Jerome Corsi negotiating plea with Mueller

[bripat9643]

Total bullshit. There is no law that says the President can't fire his attorney general if the President was "abusing his power." How would that even be defined?

You're just making stuff up, as always. The only thing that prevents the President from firing his AG is political pressure.

The president can't do whatever he wants, but firing his AG and issuing pardons to anyone he wants for any reason is well within his constitutional authority.

If there's any "lawlessness" currently going on within our government, it's all in the Special Councel's office.

The Attorney General is one of the positions that require Senate confirmation.

An "interim" appointment can be made but firing a confirmed appointee in order to appoint an "indefinite interim" appointment is unconstitutional

Show us where the Constitution says that.

the constitution actually says ONLY a senate confirmed appointment can sit in a Cabinet officer's position, who reports only to the President, with no other boss above them...

It says nothing of the sort, dingbat:

... and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.​

there are court rulings interpreting the constitution on it

read this Justice Thomas piece on it, separating principle officers from inferior officers

Start reading at page 25 of the pdf court document

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/15-1251.pdf

also, it is working its way up through the courts now on Whitaker, the Supreme court will make the final decision

and this opinion piece explains some of what Justice Thomas was saying

Opinion | Trump’s Appointment of the Acting Attorney General Is Unconstitutional

The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA), 5 U. S. C. §3345 et seq., is the latest version of that authorization. Section 3345(a) of the FVRA authorizes three classes of Government officials to become acting officers. The general rule is that the first assistant to a vacant office shall become the acting officer. The President may override that default rule by directing either a person serving in a different PAS office or a senior employee within the relevant agency to become the acting officer instead.

The FVRA, however, prohibits certain persons from serving as acting officers if the President has nominated them to fill the vacant office permanently. The question
presented is whether that limitation applies only to first assistants who have automatically assumed acting duties, or whether it also applies to PAS officers and senior em-
ployees serving as acting officers at the President’s behest. We hold that it applies to all three categories of acting officers. ​

Notice the sentence in bold. That's exactly what Trump is doing. Case closed.

 

[bripat9643]

Someone sent a text to Roger Stone? Horrors! That is a serious crime! How dare he receive mysterious text messages! Burn him at the stake!

Nov. 14, 2018 / 5:36 PM EST
By Anna Schecter

Six days before WikiLeaks began releasing Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails, Roger Stone had a text message conversation with a friend about WikiLeaks, according to copies of phone records obtained exclusively by NBC News.

“Big news Wednesday,” the Stone pal, radio host Randy Credico, wrote on Oct. 1, 2016, according to the text messages provided by Stone. “Now pretend u don’t know me.”

“U died 5 years ago,” Stone replied.

“Great,” Credico wrote back. “Hillary’s campaign will die this week.”

So where is the crime?

I don't know... this is the only text the papers have reported on....

Mueller for certain, has more than this 1... and knows more about what was going on, than just this one indication that shows Stone lied about it...

why lie to investigators if it was all legal?

Who says he lied?

Rogers Stone initially said he didnt talk to any russians. <--- this lie.

Your article is conspiracy theory trash.

 

[Lesh]

There is ample reason to believe that the Act itself is unconstitutional precisely BECAUSE of the way Trump is using it.

It's the Federal Vacancies Refrm Act of 1998 and it may not stand up t a Court challenge because

In 2001, the Duke Law Journal published an article criticizing the nomination process and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998. The author, Joshua Stayn, asserts four constitutional problems with the act:

1. The act allows the Senate to confirm or reject people whom the president never officially nominated. The act allows the Senate to treat a president's written notice of intent to nominate as a nomination, despite the fact that the president has yet to and may never nominate the named individual to an advice and consent position. Such treatment of a president's written notice of intent to nominate violates both the "formalist" and "functionalist" Supreme Court decisions on federal appointment issues.
2. The act gives the Senate an impermissible role in making recess appointments. This second constitutional flaw is that it illegitimately interferes with the president's exercise of constitutional authority to make recess appointments.
3. The act encroaches on the president's ability to nominate and control subordinate executive officers. It obligates each agency head to report any vacancy, temporary appointment, or official nomination directly and immediately to Congress, without clearance from the President.
4. The act transfers too much of the Senate's power in the appointment process to the president in the year following a presidential transition. The act authorizes a newly elected president to appoint acting officers to every advice and consent position in the executive branch for up to 300 days after either inauguration day or the date on which the vacancy occurred. The act permits newly elected presidents to engage independently in precisely the kind of favoritism the framers sought to prevent, it is unconstitutional.[9]

The Recess appointment clause was meant to deal with a particular problem occurring when Congress was not in session.

