- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Daily Caller obtains Corsi plea agreement and it show the trap and mentality of Mueller
Posted on 11/28/18 at 12:18 pm to Jjdoc
Posted on 11/28/18 at 12:18 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
So you are saying that if they started an investigation that you had NO CLUE you were a part of you would commit that to memory?
Anyone tied to Trump or his close allies (like Stone) should have seen this coming just like you should all be seeing that any charge, no matter how small, is going to be touted as a massive gotcha by the Dems and the media.
The most radical version of the Dems in DC yet had power for years just prior-to and then during the Obama administration. Hillary was going to be the 2.0 of that and Trump derailed her. You seriously didn't think they would be scraping the bottoms of every barrel for any sort of charge to assuage their loss?
gtfo
1
Posted on 11/28/18 at 12:19 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
That's you interpreting the email to mean something more than it says.
Or is it you interpreting the email to mean something more than it says?
Posted on 11/28/18 at 12:21 pm to Bard
Your post is pathetic. You want to convict someone with absolutely no knowledge of where their information came from or if they even actually had it.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 12:23 pm to Bard
So it can be interpreted in multiple ways. We can only convict him of perjury if we use the most negative interpretation. Do you really not see how this is a problem? Any issues with presumption of innocence?
Posted on 11/28/18 at 12:25 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
or if they even actually had it.
Except that he did.
But keep going with your hypocritical outrage posts, it's helping my day go by faster.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 12:36 pm to AUTiger1978
quote:
So it can be interpreted in multiple ways. We can only convict him of perjury if we use the most negative interpretation. Do you really not see how this is a problem? Any issues with presumption of innocence?
quote:
Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I'm back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.
He's discussing who, what, when and the planned result. There's nothing about this that doesn't -at least- heavily imply this coming from Wiki (ie: fore-knowledge).
Swap "Huma" for "Corsi" and make those Trump's emails and the tone here would be diametrically different.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 12:40 pm to Jjdoc
if no collusion is found. He literally ruined people’s lives. That’s the craziest part to me.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 12:45 pm to Bard
quote:
The email does not appear to be speculation. "Word on the street" means "I don't want to name my source" and the information presented was specific
Hahahhaahahahahaha
Posted on 11/28/18 at 12:54 pm to Bard
quote:
Regardless, he knew a dump was coming yet lied about knowing about it to investigators
There's a pretty big difference between what you hear on the street versus having first-hand knowledge of something. The implication is that Corsi was THE back channel to Wikileaks.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 12:54 pm to Bard
quote:
The most radical version of the Dems in DC yet had power for years just prior-to and then during the Obama administration. Hillary was going to be the 2.0 of that and Trump derailed her. You seriously didn't think they would be scraping the bottoms of every barrel for any sort of charge to assuage their loss?
We all know this is the reason for the SC. Period. Trump getting elected had little to do with emails. Hillary has too much history prior to worry about that.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 12:55 pm to Bard
quote:
He's discussing who, what, when and the planned result. There's nothing about this that doesn't -at least- heavily imply this coming from Wiki (ie: fore-knowledge
Which even if true is less compelling than the fact he submitted these emails in full cooperation.
Just say it with me: mueller is a piece of shite.
You'll feel better.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 12:56 pm to Bard
This is false. Just because the information was accurate doesn't mean the pass through was deemed reliable? As others have pointed out, sometimes reliable information comes from unreliable or unknown sources. Or it could come from multiple pass throughs and have no direct connection. Unless they know who the source was for the information they can't claim to presume innocence while prosecuting for perjury.
You're probably right on the different tone if Huma and Corsi are switched but that's irrelevant. There should be the same standard for anyone, but we all know there isn't.
You're probably right on the different tone if Huma and Corsi are switched but that's irrelevant. There should be the same standard for anyone, but we all know there isn't.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 1:00 pm to AUTiger1978
Context is important here. Mueller is accusing Corsi of being a back channel to Assange. In that context, he asks "Did you know about these dumps in advance?". If Corsi is NOT a back channel, and only heard rumors of email dumps, answering this question "NO", in that context isn't even close to a lie.
Im not sure how there is enough here to make what Mueller is trying to do stick.
Im not sure how there is enough here to make what Mueller is trying to do stick.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 1:02 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Im not sure how there is enough here to make what Mueller is trying to do stick
He doesn't expect to win at trial. He expects to ruin people financially if they don't submit, like he attempted to do with Flynn.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 1:02 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
mueller is a piece of shite.
I'm not doubting that at all. I can see Mueller as such while still seeing that Corsi knew then lied about knowing and thus agreeing with the charge.
Just because this is coming from Mueller doesn't auto-taint it for me. Looking at things objectively means taking them on their own merits.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 1:49 pm to AUTiger1978
quote:
You're probably right on the different tone if Huma and Corsi are switched but that's irrelevant. There should be the same standard for anyone, but we all know there isn't.
I don't think it's irrelevant in the greater context of the chest-thumping and teeth-gnashing going on with most of the responses here.
quote:
Just because the information was accurate doesn't mean the pass through was deemed reliable?
Reliable enough to pass it on to one of Trump's closest allies. Reliable enough to give two narrow time frames for two related events.
quote:
As others have pointed out, sometimes reliable information comes from unreliable or unknown sources. Or it could come from multiple pass throughs and have no direct connection. Unless they know who the source was for the information they can't claim to presume innocence while prosecuting for perjury.
Then Corsi will have an interesting time in court on this. His own words infer an inside knowledge due to the specificity of the information, at least to me (and my post history will bear out my Trump support).
This can go three ways...
1. Corsi had an inside contact and lied about it (thus perjury)
2. Corsi did not realize his contact was an insider or his contact's contact was an insider (will be tough to prove unless he provides his contact)
3. Corsi was purely speculating but did in such a way to enhance himself (possible but will have to convince a jury of it).
Posted on 11/28/18 at 1:51 pm to Bard
quote:
That seems pretty clear-cut to me.
Clearly you have no legal background if you think that is compelling. You also must be ignorant to his tweets that are exculpatory and much more probative.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 1:52 pm to CAD703X
they do exist unfortunately!!!! dont trust the government. that includes, especially, our fearless leader drumpf.
Posted on 11/28/18 at 1:58 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Clearly you have no legal background if you think that is compelling.
You're saying people have not been charged for less?
Posted on 11/28/18 at 2:09 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
But I don’t think it’s criminal either. In fact, that’s obvious, because Meullers only angle is perjury.
How do we know this is Mueller's only angle? To me, the very fact that Mueller saw through Manafort's lies -- and appears ready to prove to Manafort's sentencing judge that Manafort lied -- is a subtle but powerful show of strength.
When a prosecutor pulls the plug on a cooperator because that cooperator lies, it typically happens not merely because the prosecutor senses in his gut that the cooperator is lying. More often, the prosecutor knows for a fact that the cooperator is lying because the prosecutor has hard evidence to prove the truth of the matter.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News