Roger Stone Associate REJECTS Mueller plea deal.

'I did not intentionally lie': Roger Stone associate Jerome Corsi rejects Mueller deal.

Source: www.usatoday.com...

A conservative voice and author, Corsi would be sought by Mueller for potential Russian shenanigans.

"The special counsel has sought to determine if Corsi alerted the Trump presidential campaign through Roger Stone – a flamboyant former adviser to Donald Trump – to the timing of the WikiLeaks release of the emails, which the U.S. intelligence community has determined were stolen by Russian intelligence operatives." Et al.

However, Corsi maintaines he did no wrong and thus, reject Mueller 🤯

My favorite part, oh aren't you sneaky Mueller???

"They want me to say I willfully lied. I did not intentionally lie," Corsi told NBC.

"I will not lie to save my life," he added. "I'd rather sit in prison and rot for as long as these thugs want me to." Et al.

Sorry Mueller, you can't make people do things to set or create an agenda.

End the investigation NOW.

Enjoy 😤

Additional info from OAN, via Tweet:
twitter.com...

"Corsi preparing to file a crimanl complaint against Mueller investigators" et al.

Boom 😱

a reply to: Arnie123

Time for a fishing expedition on the Democrat side of the pond. Trump should not end Mueller. He should just respond by appointing several special counsels to go after Democrats. Not like previous investigations. This time, go after everyone that Hillary knows and everyone that connects to her foundation, and everyone she ever even said hello to. Maybe they were part of the Russian uranium deal. Same with Obama, Lynch, and all of them.

If it's good for Trump, it should be good for all of them. He should just keep starting investigations until Mueller gives up.

a reply to: toms54

The left has unknowningly, in their blind hate of Trump, already opened the books for the investigation. I keep saying watch the Podesta brothers and when they are facing indictment it is very very close to where many of us want it to go.

Link

a reply to: toms54

Exactly right. Bob Mueller needs to relocate to more fertile fishing grounds.

a reply to: Arnie123

So he lies unintentionally? Seems like he never matured past a 10yo.
That is no excuse imo.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Arnie123

So he lies unintentionally? Seems like he never matured past a 10yo.
That is no excuse imo.

It's getting deeply into freedom of association, is the real problem here. www.nbcnews.com... The underlying question seems to be whether Corsi has a right to associate privately with Assange outside of the Russian email hack and whether that association is in any way the business of Herr Mueller and his alleged "Russian collusion" investigation which seems to be more of a dragnet operation to catch any sort of psuedo "crime" he can find and, in absence of finding any crimes, try to manufacture his own by asking questions that fall well outside of Herr Mueller's assigned mission.

This is a farce.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: Arnie123

Time for a fishing expedition on the Democrat side of the pond. Trump should not end Mueller. He should just respond by appointing several special counsels to go after Democrats. Not like previous investigations. This time, go after everyone that Hillary knows and everyone that connects to her foundation, and everyone she ever even said hello to. Maybe they were part of the Russian uranium deal. Same with Obama, Lynch, and all of them.

If it's good for Trump, it should be good for all of them. He should just keep starting investigations until Mueller gives up.

I think this is part of the plan, to let the Dems set a bunch of bad policy precedents, which can be used against them tit-for tit.

Mueller is trying his best to stay relevant. Today, he accused Paul Manafort of violating his Plea-Deal.

www.foxnews.com...

Wasn't Manafort sentenced this Summer for enough years to keep him in prison to age 90? Like I said, Mueller is beating a dead horse, just keep his witch-hunt going.

a reply to: Arnie123

Herr Mueller wanted Corsi to Perjure himself . The Old Man would rather go to Jail And Keep his Honor ...

a reply to: Arnie123

can i just ask :

why is corsi relegated to " roger stone associate " ?????????????????

your thread title COULD have read :

corsi rejects mueller plea deal

a reply to: Arnie123


It is impossible to unintentionally lie. You can be mistaken, you can be misinformed, you can speak from ignorance, but if you speak a falsehood, knowing it to be false, then you lied, and that is not something that one does accidentally.

