT illegal, under Russian law, for the Russian government to release the materials that it obtained through its (legal) hacking of the DNC's servers, then the release of that evidence was "legal".

Since it was NOT illegal, under Russian law, for Mr. Assange to distribute the "legally obtained" material that he had "legally" received, Mr. Assange has committed no crime at all and, in fact, was acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America regarding the use of evidence.

Of course, since Mr. Assange did not do anything IN the United States of America, and since Mr. Assange is NOT an American citizen, then the likelihood that the US government actually has any jurisdiction over a non-American who is NOT in the United States of America and who is doing something with legally acquired materials that they are legally allowed to do where they are actually located when they did it, is rather problematic.
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?

Unless there was some actual conspiracy involved (and that would have to involve "Team Trump" as a knowing and willing participant in the conspiracy) whether "Team Trump" knew that the e-Mails had been routed through Russia is almost irrelevant - from a legal point of view.

2) In either case, did Trump himself know what was going on, or was this all done behind his back?

See above.

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.

Personally I don't think that Mr. Trump was directly involved (and may even not have been indirectly involved). Why? Because the Russians aren't stupid and allowing someone with Mr. Trump's personality to be directly involved in any conspiracy would be REALLY DUMB.

That, of course, doesn't rule out the possibility that the Russians were, indirectly, MANIPULATING Mr. Trump (through "Team Trump") and, quite frankly, were that to be the case, I would have a great deal of difficulty deciding which would appall me the most [1] a President that directly conspires with a foreign government, or [2] a President that is so clueless that a foreign government can manipulate them.

 

[Samhain]

He admitted to lying to the FBI:



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.

That's not Corsi's story. He is saying that Mueller originally allowed him to amend his testimony to correct the email statements so long as he testified that he in cahoots with Wikileaks. He is refusing to agree that, hence his statement about not signing onto a lie(his plea deal).

Additionally, perjury is based on lying not misremembering or forgetting. Corsi's claim is that he didn't remember.

The government will have to prove that he remembered prior to his testimony, but in their filing, they only prove he remembered after the interview based on subsequent emails/texts.

In the end, to me, the core question is: is engagement with Wikileaks in any fashion a violation of law.

 

[akyron]

"impeccable credentials and a stellar reputation"???

LOL!!

You should really follow that up with how Mueller is a thug that willingly and wrongfully placed four men in prison and allowed two to die there.

Probing Mueller: What Were His Roles in Boston Mafia Murders, Uranium One, and Other FBI Scandals?

Did Robert Mueller conspire to keep four innocent men framed by the FBI in prison for life for a murder they did not commit? The Boston Globe and a longtime member of the MA Parole Board say YES.

Wrongfully Convicted Men Awarded $101M

‘Contracts Flowed from Robert Mueller’s FBI to James Comey’ at Lockheed Martin

And on and on all day long. Nah. Mueller is as dirty as they come.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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

Yeah, full on nutter.

You might be interested in reading "The godfather of fake news".

Now, is someone who earns a six figure income out of inventing and publishing "fake news" a "nutter" or are they (to use Mr. Trump's term) "smart"?

 

[akyron]

He admitted to lying to the FBI:

Here is what Corsi says in an interview.

Corsi willingly gave FBI full access to all his email for years.

Corsi forgot he forwarded an email from years before..

Probably because our justice system is screwed up...

 

[apdst]

He admitted to lying to the FBI:



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.

Perjury requires intent. If Mueller can't prove intent, he can't charge Corsi with perjury.

 

[Athanasius68]

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.

Of course he can-- as Mueller himself admits, Manafort believes he is cooperating.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

That's not Corsi's story. He is saying that Mueller originally allowed him to amend his testimony to correct the email statements so long as he testified that he in cahoots with Wikileaks. He is refusing to agree that, hence his statement about not signing onto a lie(his plea deal).

Oh, okay, well good thing he can go to court and clear his good name.

Additionally, perjury is based on lying not misremembering or forgetting. Corsi's claim is that he didn't remember.

No, he said he lied. I literally quoted him saying he lied in the post you quoted.

The government will have to prove that he remembered prior to his testimony, but in their filing, they only prove he remembered after the interview based on subsequent emails/texts.

Well good thing he can go to court and clear his good name.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Perjury requires intent. If Mueller can't prove intent, he can't charge Corsi with perjury.