The Reform Act was never meant to be anything but a temporary measure...and as written is so open ended as to usurp the Constitution...which of course the Orange Blotus is doing in order to Obstruct Justice by installing a "loyalist" to protect him.

 

[bripat9643]

There is ample reason to believe that the Act itself is unconstitutional precisely BECAUSE of the way Trump is using it.

It's the Federal Vacancies Refrm Act of 1998 and it may not stand up t a Court challenge because

In 2001, the Duke Law Journal published an article criticizing the nomination process and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998. The author, Joshua Stayn, asserts four constitutional problems with the act:

1. The act allows the Senate to confirm or reject people whom the president never officially nominated. The act allows the Senate to treat a president's written notice of intent to nominate as a nomination, despite the fact that the president has yet to and may never nominate the named individual to an advice and consent position. Such treatment of a president's written notice of intent to nominate violates both the "formalist" and "functionalist" Supreme Court decisions on federal appointment issues.
2. The act gives the Senate an impermissible role in making recess appointments. This second constitutional flaw is that it illegitimately interferes with the president's exercise of constitutional authority to make recess appointments.
3. The act encroaches on the president's ability to nominate and control subordinate executive officers. It obligates each agency head to report any vacancy, temporary appointment, or official nomination directly and immediately to Congress, without clearance from the President.
4. The act transfers too much of the Senate's power in the appointment process to the president in the year following a presidential transition. The act authorizes a newly elected president to appoint acting officers to every advice and consent position in the executive branch for up to 300 days after either inauguration day or the date on which the vacancy occurred. The act permits newly elected presidents to engage independently in precisely the kind of favoritism the framers sought to prevent, it is unconstitutional.[9]

The Recess appointment clause was meant to deal with a particular problem occurring when Congress was not in session.

The Reform Act was never meant to be anything but a temporary measure...and as written is so open ended as to usurp the COnstitution...which of course the Orange Blotus is doing in order to Obstruct Justice by installing a "loyalist" to protect him.

How does that make any difference? I will repeat: according to you, it's against the law for anyone to run the DOJ without the advice and consent of the Senate. Now you're making exceptions. In other words, your claim is bullshit.

 

[Lesh]

I will repeat: according to you, it's against the law for anyone to run the DOJ without the advice and consent of the Senate.

Yea...you're gonna have to find where I said that

 

[bullwinkle]

It says nothing of the sort, dingbat:

... and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

"all other Officers of the United States"...of which the Attorney General is one.

Congress CAN "by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments"...which is where the interim appointments come from...but that statute is temporary and is NOT meant as a way around confirmation by the Senate

So if the AG quits, dies or gets fired, who runs the department until the Senate gives it's "advice and consent" to a new AG?

The second in command, who is also confirmed by the Senate.

 

[bripat9643]

An Associate of Roger Stone (former Trump adviser) is talking to Robert Mueller about a plea deal. The central issue appears to revolve about what Roger Stone knew about the dissemination of hacked DNC emails from Wikileaks.

Stone associate Jerome Corsi is in plea negotiations with special counsel, according to a person with knowledge of the talks - The Washington Post

I pray the chickens are coming home to roost on Corsi..and on the matron embedded in my memory from the 2003 RNC Convention wearing the stetson and sporting a band aid with a purple heart on her left face cheek.

He did great work stopping Lurch.

He did a smear and you swallowed it, just like you do today. You slander all military when you slander the purple heart for the sake of your political party..the party that got SCHLONGED, as my buddy polish prince would say. And you do the same today. Get all choked up about the military, the one Trump calls 'MY military', yet he sends them off on a showtime mission to use gunfire on refugees and slanders generals, Gold Star families, and runs a VA that isn't paying it's vets. 'Lurch' went. 'Lurch' served. And you cry a river for the guy that treats our military like his personal set of toy soldiers..which he will shelve if he doesn't feel like playing with them.

