DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, peace out said:

Occam's razor assuming there is not a GRAND CONSPIRACY/#DEEPSTATE - Trump is compromised.

 

Enjoy your weekends. I'm going to Miami.

 

Occam's razor would dictate that the Mueller investigation is complete nonsense, as it keeps getting increasingly byzantine as it goes on.

 

The Deep State conspiracy theory is actually simpler at this point than the Trump/Russia/Manafort/Flynn/Corsi/God knows who else conspiracy theory.  

[Tiberius]

So Trump was working with Russia--and Putin--on deals in Russia at the same time that Russia was interfering in our election. Trump has lied about this, sided with the Russians over our intelligence agency and reached out to and had at least one high profile meeting with the Russians in Trump Towers. 

 

 

Ya, nothing to see there. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Paul Ryan... SMH. His leaving is addition by subtraction.
 

 

[Koko78]

12 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

There's zero, none, nada, zilch evidence that he was not legally elected. None. The fact you are still holding onto that long debunked narrative two years later should be alarming to your critical thinking skills. I mean that with respect.

 

C'mon now, you darn well know that the Russians putting terrible ads on Facebook caused at least 50 electors to swing for Trump. Hillary was screwed by the Russians!!111

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Tiberius]

Quote

The Special Counsel has now secured guilty pleas from President Trump’s personal attorney, his campaign manager, his deputy campaign manager, a foreign policy advisor to his campaign, and his National Security Advisor. He has filed 191 charges against more than thirty individuals—almost all of whom are in President Trump’s orbit, Vladimir Putin’s orbit, or both. The President can pretend that this investigation has nothing to do with him and nothing to do with Russia, but these indictments speak for themselves. We must allow this investigation to run its course without interference from the President or his allies on Capitol Hill. As the new Congress begins, these developments make clear that my colleagues and I must step in and provide accountability. No one is above the law, not even the President, and our job will be to check his impulse to abuse his office to protect himself. We will do everything in our power to allow the Special Counsel to finish his work and follow the facts and the law to their conclusion.

https://nadler.house.gov/press-release/nadler-statement-michael-cohen-guilty-plea

[Logic]

https://www.justsecurity.org/61652/jereome-corsi-roger-stone-wikileaks-yes-collusion-legal-significance-mueller-revelations/

Yes, Collusion: The Legal Significance of the New Mueller Revelations

The special counsel’s draft Statement of Offense for Jerome Corsi includes much extraordinary information. But what are the most legally significant details to emerge? At bottom, the draft court document supplies additional reason to believe that Bob Mueller can charge Trump Campaign associates and the campaign itself for violations of federal campaign finance law either directly under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) or as part of a conspiracy to defraud the United States by obstructing the capacity of the Federal Election Commission to enforce the FECA. The federal offense of a conspiracy to defraud the United States serves as the backbone of the special counsel’s February 2018 indictment of Russian nationals, which then raised the question whether the special counsel would subsequently indict any Americans for knowingly participating in the general conspiracy. The activities of Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, and Ted Malloch, as shown by what Mueller decided to include in the draft document, points to legal jeopardy for them and any others who knowingly participated with them in this scheme with Wikileaks.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Logic said:

 The activities of Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, and Ted Malloch, as shown by what Mueller decided to include in the draft document, points to legal jeopardy for them and any others who knowingly participated with them in this scheme with Wikileaks.

 

Wikileaks does NOT = Russian intelligence. Any attempt to conflate the two is a sign that you're being lied to or fed propaganda by narrative engineers. 

 

Corsi is a bad actor. Stone is a bad actor. Neither are Russian assets, neither colluded with Trump's campaign. They're fame hounds with big mouths who talk a lot of shite. They're not James Bond.

 

 

... Are you not even going to bother continuing the conversation we were having yesterday?

 

*****************************

 

Of course, a man colluding with Russia to steal the election wouldn't waste time preparing for a "what if I lost" scenario... 

 

 

 

******************************

(Halper, Sater, G-Pap, Manafort... all with deep ties to the globalist cabal or the IC (or both), all sent in to dirty up team Trump in order to strengthen the fictitious intelligence product they were creating with the help of MI6, GCHQ, and Russian assets... but don't worry about that meddling. Worry about the Russian/Trump meddling of which there's no evidence.  )

 

 

[Tiberius]

12 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Wikileaks does NOT = Russian intelligence. Any attempt to conflate the two is a sign that you're being lied to or fed propaganda by narrative engineers. 