Well good thing Corsi can go to court and clear his good name.

 

[Grand Mal]

You should really follow that up with how Mueller is a thug that willingly and wrongfully placed four men in prison and allowed two to die there.

Probing Mueller: What Were His Roles in Boston Mafia Murders, Uranium One, and Other FBI Scandals?

Did Robert Mueller conspire to keep four innocent men framed by the FBI in prison for life for a murder they did not commit? The Boston Globe and a longtime member of the MA Parole Board say YES.

Wrongfully Convicted Men Awarded $101M

‘Contracts Flowed from Robert Mueller’s FBI to James Comey’ at Lockheed Martin

And on and on all day long. Nah. Mueller is as dirty as they come.

Man. Is this America or some Latin American ****hole run by crooks and cartels?
Depends who you ask. Seems lots of conservatives figure their country can't possibly be more corrupt.

 

[bubbabgone]

That's not Corsi's story. He is saying that Mueller originally allowed him to amend his testimony to correct the email statements so long as he testified that he in cahoots with Wikileaks. He is refusing to agree that, hence his statement about not signing onto a lie(his plea deal).

Additionally, perjury is based on lying not misremembering or forgetting. Corsi's claim is that he didn't remember.

The government will have to prove that he remembered prior to his testimony, but in their filing, they only prove he remembered after the interview based on subsequent emails/texts.

In the end, to me, the core question is: is engagement with Wikileaks in any fashion a violation of law.

It certainly seems that, so far anyway, Mueller is trying to build guilt by association circumstances for his final report to justify his 20M$ price tag.
And he and his team don't much care if they have to build their list of miscreants with poor schmucks like Corsi using what would never be considered crimes in a non-political world with non-political actors.

 

[akyron]

Depends who you ask.

That is true. Some are lazy and willing to accept disinformation at face value and some are willing to look a little deeper. It is sad that investigative reporting is dead and gone. Regular people have a lot of work to do.

Curious: Do you believe that judge granted those released prisoners 101 million dollars for nothing?

Seems excessive on just a whim to me.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

It certainly seems that, so far anyway, Mueller is trying to build guilt by association circumstances for his final report to justify his 20M$ price tag.

LMAOOOO

The SC investigation has turned a profit for the government so this line of bs doesn't really work anymore.

And he and his team don't much care if they have to build their list of miscreants with poor schmucks like Corsi using what would never be considered crimes in a non-political world with non-political actors.

Perjury is a crime for anyone. I'm sorry you don't think lying to the FBI is a big deal but that doesn't change the fact that it's just as illegal for you or I to do it as it is Manafort or Corsi.

 

[Hypothetical]

Man. Is this America or some Latin American ****hole run by crooks and cartels?
Depends who you ask. Seems lots of conservatives figure their country can't possibly be more corrupt.

sorry this is America, you have to prove that a crime was committed before you can convict someone... now I read that article and Ifidn the flollowing quote totally appropos:

""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.""

by all means someone please point out where the damning evidence is.. and I do NOT mean "oh well its obvious that they did this" BS. i want the email statement that damn them for having Irrefutable involvement in hacking those emails in collusion with Russia, pointed out.

please show me, because I do not see it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Perjury requires intent. If Mueller can't prove intent, he can't charge Corsi with perjury.

Not quite correct.

Mr. Mueller can CHARGE Mr. Corsi with anything he feels like CHARGING him with.

Getting a conviction is something else again.

Mr. Mueller does not have to "prove" that Mr. Corsi INTENDED to lie. What he has to "prove" is three fold [1] that the statement was false, [2] that Mr. Corsi knew it was false when he made it, and [3] that Mr. Corsi made the statement of his own free will. On all three of those points the standard of proof required is "beyond a REASONABLE doubt" (and the key word there is "reasonable").

I do wish that you'd get some legal education before profundicating on legal matters.

 

[Kobie]

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.

And if you’re taking a guy like Corsi at his word, that’s a level of delusion previously undiscovered by man.

 

[Mycroft]

He admitted to lying to the FBI:



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.

I've already addressed this "intentionally lying" issue in my first post in this thread by quoting Corsi.