Lurch got a Purple Heart for a splinter in his butt. He nominated himself.

How obvious you know nothing about how that works.....

What do you base that on, total ignorance?

 

[bripat9643]

It says nothing of the sort, dingbat:

... and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

"all other Officers of the United States"...of which the Attorney General is one.

Congress CAN "by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments"...which is where the interim appointments come from...but that statute is temporary and is NOT meant as a way around confirmation by the Senate

So if the AG quits, dies or gets fired, who runs the department until the Senate gives it's "advice and consent" to a new AG?

The second in command, who is also confirmed by the Senate.

Show us were any law says that.

 

[Lesh]

Your article is conspiracy theory trash.

So according to some anonymous dumbass on the internet who is giving the world the finger in his idiotic avatar...

Duke University Law School engages in conspiracy theory trash???

Oh...

 

[bripat9643]

What possible crime related to Wiki leaks or the Russia collusion conspiracy theory could Corsi have committed?

Conspiring with our enemies to subvert American democracy:
The special counsel has evidence that suggests Corsi may have had advance knowledge that the email account of Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, had been hacked and that WikiLeaks had obtained a trove of damning emails from it,

So? How is that a crime? You snowflakes sure do hate the fact that Hillary's dirty laundry was aired in public. You want to persecute anyone who even knew about it. Justice, the rule of law, due process are all thrown on the garbage pile in your pursuit of those you hate.

The crime is conspiring with our enemies to subvert American democracy. It has its own wikipedia page.
Corsi and Roger Stone worked with foreign hackers like "fancy bear" to steal data , and they bragged about it.
The key difference is that its not whistle-blowing, its political sabotage.

Facts are not even supported by your own link,
The link is an opinion by some dimshit hack trying to spin a narrative with no proof of anything except that the stupid dimshits got hacked. Still nothing it has already been released that Corsica charge is the same shitbreath mueller has always used when he has NOTHING. Your fantasyland is crumbling and the wizard is dying quickly. What is your next lie?

If Mueller had nothing, then there wouldnt be a plea deal going on now.

Wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Your article is conspiracy theory trash.

So according to some anonymous dumbass on the internet who is giving the world the finger in his idiotic avatar...

Duke University Law School engages in conspiracy theory trash???

Oh...

It sure as hell does. Most law schools are infested with leftwing hacks these days.

 

[bripat9643]

Turns out Corsi was the ''friend'' that Roger Stone was talking about when he said that he had a direct line to Assange...

Corsi fed the wikileaks about to drop, to Stone, who fed them to the Trump campaign... or Trump himself.

yes, it has to do with the stolen emails by the Russians given to wikileaks...

Corsi lied about it, Mueller's grand jury subpoenaed Corsi's emails, and caught the lie... perjury....

now Corsi is cooperating to save his own ass...

Even if Corsi and Stone did what you claim, what law did they break? Corsi had to lie to the Grand Jury to be guilty of perjury. Saying something in a book that turned out to be a lie is not prosecutable.

 

[Lesh]

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.

WIre fraud.

Various conspiracies regarding the stealing of personal information...just to name a few

And let's not forget lying to Federal investigators and obstruction of justice

 

[dudmuck]

Nov. 14, 2018 / 5:36 PM EST
By Anna Schecter

Six days before WikiLeaks began releasing Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails, Roger Stone had a text message conversation with a friend about WikiLeaks, according to copies of phone records obtained exclusively by NBC News.

“Big news Wednesday,” the Stone pal, radio host Randy Credico, wrote on Oct. 1, 2016, according to the text messages provided by Stone. “Now pretend u don’t know me.”

“U died 5 years ago,” Stone replied.

“Great,” Credico wrote back. “Hillary’s campaign will die this week.”

So where is the crime?

I don't know... this is the only text the papers have reported on....

Mueller for certain, has more than this 1... and knows more about what was going on, than just this one indication that shows Stone lied about it...

why lie to investigators if it was all legal?

Who says he lied?

Rogers Stone initially said he didnt talk to any russians. <--- this lie.

Your article is conspiracy theory trash.

Roger Stone: I had no contact with Russian officials

Roger Stone Reveals New Contact with Russian National During 2016 Campaign

 

[dudmuck]

Turns out Corsi was the ''friend'' that Roger Stone was talking about when he said that he had a direct line to Assange...

