Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

He's obviously stalling.  Perhaps someone with legal expertise can explain the possible course of actions.  Was this not one of his options in this case?  Does he have the legal right to do this?  If yes, then why didn't someone anticipate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, realtruelove said:

He's obviously stalling.  Perhaps someone with legal expertise can explain the possible course of actions.  Was this not one of his options in this case?  Does he have the legal right to do this?  If yes, then why didn't someone anticipate it.


Good questions!

What I have been reading from people who work in federal courts is the order to personally respond is extraordinary.

If he was ordered to respond himself, and instead has a personal attorney do it for him, is that the same as not responding?  Because not responding the writ is granted.  Could he be referred for judicial misconduct for refusing a demand from a higher court by  not responding himself as ordered?

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


Good questions!

What I have been reading from people who work in federal courts is the order to personally respond is extraordinary.

If he was ordered to respond himself, and instead has a personal attorney do it for him, is that the same as not responding?  Because not responding the writ is granted.  Could he be referred for judicial misconduct for refusing a demand from a higher court by  not responding himself as ordered?

 

 

As to both of your questions, I doubt it. There's nothing wrong or improper with Sullivan hiring an attorney to respond for him.

 

Not sure what his argument is going to be, considering the weight of the applicable caselaw is against his keeping the case against Flynn active.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

As to both of your questions, I doubt it. There's nothing wrong or improper with Sullivan hiring an attorney to respond for him.

 

Not sure what his argument is going to be, considering the weight of the applicable caselaw is against his keeping the case against Flynn active.

Who pays for the attorney?

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Who pays for the attorney?

 

That's an interesting question. I'm not sure. I would assume we are, considering that he is responding to the Circuit Court in his capacity as District Court Judge.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posting for the video, not the comment:

 

I am not on the train (yet) that somehow Gowdy was complicit in any of this. Recall that POTUS and Jay Sekulow were speaking publicly about Gowdy joining his impeachment legal defense team, until that got delayed due to lobbying issues.

 


 

 

Edited by Hedge
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...wow......and here I thought "Sleepy Bob" was also "Squeaky Clean Bob"....I've been duped...……….

Gregg Jarrett: Trump attorney accuses Mueller of 'monstrous lie and scheme to defraud'

By Gregg Jarrett | Fox News

 

John Dowd, one of the lead lawyers who represented President Trump during Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian collusion, said Tuesday that the special counsel engineered a perjury trap for Trump in the exact same way that James Comey’s FBI invented a trap for former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

 

“Mueller’s scheme was the same one captured in the (newly released) FBI set-up notes pertaining to Flynn. They knew they had nothing, but using their official power they created and perpetuated the facade of an investigation,” said Dowd.

In an extensive interview on Tuesday, Dowd explained to me how his commitment of cooperation and transparency in dealing with Mueller was eventually turned against the president, as the special counsel “misled” Trump’s legal team in order to manufacture a crime where none existed.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-attorney-accuses-mueller-lie-defraud-gregg-jarrett

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

So was Horowitz running cover for the FBI when he claimed there was no evidence of political bias? Was he lied to and shielded from the evidence? Was he just dumb?

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

So was Horowitz running cover for the FBI when he claimed there was no evidence of political bias? Was he lied to and shielded from the evidence? Was he just dumb?

 

My guess was the middle option. I think Horowitz has/had an unconscious bend to lean towards protecting the institution(s) when possible -- but only to a point. Based on how slow the evidence was turned over from the DOJ to Flynn's legal teams, I would suspect there were games being played with the IG. It's really all down to Durham and the other US attorneys looking into everything (there are at least two more, Jensen and Huber). And I think we're still 4-5 weeks away from hearing anything from him (that's a guess, not a prediction). 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say, I've heard this one before. I've had people tell me that the (still) redacted portion of RR's revised scope memo was for Walid. I always dismissed this because the idea that that FBI -- even a crooked one -- would give more than a quick glance at a man like Walid -- seemed like a bridge too far. 

 

But there are signals now that it was legit -- which is hilarious in its outrageousness. 

 

 

 

... It also lends more credence to the MB theory... but that's for a different thread. 

Edited by Deranged Rhino
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

They never learn... every drop of transparency has worked against the collusion narrative engineers. Not for them. Every time. 
 

https://mobile.twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/1266157405659901953
 

And it really doesn’t take a former US Attorney to puzzle this out, but:


https://mobile.twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1266168060114685952

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

+ More

 

 

(It was always a coup)

 

Read through it all. Can't find anything that would warrant the concerns raised at the Jan 05  meeting at the WH - or for keeping Crossfire Razor open

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just now, billsfan1959 said:

 

Read through it all. Can't find anything that would warrant the concerns raised at the Jan 05  meeting at the WH - or for keeping Crossfire Razor open

 

Correct -- and it proves "sanctions" weren't the topic. Expulsions were, and that was known, reasonable, and expected to occur. 

 

It also shows why the DOJ ruled the call wasn't criminal or in violation in any way prior to the FBI going to interview him. 

 

This is a major blow to the narrative that has been force fed on many (including the loudest asshats here). They were lied to, repeatedly. Now they can see that for themselves. But watch how many will take GarBoTibs' approach of trying to spin it. 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...