 

Corsi is a bad actor. Stone is a bad actor. Neither are Russian assets, neither colluded with Trump's campaign. They're fame hounds with big mouths who talk a lot of shite. They're not James Bond.

 

 

... Are you not even going to bother continuing the conversation we were having yesterday?

Well, Wikileaks ended up with the stolen emails somehow and Trump was telling everyone to go look at them, while he was lying about his involvement with Russia as he was criticizing US intelligence and saying he believed the murderous Putin. So...

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Well, Wikileaks ended up with the stolen emails somehow ...

 

Assange has all but told the world how he got the emails, but no one - certainly no one from Mueller's probe - has bothered to ask him about it. Ask yourself why. Why would the team investigating Russian Collusion/Meddling not want to talk to the only first hand witness of the hack/dissemination claims? 

 

...Could it be because they don't to find, let alone publicize, the truth?

[Tiberius]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Assange has all but told the world how he got the emails, but no one - certainly no one from Mueller's probe - has bothered to ask him about it. Ask yourself why. Why would the team investigating Russian Collusion/Meddling not want to talk to the only first hand witness of the hack/dissemination claims? 

 

...Could it be because they don't to find, let alone publicize, the truth?

Ask the guy who is hiding in an embassy? I'm sure the fugitive from justice would love to sit down with the FBI. And I'm sure he'd tell the truth, too. 

 

Why has Trump lied so much about Russia? That's the real question

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Ask the guy who is hiding in an embassy? I'm sure the fugitive from justice would love to sit down with the FBI. And I'm sure he'd tell the truth, too. 

 

So you advocate the police never questioning the chief suspect when investigating a crime? Or do you believe Assange is such a talented liar he could fool the investigators and thus Mueller, knowing this, is keeping his team away from the all-powerful-Assange?

 

Questioning the only eye witness to the hacking claims seems like criminal investigation 101 to me. 

[Tiberius]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

So you advocate the police never questioning the chief suspect when investigating a crime? Or do you believe Assange is such a talented liar he could fool the investigators and thus Mueller, knowing this, is keeping his team away from the all-powerful-Assange?

 

Questioning the only eye witness to the hacking claims seems like criminal investigation 101 to me. 

Circle logic. They can't question him, he is basically in hiding. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Circle logic. They can't question him, he is basically in hiding. 

 

Sure they can. Sean Hannity got a sit down interview in the Embassy just this year. You're telling me Fox News has access to the embassy that the FBI and DOJ do not?

[Logic]

40 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

... Are you not even going to bother continuing the conversation we were having yesterday?

 

Well, a few things:

First, I find it weird that you spent time and energy differentiating between "interference" and "meddling". You stated that they are "verrry different". But if you look up the definition of "meddle", it states: "to interfere in or busy oneself unduly with something that is not one's concern.". Does it sound to you like the meaning of each word is sufficiently different to warrant your semantics lesson? I also find it weird that conservatives -- even those that say they didn't vote for Trump -- bend over backwards to try to downplay the seriousness and malevolence of Russia's actions and their impact on the election.

Secondly, I simply disagree with you as to the notion that the election was fully legal and legitimate. When a hostile foreign power is known to have interfered -- oops, I mean "meddled" -- in an election, I don't see how you can continue to vouch for its full legitimacy, or how you can fail to understand how an investigation into the details of said meddling is warranted. I also think that current evidence overwhelmingly points to the Trump campaign's knowledge of and collusion with said "meddling". We don't have to go back and forth on that one, though, because I think the coming weeks and months are going to provide a clear answer as to who is correct in this matter.

And finally, I find it laughable that you discount and mock Seth Abramson, but then proceed to continually quote Chuck Ross...as if he is somehow more legitimate. I always enjoy the double standard here at the PPP when it comes to what sources and outlets are and aren't acceptable to quote.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Logic

[Tiberius]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Sure they can. Sean Hannity got a sit down interview in the Embassy just this year. You're telling me Fox News has access to the embassy that the FBI and DOJ do not?

YES! Hannity is doing all he can to cover this up. They are on the same corrupt side. 

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, Logic said:

Well, a few things:

First, I find it weird that you spent time and energy differentiating between "interference" and "meddling". You stated that they are "verrry different". But if you look up the definition of "meddle", it states: "to interfere in or busy oneself unduly with something that is not one's concern.". Does it sound to you like the meaning of each word is sufficiently different to warrant your semantics lesson?