Last night, Jerome Corsi explained to Tucker Carlson and his audience how the Mueller team was able to charge him with lying to them in order to pressure him to (in his view) to give false testimony implicating Paul Manafort. It is a harrowing tale as he tells it. If you believe him, he is a victim of a ruthless team that took possession of his computer, smart phone, and other records, and then spent hours grilling him over details of his communications years earlier. When he failed to remember that he forwarded one email, they had him on a charge of lying, even though, as he told Tucker Carlson (rush transcript via Grabien):

Now the special counsel came in and blew up and they actually sent me home and gave me an opportunity to review the emails. When I came back, I amended the testimony to say that I now remember the email. The special counsel was happy with that until I couldn’t give them what they wanted. Which was a connection that I had with Assange, which they assumed I have come which I I didn’t have. Now suddenly, they forgot they allowed me to amend my testimony and they are going back to the mistake I made, when I forgot the emails. So really, I think, it is completely fraudulent, the charge that they were trying to get me to plead to. I refused to plead to a lie.

The proof of the pudding, so to speak, is whether Mueller actually allowed Corsi to amend his testimony.

This whole thing very well may end up in court, but that depends on Mueller. If Corsi is lying about what happened, Mueller will hang him by the balls. If Corsi is telling the truth about what happened, Mueller won't dare take him to court.

 

[bubbabgone]

LMAOOOO

The SC investigation has turned a profit for the government so this line of bs doesn't really work anymore.

You think the Federal Government is going to recover their 20M$ nut from fines of Manafort?
Besides, the cost wasn't the point. The point was his need to come up with something, anything, since it looks like the original reason for his investigation didn't produce anything.
I think Dershowitz is right. There's nothing there so they have to make it look like there is so everyone will think their suspicions have been confirmed.

Perjury is a crime for anyone. I'm sorry you don't think lying to the FBI is a big deal but that doesn't change the fact that it's just as illegal for you or I to do it as it is Manafort or Corsi.

I betcha they could catch you at something questionable you said or wrote 2 years ago if they wanted to. And I'd wager you don't have as many emails or know as many people as Corsi.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

LMAOOOO

The SC investigation has turned a profit for the government so this line of bs doesn't really work anymore.



Perjury is a crime for anyone. I'm sorry you don't think lying to the FBI is a big deal but that doesn't change the fact that it's just as illegal for you or I to do it as it is Manafort or Corsi.

Historically an accused person was not allowed to "testify under oath" (the feeling being that an accused would say whatever they felt was most likely to result in an acquittal), hence (historically) a person accused of a crime could not be convicted of perjury.

The accused person WAS allowed to "make a statement" but was not allowed to "give evidence" and it was up to the trier of fact as to whether they would credit what the accused said or not.

An outgrowth of that practice is what is jocularly known as "The Criminal Record Defence" where the accused goes on the stand and their lawyer reads off their list of convictions along the lines of

• LAWYER - Mr. Jones, on or about the Nth day of MUMBLE, were you tried on a charge of ...?
• ACCUSED - Yes, Sir, I was.
• LAWYER - And on that date what did you do with respect to that charge?
• ACCUSED - I plead Guilty.
• LAWYER - And why did you do that?
• ACCUSED - Because I done it.
• LAWYER - Now, Mr. Jones, on the N'th day of ...
• REPEAT ABOVE UNTIL THE CURRENT CHARGE IS REACHED
• LAWYER - And what is your plea to today's charge?
• ACCUSED - NOT Guilty!
• LAWYER - And why is that?
• ACCUSED - Because I din't done it!

I know that it sounds silly, but, given the right combination of (old time) Judge and (old time) Accused, it can work (at least I've had it work for my clients more than once). [The trick is to strike exactly the correct note of outraged indignation at being charged with something that you didn't do when "everyone knows" that you are an "honest" criminal and always confess when caught.)

PS - If the list is extensive to the point where the Judge says something along the lines of "We don't have to go through the whole list, do we? I can see that Mr. Accused always pleads guilty when accused of doing something that he has actually done." - SHUT UP and sit down, you've just won the case and the Prosecution knows it.

PPS - Yes, that actually happened for me (ONCE).

 

[Khayembii Communique]

You think the Federal Government is going to recover their 20M$ nut from fines of Manafort?

They already recovered it when they seized almost $50 million in assets.

Besides, the cost wasn't the point.

