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

[danarhea]

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.

So, in other words, you would rather still have Gotti out on the streeets, and ordering more murders. OK, I get it.

 

[danarhea]

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.

To be honest, Assange wasn't always with Russia, and he did good work exposing the spying on American citizens that was being done by the government. He went over to the dark side after that.

 

[markjs]

To be honest, Assange wasn't always with Russia, and he did good work exposing the spying on American citizens that was being done by the government. He went over to the dark side after that.

Regardless, his current status is what makes it not matter. It's only what the US Government considers wikileaks to beand that's a hostile foreign but not nationally specific intelligence agency. I'm not arguing that, just that one hostile foreign intelligence service is same as a hostile government, tstill just as illegal in the eeyes of the law.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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

Exactly how do you draw the "conclusion" that Mr. Mueller is "crooked" from a simple statement of what the law is?

Oh, I know, because you have absolutely no idea what the law actually is and honestly believe that the law is whatever you want it to be.

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

If Mr. Mueller were to proceed with charges knowing full well that there was no reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction, you would be quite correct to describe that as a "**** up".

On the other hand, I am fully aware that there are those who would only describe something that Mr. Mueller did as NOT being a **** up if Mr. Mueller were to announce that his investigation had revealed that "Donald John Trump was God's Special Messenger Sent To Redeem The World". I don't think that you would go quite that far - you'd be content if the word "Special" were removed.

 

[Mycroft]

So, in other words, you would rather still have Gotti out on the streeets, and ordering more murders. OK, I get it.

So...you believe the ends justify any means. Okay, I get it.

Mueller seems to agree with you. The Dems and some Republican Trump haters certainly agree with you.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

To be honest, Assange wasn't always with Russia, and he did good work exposing the spying on American citizens that was being done by the government. He went over to the dark side after that.

"Went" might more appropriately be replaced by "Was pushed", don't you think?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Regardless, his current status is what makes it not matter. It's only what the US Government considers wikileaks to beand that's a hostile foreign but not nationally specific intelligence agency. I'm not arguing that, just that one hostile foreign intelligence service is same as a hostile government, tstill just as illegal in the eeyes of the law.

Did you know that it is NOT illegal (or, at least, not something that the US government has any jurisdiction over) for a foreign national, situate outside of the United States of America to do things which are contrary to American law PROVIDED that that thing is NOT contrary to the lex situs?

Did you know that, while it is contrary to American law for American intelligence agencies to "conduct surveillance" of American citizens in the United States of America (without first obtaining a court order allowing them to do so) it is NOT contrary to American law for those same American intelligence agencies to enter into agreements with "foreign" intelligence agencies whereby those "foreign" intelligence agencies conduct the surveillance and then provide the data obtained to the American intelligence agencies under "information sharing" arrangements?

Did you know that such arrangements are already in place and have been for much more than a decade?

Did you know that evidence obtained by means that would be illegal (and hence inadmissible in court) if used by American intelligence/police agencies is fully admissible if obtained by the same means by a "foreign" intelligence/police agency and then handed over to an American intelligence/police agency?

Isn't the law wonderful?

 

[apdst]

Exactly how do you draw the "conclusion" that Mr. Mueller is "crooked" from a simple statement of what the law is?

Oh, I know, because you have absolutely no idea what the law actually is and honestly believe that the law is whatever you want it to be.



If Mr. Mueller were to proceed with charges knowing full well that there was no reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction, you would be quite correct to describe that as a "**** up".

On the other hand, I am fully aware that there are those who would only describe something that Mr. Mueller did as NOT being a **** up if Mr. Mueller were to announce that his investigation had revealed that "Donald John Trump was God's Special Messenger Sent To Redeem The World". I don't think that you would go quite that far - you'd be content if the word "Special" were removed.

Because, any lawyer who would knowingly lie to the court, is crooked. There's no way to argue otherwise.

 

[markjs]

Did you know that it is NOT illegal (or, at least, not something that the US government has any jurisdiction over) for a foreign national, situate outside of the United States of America to do things which are contrary to American law PROVIDED that that thing is NOT contrary to the lex situs?

Did you know that, while it is contrary to American law for American intelligence agencies to "conduct surveillance" of American citizens in the United States of America (without first obtaining a court order allowing them to do so) it is NOT contrary to American law for those same American intelligence agencies to enter into agreements with "foreign" intelligence agencies whereby those "foreign" intelligence agencies conduct the surveillance and then provide the data obtained to the American intelligence agencies under "information sharing" arrangements?

