Jump to content

Criminal Complaint Filed Against Mueller


steve4102
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jerome Corsi is aiming to take Robert Mueller to court, claiming the special counsel's investigators tried to coerce him into giving “false testimony” against President Trump. The complaint is addressed to law enforcement leaders like Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, D.C.’s U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu and the Bar Disciplinary Counsel. Corsi wants the Department of Justice to open criminal and ethics probes into Mueller and his staff.

 

According to Corsi’s complaint, they wanted him to demonstrate that he acted as a liaison between Stone and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on one side and the Trump campaign on the other, regarding the release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee.

The complaint states that Mueller’s office is now “knowingly and deceitfully threatening to charge Dr. Corsi with an alleged false statement,” unless he gives them “false testimony” against Trump and others.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2018/12/03/conservative-writer-files-criminal-complaint-against-mueller-n2536884

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

The best defense is a good......oh, screw it. Attack, slander, counter sue, accuse, anything that can be argued rather than proven, I said he said.

 

the republicans learned well from the democrooks attacking Kavernaugh

You are missing a very large difference here.  This is a criminal complaint which is designed to be investigated and taken into a court of law and proven, not an “attack, slander” etc.  

One of my problems with any special prosecutor is the tendency to pick small fry, keep them paying lawyers until they are broke and in debt, then get them to plead to “lying to the FBI”, while never producing anything on the case they are supposed to be investigating.  

Impartiality is good, but it means standing up straight, not bending over backwards so far you break your back in being “impartial.” And it also means not letting your disgust with whatever blind you so you pronounce “a pox on both your houses.”  

Hawk

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Brown Hawk said:

You are missing a very large difference here.  This is a criminal complaint which is designed to be investigated and taken into a court of law and proven, not an “attack, slander” etc.  

Par for the course for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brown Hawk said:

You are missing a very large difference here.  This is a criminal complaint which is designed to be investigated and taken into a court of law and proven, not an “attack, slander” etc.  

One of my problems with any special prosecutor is the tendency to pick small fry, keep them paying lawyers until they are broke and in debt, then get them to plead to “lying to the FBI”, while never producing anything on the case they are supposed to be investigating.  

Impartiality is good, but it means standing up straight, not bending over backwards so far you break your back in being “impartial.” And it also means not letting your disgust with whatever blind you so you pronounce “a pox on both your houses.”  

Hawk

A criminal complaint simply requires an investigation. If the point of the complaint is the investigation to gain a political advantage or smear then the job is done. Spin on like crazy and hope to sway poll numbers in your favor.

 

.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

A criminal complaint simply requires an investigation. If the point of the complaint is the investigation to gain a political advantage or smear then the job is done. Spin on like crazy and hope to sway poll numbers in your favor.

 

.

You are again missing the point.  None of the smears against Kavanaugh were criminal complaints, just innuendoes but were promptly taken up by the media.  This is asking for an investigation, alleging proof that will stand up in court.  

And for a smear to work as a smear, it needs to be taken up by the media or some other group, and trumpeted.  Which does’t seem to be happening.  Except maybe among people who already distrust Mueller.  

Another difference is that this an individual who is bringing this action, and he is doing it in public, without asking for anonymity, or siphoning it through some partisan group or individual.  It is also asking for due process, not saying you have to condemn someone without that due process.

The differences seem pretty substantial to me.  You have to look at the evidence and decide for yourself, or decide to ignore evidence and go by whatever.  

Hawk

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Brown Hawk said:

You are again missing the point.  None of the smears against Kavanaugh were criminal complaints, just innuendoes but were promptly taken up by the media.  This is asking for an investigation, alleging proof that will stand up in court.  

And for a smear to work as a smear, it needs to be taken up by the media or some other group, and trumpeted.  Which does’t seem to be happening.  Except maybe among people who already distrust Mueller.  

Another difference is that this an individual who is bringing this action, and he is doing it in public, without asking for anonymity, or siphoning it through some partisan group or individual.  It is also asking for due process, not saying you have to condemn someone without that due process.

The differences seem pretty substantial to me.  You have to look at the evidence and decide for yourself, or decide to ignore evidence and go by whatever.  

Hawk

Your missing the goal.....political advantage. Even if dismissed, the accusation remains to argue 

 

.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To defend Mueller is to defend the indefensible. Mueller has spent over a year and millions of dollars trying to find evidence of "Russian Collusion" and has found no evidence whatsoever except for evidence that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for research that led to the bogus Russian dossier, and this evidence was ignored by that corrupt partisan hack, Mueller.

 

Edited by Borg warner
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

Your missing the goal.....political advantage. Even if dismissed, the accusation remains to argue 

And I keep pointing out evidence that the goal of this would seem to be, not political advantage, but justice for an attempt to suborn perjury from Corsi by Mueller.  Please bring fact, not opinion without some facts that would substantiate having that opinion.  

Hawk 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Brown Hawk said:

And I keep pointing out evidence that the goal of this would seem to be, not political advantage, but justice for an attempt to suborn perjury from Corsi by Mueller.  Please bring fact, not opinion without some facts that would substantiate having that opinion.  

Hawk 

I bring history, no one knows any facts as of yet.