LLOLOL. So why'd you bring it up if it's irrelevant?

The point was his need to come up with something, anything, since it looks like the original reason for his investigation didn't produce anything.

The investigation has resulted in nearly 2 indictments or pleas per month. It doesn't need any "justification". The reason for the investigation hasn't changed - the mandate is the same.

I betcha they could catch you at something questionable you said or wrote 2 years ago if they wanted to. And I'd wager you don't have as many emails or know as many people as Corsi.

No, they couldn't, because I don't have anything to lie about.

 

[bubbabgone]

They already recovered it when they seized almost $50 million in assets.

Cool. Maybe they can put it toward The Wall.

LLOLOL. So why'd you bring it up if it's irrelevant?

Already explained.

The investigation has resulted in nearly 2 indictments or pleas per month. It doesn't need any "justification". The reason for the investigation hasn't changed - the mandate is the same.

What was that mandate, anyway?

No, they couldn't, because I don't have anything to lie about.

It doesn't have to be a lie. It just has to be wrong.

 

[apdst]

Not quite correct.

Mr. Mueller can CHARGE Mr. Corsi with anything he feels like CHARGING him with.

Getting a conviction is something else again.

Mr. Mueller does not have to "prove" that Mr. Corsi INTENDED to lie. What he has to "prove" is three fold [1] that the statement was false, [2] that Mr. Corsi knew it was false when he made it, and [3] that Mr. Corsi made the statement of his own free will. On all three of those points the standard of proof required is "beyond a REASONABLE doubt" (and the key word there is "reasonable").

I do wish that you'd get some legal education before profundicating on legal matters.

If you want to admit that Mueller is crooked as hell, yeah, sure.

Then, it would be another cockup to add to Mueller's list of cockups.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Cool. Maybe they can put it toward The Wall.



Already explained.

No, you never explained why you brought up the cost of the investigation. I will tell you why you brought it up - because you were trying to parrot the dated talking point about the investigation being an expensive waste of resources. You've got egg all over your face now considering that the investigation some time ago turned a large profit for the government through asset seizures, but don't want to admit it.

What was that mandate, anyway?

It's out there go ahead and google it. If you don't know then maybe that's a problem you should look into before forming opinions on any of this. I will give you a hint, though - it's not limited to looking just at whether Trump colluded with Russia.

In keeping with the tradition of Republicans' complete lack of concern for being hypocrites, it's pretty funny actually that they claim the investigation is pointless because there was no collusion, then in the same breath try to argue that the mandate of the SC is too broad. Which I'm guessing is what you'll whine about next, considering the mandate is very obviously broader than what you think it to be.

It doesn't have to be a lie. It just has to be wrong.

No, it has to be an intentional, material, false statement. Which is a lie.

 

[MTAtech]

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.

Let's not forget that Trump said that nobody in his campaign met with Russians -- I guess he meant nobody except for everybody.

 

[bubbabgone]

No, you never explained why you brought up the cost of the investigation. I will tell you why you brought it up - because you were trying to parrot the dated talking point about the investigation being an expensive waste of resources. You've got egg all over your face now considering that the investigation some time ago turned a large profit for the government through asset seizures, but don't want to admit it.

Mention of the cost was incidental to him trying to justify not coming up with anything directly related to his initial mandate.
Sounds like you're getting a bit too worked up about this.

It's out there go ahead and google it. If you don't know then maybe that's a problem you should look into before forming opinions on any of this. I will give you a hint, though - it's not limited to looking just at whether Trump colluded with Russia.

Well besides collusion and obstruction ... what was it? You think Rosenstein appointed a Special Counsel to explore Manfort's business shenanigans? Is that it? Those are the matters that arose during the investigation. I'm pretty sure you're wrong that's what Rosy had in mind. But it sure seems to be what they got.

In keeping with the tradition of Republicans' complete lack of concern for being hypocrites, it's pretty funny actually that they claim the investigation is pointless because there was no collusion, then in the same breath try to argue that the mandate of the SC is too broad. Which I'm guessing is what you'll whine about next, considering the mandate is very obviously broader than what you think it to be.

You guessing implies thought and that's good.

No, it has to be an intentional, material, false statement. Which is a lie.

It is what they say it is and if you have anything they want that they can squeeze out of you. That's what matters.