Russiagate: Even Paranoids Have Real Enemies

CNN: Well known conspiracy theorist, Roger Stone associate says he won't agree to plea deal

An associate of Roger Stone said Monday he is refusing to sign a plea deal offered by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Jerome Corsi, whose role in Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election largely revolves around the possibility that he was an intermediary between Stone and WikiLeaks, said he was offered a deal to plea on one count of perjury.

"They can put me in prison the rest of my life. I am not going to sign a lie," Corsi told CNN in a phone call.

Asked what happens now that he is refusing, Corsi responded: "I don't know."

Well, in a country run by actual laws and not plea agreements, Mueller would have to take you to court and prove to 12 citizens that you lied, and that the lie was material.

Corsi said Monday that he believed he would by lying by signing the plea agreement because he says he did not willfully mislead anyone.

Describing his experience with Mueller's team as "like being interrogated as a POW in the Korean War," Corsi said after two months of questioning, prosecutors believed they caught him in various lies and did not appear to believe him when he said he could not recall certain events.

Corsi insisted he had no contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and that "investigators were so mad because I didn't give them what they wanted."

He claimed that Mueller's team wanted to keep any plea agreement sealed, a point that particularly incensed him. Corsi said he would be required to report legal infractions to financial regulators.

In a statement on Monday following Corsi's latest comments, Stone said the special counsel was harassing Corsi "not for lying, but for refusing to lie" and continued to maintain his own innocence.

Suspicions that Corsi is being punished for being an Trump backer, a friend of Stone, and a prominent birther (like Hillary Clinton) are entirely warranted.

WSJ, ABC and Fox News all agree, Special counsel Robert Mueller's office says Paul Manafort broke his cooperation deal by lying. So it's probably true that Mueller's office said that. But none of the articles say anything about the nature of the alleged lies. Fox:

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office "on a variety of subject matters" since his plea deal earlier this year, thereby violating the agreement, Mueller said in a court filing submitted Monday night, while adding that Manafort claims he's been truthful.

But in a familiar pattern:

"Manafort met with the government on numerous occasions and answered the government’s questions," the report said, citing the former chairman. "Manafort has provided information to the government in an effort to live up to his cooperation obligations. He believes he has provided truthful information and does not agree with the government’s characterization or that he has breached the agreement."

Hours of interrogation, followed by charges of  lying to investigators. It's almost as if that were the purpose of the interrogations. Never talk to the feds. Of course, Manafort is over a barrel, having to "cooperate" with Mueller as a result of his convictions on financial crimes.

And speaking of convictions for lying to Mueller's crowd, The Last Tradition notes the costs of Mueller's conviction of George Papadopoulos: Millions of taxpayer dollars to get 14 days in prison for semi-Trump aide George Papadopoulos who reports to prison today (yesterday):

Wow! What a job by Robert Mueller!

Is this really money well spent? Not! It was supposed to be about proving Trump colluded with Russia. How did that work out, Bobby boy?

CNN reports despite his last-minute requests and hopes, former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos will still have to start his 14-day prison sentence on Monday for lying to federal investigators in the Russia probe.

 It does seem a little like swatting a fly with a bulldozer.

Sara Noble at the Independent Sentinel continues to follow how the UK and Australia Battle to Keep 21 Pages of Russia-Trump Probe Secret

One must ask why foreign governments were so involved in spying in the first place. What do they have to hide?

The Telegraph spoke to more than a dozen U.K. and U.S. officials, including U.S. intel and British spy chiefs. They allegedly have a “genuine concern” that sources would be exposed if the documents are released.

That doesn’t sound legitimate since the House Republicans said the only thing intelligence is worried about is being embarrassed. There are no sources in the documents they want to be released — 21 pages.

“It boils down to the exposure of people”, said one U.S. intelligence official, adding: “We don’t want to reveal sources and methods.” U.S. intelligence shares the concerns of the U.K.

One has to wonder if they are sharing information illegally.

Another agent told the Telegraph that Britain feared setting a dangerous “precedent” which could make people less likely to share information, knowing that it could one day become public, the Telegraph reported.
. . .
The truth is that the espionage of the Trump campaign took place on U.K. soil. George Papadopoulos was lured to England by the Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud who told him the rumor that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. Spying was in London again when Australian diplomat Alexander Downer heard the planted rumor of Hillary’s emails from George Papadopoulos.

Stefan Halper, the well-paid spy, also met with Carter Page and George Papadopoulos in London.

That implicates the U.K. and Australia in unlawful spying.

There's not much in spycraft that's really illegal in the home country (UK), but you have effectively acted as if the President of the United States is your enemy. You should expect to be treated accordingly. Sunlight is a reasonably good disinfectant.

At the American Thinker, Daniel John Sobieski wonders What about Your FISA Judges, Justice Roberts?

As long as we are on the subject of whether there is such an animal as an "Obama judge," let us consider the judges who sit on the FISA court and issue warrants allowing surveillance of American citizens who are suspected foreign agents, essentially taking the uncontested word of the government.

Their actions on behalf of one political campaign, colluding with a corrupt DOJ and FBI to target a political opponent, are not supposed to happen in a country based on the rule of law as administered by supposedly impartial judges. Empowered to safeguard our national security against foreign actors, they essentially served as an extra-constitutional arm of the Hillary Clinton campaign as it colluded with foreign actors to stage a Deep-State coup against a duly elected president, Donald J. Trump? Aiding and abetting the legacy of Barack Obama seems like something an "Obama judge" would do.

Chief Justice Roberts is the one who gets to appoint judges to the FISA court – every last one of them, judges like Rudolph Contreras, who granted a previously denied Michael Flynn FISA warrant. His appointees are the ones who swallowed whole the contentions of the Obama administration using unverified material put together by a British agent and his Russian sources to aid one political party at the expense of another.

The FISA court and its star chamber judges make for a borderline example of the prophetic warning about trading a little liberty for a little security and winding up with neither. The potential abuse of FISA powers is enormous, and the damage that has been done to our republic and our politics has been staggering.

I have wondered what the FISA judges have been thinking about, as the slow rolling Russiagate scandal continues to reveal unsettling facts about the system. Were they really OK with the shoddy work in the various Carter Page FISA warrants, or has knowledge that they were either tricked, or revealed to be part of the conspiracy informed their work since that time?