So, either this individual was simply wrong in an utterance, or he deliberately sought to obfuscate the truth by way of a lie. Now, assuming that the legal issue he faces, is related to the words he spoke not matching with the facts, then an investigation will have to be done into what he knew, before the false statements were made, and a case establishing the facts, ergo whether he did in fact lie, or was just not in possession of accurate information, will have to be bought.

People refuse to engage in plea deals all the time in legal proceedings, but it seems to only matter to some people when they are friends of tycoon presidents who seem hell bent on becoming tyrants.

a reply to: TrueBrit

If you repeat a lie you don't know is a lie you still lied.

a reply to: yuppa

Well, not really. The information is a lie because its false, but if its information that a person passes forward, believing it to be true and having no reason to doubt it, then that means that the individual is not engaged in obfuscation, is not lying, is just passing on information that they believed to be accurate, usually because they were told that it is by someone else.

Here is an example:

Billy reads an article, on the internet that reads like a scholarly article, and it states, among other things, that the Sahara accounts for half of the surface of the planet. Billy tells Sandra what he discovered. He means no ill will, he just repeated information he received, and did not know to be false, had no reason to suspect it was false, having never left his own home town or even SEEN a large patch of sand before.

There is no malice or attempt to deceive in Billy's statement.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Legal semantics don't follow common discourse definitions and ideals, unfortunately. If we were talking about a regular conversation, then I'd agree with you... it's not possible to "unintentionally lie." We're talking about legalese, though, which means categorizations of what was said are purely tied to what the law books define things as.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Arnie123

can i just ask :

why is corsi relegated to " roger stone associate " ?????????????????

your thread title COULD have read :

corsi rejects mueller plea deal

Believe it or not, Corsi isn't as well known as Stone, so putting Stones name in brings attention to light.

originally posted by: carewemust
Mueller is trying his best to stay relevant. Today, he accused Paul Manafort of violating his Plea-Deal.

www.foxnews.com...

Wasn't Manafort sentenced this Summer for enough years to keep him in prison to age 90? Like I said, Mueller is beating a dead horse, just keep his witch-hunt going.

So, Jack Posobiec says that Mueller was pissed because Manafort refused to disclosed his Pre-2016 work with Oleg Deripaska, which ultimately lead to the claim that manafort violated his plea deal with Mueller, thus the breakdown in communications.

Source, via tweet:
twitter.com...

a reply to: Arnie123

If I watched a News report the Second it came out , and Told someone else Immediately about it because it is Now Public Knowledge , how could that Action be Considered a Crime > ?





Answer - It Cannot .



Roger Stone Wants To Know .......

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Mueller/McCarthy - Both start with "M" and there is only a 1 letter difference in their lengths ...

a reply to: TrueBrit

The way perjury works in this case they can go over your past statements with a fine tooth comb and if anything you tell them under oath is in any way contradictory, they can call it a lie whether you intended to tell them something different or not, whether you were trying to cover something up with that statement difference or not. It's under the letter of the law, not necessarily the spirit.

It's how they took down Scooter Libby and doubtless took down countless others.

You tell a committee you had a poached egg on toast, and three years later under investigation, they ask you about it. You tell them you had eggs and toast. You did, but you don't recall how you had them, and when pressed, you say you had those eggs over easy or fried. Now, you have lied because you told one group you had poached egg but you told investigators you have fried egg.

If they want you, they have you under the letter of the law. And in this case, they want the cooperation of the people in question because they are an investigation in search of a crime, so they use the charges however spurious to try to strongarm these people into agreeing to far more to try to get that crime they really want. I mean who wants to get ruined for a nothing-burger process crime?

a reply to: yuppa

why do you attempt to conflate " being wrong " with " lying " ?????????????????????

lets cut to the chase - a lie = a statement you know is false - but you still utter it

most absurd example -

is giving the wrong answer in a spelling bee - a lie ????????????

they just spelt the word wrong - but to claim they lied ???????????????????

to lie - you have to know the correct answer - yet still give a different one - deliberatly - for " reasons "