Did you know that such arrangements are already in place and have been for much more than a decade?

Did you know that evidence obtained by means that would be illegal (and hence inadmissible in court) if used by American intelligence/police agencies is fully admissible if obtained by the same means by a "foreign" intelligence/police agency and then handed over to an American intelligence/police agency?

Isn't the law wonderful?

I'm not (and was never) making the judgment on Assange here, my point was that the Trump campaign is just as guilty whether Mueller could tie them to Assange and then Assange to Russia, or even if they can't directly tie Assange to Russia. Not sure if that was clear, but that was always the point I was trying to make.

 

[danarhea]

So...you believe the ends justify any means. Okay, I get it.

Mueller seems to agree with you. The Dems and some Republican Trump haters certainly agree with you.

Mueller is a real Republican. Trump, along with his supporters, including you? RINOS to the max. Reagan is turning in his grave.

 

[danarhea]

"Went" might more appropriately be replaced by "Was pushed", don't you think?

It was his decision.

 

[Mycroft]

Mueller is a real Republican. Trump, along with his supporters, including you? RINOS to the max. Reagan is turning in his grave.

Bull****.

Mueller is an opportunist. Party doesn't matter.

btw, by definition I cannot be a RINO since I'm not a Republican.

 

[upsideguy]

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.

Trump is a habitual liar. I don't think he actually chooses to lie, he can't help himself. He lives in an alternative reality where his truth is truth. Unfortunately it usually isn't true. Donald Trump's fundamental existence is a lie. Its a pity that he is such a remarkable cult leader that he has so many living in the same world of lies.

 

[danarhea]

Bull****.

Mueller is an opportunist. Party doesn't matter.

btw, by definition I cannot be a RINO since I'm not a Republican.

I'll give you points for honesty.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

August 2, Corsi emails stone regarding the email dump:

"Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps...impact planned to be very damaging...Time to let more than Podesta to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop [Clinton]. That appears to be the game hackers are now about."

This is what Corsi is saying he "figured out" completely independent of any contact with Assange. Apparently his defense is that "word is" refers to the words in his head. And that the impact being planned is just, you know, like, his opinion, man. And asserting his thoughts on what the hackers, who he never had any contact with or knowledge of, are "about".

And the Trump supporters here would like us to believe that Mueller trying to get Corsi to sign a plea deal stating that this bs is wrong, is "coercing him to lie".

 

[Hatuey]

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.

... yeah, poor murderous Mr. Gotti.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Because, any lawyer who would knowingly lie to the court, is crooked. There's no way to argue otherwise.

Since your "answer" doesn't even hint at being something that could be suspected as resembling an answer to the question which was actually asked, I'll ask the actual question again:

Exactly how do you draw the "conclusion" that Mr. Mueller is "crooked" from a simple statement of what the law is?
​

PS - You might not have noticed it, but your original "If you want to admit that Mueller is crooked as hell, yeah, sure." had nothing whatsoever to do with the post that it was "in reply" to.

PPS - We'll come back to your "any lawyer who would knowingly lie to the court" bit later - once you actually provide a response that actually deals with the question asked. At that point, I'll expect you to be able to fully document the "knowing lies" which Mr. Mueller has told to the court (references to his disbarment proceedings would be the best ones) so please don't suggest that I haven't given you plenty of time to respond when I do ask you to produce the evidence to substantiate your claim.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I'm not (and was never) making the judgment on Assange here, my point was that the Trump campaign is just as guilty whether Mueller could tie them to Assange and then Assange to Russia, or even if they can't directly tie Assange to Russia. Not sure if that was clear, but that was always the point I was trying to make.

Thanks for clarifying.

The situation does appear to have a faint hint of the case of the man who was convicted of paying a bribe to a member of Congress that the member of Congress was acquitted of receiving.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It was his decision.

True, but the reason why a decision is made sometimes is actually relevant.

A man might steal a loaf of bread simply to have something to kick down the street, and another might steal a loaf of bread in order to feed his starving children.

BOTH of them would have stolen a loaf of bread.

The "criminal culpability" of the two is equal.

The "moral culpability" of the two is not equal.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Bull****.

Mueller is an opportunist. Party doesn't matter.

btw, by definition I cannot be a RINO since I'm not a Republican.

Are the Republicans too "left-wing" for you?

 

[Mycroft]

Are the Republicans too "left-wing" for you?

Nah.

I don't join herds.