Watch, see what happens.

you honestly think somebody with the experience of Mueller is going to suborn perjury? Of Corsi of all people? Media made, media maintained, media rich, headline hungry Corsi?

 

just like “lock her up”....you’re dreaming

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

I bring history, no one knows any facts as of yet.

Watch, see what happens.

you honestly think somebody with the experience of Mueller is going to suborn perjury? Of Corsi of all people? Media made, media maintained, media rich, headline hungry Corsi?

just like “lock her up”....you’re dreaming

You don’t have history, because this is happening in the present.  Is there historical precedent for your opinion?  Point it out.  But it will be about two other people, not Corsi and Mueller.  So no history, merely indication.  Valid indication, but still only indication.  

Do I believe that someone in power would break the law in an effort to get what they want?  Anyone who doesn’t believe that needs to be careful around knives and forks, and doesn’t know how to tie their own shoes.  Do I believe it of Mueller?  No evidence, so open mind.  

Do I believe that even unlikely individuals will get up and cry enough, no matter the personal cost?  That’s how this country was built.  Just take the cook profiled in the Netflix Medal of Honor series.  So same answer as the one above referencing the knives.  Do I believe that Corsi is one of those men?  Again, no evidence, so no opinion, yet.  I am just pointing out valid differences between Corsi and Dr. Ford.  Does that mean that I think his goal is any different than Ford’s seems to have been.  No evidence, so no opinion.  

My posts in this thread are not about Corsi and Mueller, but about you willingly pronouncing “a pox on both your houses” at the first opportunity, then equating apples and oranges.  I am simply pointing out that apples aren’t oranges, while accepting that both are fruits.  Maybe I’m just not willing to jump to conclusions so readily, but I’ve learned that “trust but verify” is a pretty good policy.  

Just my two cents worth.  

Hawk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch, member what happens. I ex-etc it will be dismissed just in time for the investigation to end.

Of ourselves it’s politics. Another shot at the Mueller investigation in order to belittle the results before they are even known.

 

history of American politics

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

22 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

history of American politics

The history of American politics shows many people willing to stand in front of the tank.  

Would I believe that this might be one of those cases?  Yes.  I remember that cook.  

Would I believe that this might be a political ploy?  Yes.  

Will I ever accept equating apples and oranges.  No.  

Hawk 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Brown Hawk said:

One of my problems with any special prosecutor is the tendency to pick small fry, keep them paying lawyers until they are broke and in debt, then get them to plead to “lying to the FBI”, while never producing anything on the case they are supposed to be investigating.  

He learned that from the other Mueller...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Borg warner said:

To defend Mueller is to defend the indefensible. Mueller has spent over a year and millions of dollars trying to find evidence of "Russian Collusion" and has found no evidence whatsoever except for evidence that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for research that led to the bogus Russian dossier, and this evidence was ignored by that corrupt partisan hack, Mueller.

 

Mueller is not investigating a "crime".  There was never any criminal statute listed in the appointment letter drafted by Rosenstein.

 

Mueller is investigating the MAN, in search of a crime.

 

Edited by steve4102
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Brown Hawk said:

 

The history of American politics shows many people willing to stand in front of the tank.  

Would I believe that this might be one of those cases?  Yes.  I remember that cook.  

Would I believe that this might be a political ploy?  Yes.  

Will I ever accept equating apples and oranges.  No.  

Hawk 

Watch, you will see what the result is

Ive yet to see anybody stand in front of a tank here, yet to see one deployed against Americans, lots of talk about “standing” by the people sitting on the couch bitching on forums

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brown Hawk said:

Never said I wouldn’t watch.  Just said I would wait and see.  

Which basically says the same thing.  

Hawk 

All I’ve ever asked of anybody is to watch what happens and remember it.

the faithful will justify or ignore anything to their own hurt.

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

All I’ve ever asked of anybody is to watch what happens and remember it.

the faithful will justify or ignore anything to their own hurt.

All I’ve ever asked of anybody is to watch what happens without throwing around factless premature conclusions.  It has gotten innocent people hung.  

You do your own thing.  

Hawk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brown Hawk said:

All I’ve ever asked of anybody is to watch what happens without throwing around factless premature conclusions.  It has gotten innocent people hung.  

You do your own thing.  

Hawk

Getting people hung, standing in front of tanks.

where the hell you live? Afghanistan 

this is America. We would have together off the couch to hang somebody, then we wouldFacebook livestream it

there isn’t going to be a civil war to uprising as long as the web is running and the cable tv doesn’t go out.

 

.

Edited by Dric902
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

Getting people hung, standing in front of tanks.

where the hell you live? Afghanistan 

this is America. We would have together off the couch to hang somebody, then we wouldFacebook livestream it

there isn’t going to be a civil war to uprising as long as the web is running and the cable tv doesn’t go out.

 

.

Drink Much, or just rollin smoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dric902 said:

And you’re where right now?

Couch or recliner? Maybe at work watching the forums during breaks....or between breaks.

im sure you would lead the tank blocking activities

 

.

I'm home, but you're either High, Drunk or Both.

 

Take another toke for me will ya. 

Edited by steve4102
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Please Donate To TBS

    Please donate to TBS.
    Your support is needed and it is greatly appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...