Corsi fed the wikileaks about to drop, to Stone, who fed them to the Trump campaign... or Trump himself.

yes, it has to do with the stolen emails by the Russians given to wikileaks...

Corsi lied about it, Mueller's grand jury subpoenaed Corsi's emails, and caught the lie... perjury....

now Corsi is cooperating to save his own ass...

Even if Corsi and Stone did what you claim, what law did they break? Corsi had to lie to the Grand Jury to be guilty of perjury. Saying something in a book that turned out to be a lie is not prosecutable.

It says here, "over the ensuing months he has gone in for many hours of questioning before Mueller’s grand jury"

 

[Care4all]

Turns out Corsi was the ''friend'' that Roger Stone was talking about when he said that he had a direct line to Assange...

Corsi fed the wikileaks about to drop, to Stone, who fed them to the Trump campaign... or Trump himself.

yes, it has to do with the stolen emails by the Russians given to wikileaks...

Corsi lied about it, Mueller's grand jury subpoenaed Corsi's emails, and caught the lie... perjury....

now Corsi is cooperating to save his own ass...

Even if Corsi and Stone did what you claim, what law did they break? Corsi had to lie to the Grand Jury to be guilty of perjury. Saying something in a book that turned out to be a lie is not prosecutable.

That's true, saying something in a book would not matter...but he testified before the grand jury and it is the grand jury that is indicting him for perjury.

 

[bripat9643]

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.

WIre fraud.

Various conspiracies regarding the stealing of personal information...just to name a few

And let's not forget lying to Federal investigators and obstruction of justice

What "fraud" are you referring to?

Wire fraud is a bogus fraud the feds always use for piling on when they really want to screw someone. It amounts to using the telephone or the internet.

Stone didn't steal any personal information, nor did he conspire with anyone to do such a thing. I've seen no evidence of the last to claims. I've seen no evidence of any of these claimed crimes. We only have your wild conspiracy theories.

 

[bripat9643]

Turns out Corsi was the ''friend'' that Roger Stone was talking about when he said that he had a direct line to Assange...

Corsi fed the wikileaks about to drop, to Stone, who fed them to the Trump campaign... or Trump himself.

yes, it has to do with the stolen emails by the Russians given to wikileaks...

Corsi lied about it, Mueller's grand jury subpoenaed Corsi's emails, and caught the lie... perjury....

now Corsi is cooperating to save his own ass...

Even if Corsi and Stone did what you claim, what law did they break? Corsi had to lie to the Grand Jury to be guilty of perjury. Saying something in a book that turned out to be a lie is not prosecutable.

That's true, saying something in a book would not matter...but he testified before the grand jury and it is the grand jury that is indicting him for perjury.

You have no clue as to whether he's being indicted, and if so, for what he's being indicted.

 

[bripat9643]

Turns out Corsi was the ''friend'' that Roger Stone was talking about when he said that he had a direct line to Assange...

Corsi fed the wikileaks about to drop, to Stone, who fed them to the Trump campaign... or Trump himself.

yes, it has to do with the stolen emails by the Russians given to wikileaks...

Corsi lied about it, Mueller's grand jury subpoenaed Corsi's emails, and caught the lie... perjury....

now Corsi is cooperating to save his own ass...

Even if Corsi and Stone did what you claim, what law did they break? Corsi had to lie to the Grand Jury to be guilty of perjury. Saying something in a book that turned out to be a lie is not prosecutable.

It says here, "over the ensuing months he has gone in for many hours of questioning before Mueller’s grand jury"

That's Corsi, not Stone.

 

[bripat9643]

So where is the crime?

I don't know... this is the only text the papers have reported on....

Mueller for certain, has more than this 1... and knows more about what was going on, than just this one indication that shows Stone lied about it...

why lie to investigators if it was all legal?

Who says he lied?

Rogers Stone initially said he didnt talk to any russians. <--- this lie.

Your article is conspiracy theory trash.

Roger Stone: I had no contact with Russian officials

Roger Stone Reveals New Contact with Russian National During 2016 Campaign

<YAWN!>

A great big nothing burger. I don't see anything that could properly be called a crime. If there is anyone who is guilty of paying Russians for dirt on his/her opponent, it's Hillary.