 

In terms of international law, YES. They are very different. One is an act of war. The other is not. You're pushing the interpretation that what Russia did was an act of war. Do you feel posting facebook ads that made zero impact on the election outcome warrants going to war with the world's largest thermonuclear threat?

 

Words matter. Especially when trying to find the truth through a storm of (dis)information. Those who use "interference" are lying to you, or wholly ignorant of the actual meaning of the words. 

 

6 minutes ago, Logic said:

I also find it weird that conservatives -- even those that say they didn't vote for Trump -- bend over backwards to try to downplay the seriousness and malevolence of Russia's actions and their impact on the election.

 

I'm not a conservative. I'm a screenwriter in Hollywood. And I'm not bending over backwards to downplay anything, I'm focused on evidence. Meanwhile, you continue to go out of your way to avoid thinking about, discussing, or grappling with the piles of evidence that exist that disprove your position on this matter. 

 

7 minutes ago, Logic said:

Secondly, I simply disagree with you as to the notion that the election was fully legal and legitimate. When a hostile foreign power is known to have interfered -- oops, I mean "meddled" -- in an election, I don't see how you can continue to vouch for its full legitimacy, or how you can fail to understand how an investigation into the details of said meddling is warranted.

 

There is zero evidence that the election was tampered with in any meaningful way. There's zero evidence of any Russian meddling leading to a single changed vote. None. 

 

Yet, there is ample evidence that the Russian Collusion narrative has always been a CYA operation led by our own allies in Britain and the former administration... yet you are choosing to continually ignore the explanation with evidence in favor of the explanation that completely lacks evidence. 

 

Why? Why are you so drawn to a theory that, after two years, has provided zero evidence to support its foundation? Could you be letting your own partisan leanings affect your critical thinking skills? Or is that impossible?

 

9 minutes ago, Logic said:

 I also think that current evidence overwhelmingly points to the Trump campaign's knowledge of and collusion with said "meddling". We don't have to go back and forth on that one, though, because I think the coming weeks and months are going to provide a clear answer as to who is correct in this matter.

 

We don't have to go back and forth, because we can't. There is zero evidence of collusion. Even Mueller's own filings say as such. There's been no indictments, no guilty pleas, nothing that speaks to collusion. 

 

So again, after two years of "tick tock", you're STILL waiting for "coming weeks and months" to "provide clear answers" - rather than using your own critical thinking skills. Isn't that lazy? Isn't that outsourcing your own judgment to experts who have a history of lying to your face? Is that wise?

 

11 minutes ago, Logic said:

And finally, I find it laughable that you discount and mock Seth Abramson, but then proceed to continually quote Chuck Ross...as if he is somehow more legitimate. I always enjoy the double standard here at the PPP when it comes to what sources and outlets are and aren't acceptable to quote.

 

Chuck Ross is an actual investigative journalist who has been ahead of the curve on this story for months. Abramson has been proven wrong on nearly every claim in his book that he's selling for 29.99 at every airport. 

 

One is a real journalist. The other is a propagandist. Considering you are still falling for a narrative that's completely lacking in evidence, it's not a surprise you lean towards the propagandists who offers you reassurance rather than the journalist who deals in facts - even if they challenge your preconceived notions. 

13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

YES! Hannity is doing all he can to cover this up. They are on the same corrupt side. 

 

Same side or no, you believe Fox news can secure an interview with Assange and Mueller cannot? 

 

Tibs... think about that before answering.

 

***********************************

 

 

Funny how the solutions offered by the far left always seem to boil down to circumventing either the rule of law or the constitution itself. 

[Logic]

12 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

There is zero evidence that the election was tampered with in any meaningful way

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/18/russia-election-hacking-trump-putin-698087

 

2) Hackers went after the Democrats

"Last week’s indictments against 12 Russian intelligence laid out the other half of the alleged plot: the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and other liberal political groups, as well as aides to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The plot included an operation in mid-2016 that injected malware on “at least ten DCCC computers,” which then lurked on the DCCC network, stealing employees’ passwords, the indictment leaks. That allowed the hackers to watch Democratic staffers’ keystrokes and spirit away DCCC files to a server the Russians leased in Arizona.

The hackers then got into the DNC’s computers and transferred several gigabytes of data to a server they leased in Illinois. The hackers also breached the DNC’s Microsoft-hosted email service and stole “thousands of emails” from committee workers, according to the indictment.

The Russians then published their stolen files, using both outlets they created — a website called DC Leaks and a lone-hacker persona called Guccifer 2.0 — as well as an unidentified organization that’s believed to be WikiLeaks. The timing of the releases was no accident, said the indictments, which described private online conversations involving efforts to seize on the "conflict between bernie and hillary" before the Democratic National Convention."



So you're saying that you don't feel that the hacking of the DNC and the public release of materials found therein to paint Hillary in an unfavorable light impacted the election in any meaningful way? REALLY?! You don't think thousands of voters who were on the fence were impacted one iota by the hacking and/or disinformation campaigns? And you're calling ME willfully ignorant?



 

 

[keepthefaith]

27 minutes ago, Logic said:

Secondly, I simply disagree with you as to the notion that the election was fully legal and legitimate. When a hostile foreign power is known to have interfered -- oops, I mean "meddled" -- in an election, I don't see how you can continue to vouch for its full legitimacy, or how you can fail to understand how an investigation into the details of said meddling is warranted. I also think that current evidence overwhelmingly points to the Trump campaign's knowledge of and collusion with said "meddling". We don't have to go back and forth on that one, though, because I think the coming weeks and months are going to provide a clear answer as to who is correct in this matter.

 

 

Not even the most ardent Trump haters have provided any public evidence thus far that Russia or any other country caused or changed votes from HC to DT.  Rosenstein himself stated when the Russian indictments were announced that there was no evidence that these acts changed any votes. 

 

As for Hillary's email and her campaign's email, they left themselves totally exposed to hacking in the most clueless of ways.  To use public email domains or private poorly secured domains is the height of stupidity when you are one of the world's most obvious and prized hacking targets.  ***** here at our little company that nobody but us cares about we go to much greater measures to secure our data and communications. 

 

Mueller and his crew haven't produced anything of public benefit or interest. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Logic said:

So you're saying that you don't feel that the hacking of the DNC and the public release of materials found therein to paint Hillary in an unfavorable light impacted the election in any meaningful way?

 

There's no actual evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC. In fact, the preponderance of evidence suggests it was an internal leak rather than a hack. Add to this the FISC opinion on 702 abuse captured after the March audit and this cover story looks all the more damning. 

 

But let's say for the sake of argument the Russians hacked the DNC and through Wikileaks released real emails from the DNC. Does that reach the level of election interference? 

 

Nope. It's an escalation of the information warfare they were already running, but it changes zero votes and does not, in any way shape or form, speak to collusion with Trump's campaign or invalidate the election results. 

 

Clinging to "Russia hacked the DNC" without evidence is why you are so easily misled on this topic. There is zero evidence of Trump/Russia collusion. None. There is zero evidence that the election results were in any way illegal or illegitimate. 

 

I'll happily read/listen to/or analyze any evidence you offer on those matters, but so far there is NONE in open source. There's none admitted to by Mueller, the ICA, or any other official document release or testimony to date. Literally, ZERO. 

 

5 minutes ago, Logic said:

You don't think thousands of voters who were on the fence were impacted one iota by the hacking and/or disinformation campaigns? And you're calling ME willfully ignorant?

 

I didn't say willfully ignorant. I asked if it's possible that you are forfeiting your critical thinking skills in favor of believing a narrative that aligns with your partisan sensibilities. Do you not think that's possible? Especially when we examine the truth and find there is zero evidence to support the foundation of your argument (collusion/illegitimate election results)?

 

Again, for the sake of a conversation (and that's what I'm having here, not trying to be combative or push you away), let's say the Russians did hack and release the emails. The emails themselves are truthful, not fakes. They're real emails discussing real corruption and pay for play scandals. Does sharing real information with the world, in a society that believes in freedom of the press and speech, impact the election in a negative way? 

 

Nope. It's unlikely that information changed anyone's minds about Clinton. Clinton has been a well known political figure for decades. Her corruption and flaws have long been public knowledge. Information coming out in October '16 did less than little to move the needle on anyone's opinions of Clinton. You would agree with that, no?

 

Again - hacking, which I disagree was Russian in origin and have evidence to support that, more evidence than there is of Russian hacking in fact - is NOT evidence of collusion. It's also NOT evidence that the election was in any way illegitimate.

 

Doesn't the lack of evidence supporting your opinion - after two years - at least make it possible that you're partisanship is leading your critical thinking skills astray? Or no?