Thread: JEROME CORSI: MUELLER TEAM FAILED TO PRESENT EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TO GRAND JURY

Sounds like the same routine that Weissman pulled with Merrill Lynch, etc. In my opinion..
JEROME CORSI: MUELLER TEAM FAILED TO PRESENT EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TO GRAND JURY

11:38 AM 11/30/2018 | POLITICS
Chuck Ross | Reporter213

• Jerome Corsi claims that special counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors failed to present exculpatory evidence to a federal grand jury that the conservative author claims backs up his story about WikiLeaks.
• Corsi sent two tweets and one text message in early October 2016 that he says show he did not know for certain that WikiLeaks would release information derogatory to the Clinton campaign.
• But Corsi tells The Daily Caller News Foundation that prosecutors did not present the tweets to him during interviews or before the grand jury.

In early October 2016, days before WikiLeaks began releasing emails stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, conservative author Jerome Corsi published two tweets questioning whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange would release bombshell documents he had been vaguely teasing for months.

“If Assange has the goods on Hillary, he ought just to drop the goods,” Corsi tweeted on Oct. 2, 2016, after Assange announced a planned press conference. “Otherwise, he’s going to make a fool of himself.”

“So Assange made a fool of Himself,” Corsi tweeted two days later, after Assange failed to release any information on Clinton. “Had zero, or he would have released it. Will take grassroots on Internet to get truth out & beat Hillary.”

Prosecutors with the special counsel’s team have possession of those tweets, as well as Corsi’s emails and text messages, Corsi asserts. But the tweets, which Corsi claims supports a key defense he has provided prosecutors, did not come up during his interviews with the special counsel or his two appearances before a federal grand jury.

“They have them, but I don’t. Those two never came up,” Corsi told The Daily Caller News Foundation. He writes in his newly released book, “Silent No More: How I Became a Political Prisoner of Mueller’s ‘Witch Hunt,” that he did not remember the tweets until they were reported by TheDCNF on Nov. 1.

Corsi, who is a target of the special counsel’s probe, claims that the tweets support his contention to prosecutors that he did not have direct knowledge or insight into WikiLeaks’ plans to release Podesta’s emails.

Prosecutors are not buying the denials, Corsi says.

They have pointed to an Aug. 2, 2016 email that Corsi sent to Trump confidant Roger Stone in which Corsi appeared to know about WikiLeaks’ plans.

“Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging,” Corsi wrote, referring to Assange.

“Time to let more than Podesta to be exposed as in bed w/ enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC,” he said. “That appears to be the game hackers are now about.”

Stone claims that he did not interpret the email as Corsi saying that WikiLeaks or hackers had Podesta’s emails. He says he believes that Corsi was referring to research that they had been discussing regarding Podesta and his lobbyist brother’s business dealings with foreigners.

Corsi, who recently rejected a plea deal offered by the special counsel that would have required him to admit lying about the Aug. 2 email, claims that he merely came up with the theory that WikiLeaks had Podesta’s emails. And he asserts that his tweets two months later back up his story.

“Those two tweets would have supported my best recollection of the truth,” Corsi claimed in an interview with TheDCNF. “Those were going to be discarded because they didn’t fight the narrative.”

Though Corsi says that prosecutors did not bring up the tweets during his 40-plus hours of interviews, it is unclear whether the special counsel presented the tweets to the grand jury in other settings. The special counsel’s office declined comment.

U.S. political consultant Roger Stone at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., September 26, 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Federal prosecutors are not required by law to present exculpatory evidence to grand juries. Justice Department regulations lean on the 1992 Supreme Court decision, United States v. Williams, which held that federal judges do not have the power to throw out cases in which prosecutors “failed to introduce substantial exculpatory evidence to a grand jury.”

Exculpatory evidence can instead be presented at trial.

But DOJ does have a policy that “when a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation, the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose such evidence to the grand jury before seeking an indictment against such a person.”

“While a failure to follow the Department’s policy should not result in dismissal of an indictment, appellate courts may refer violations of the policy to the Office of Professional Responsibility for review.”

Corsi, a former InfoWars correspondent, sent the tweets after Assange held a highly-anticipated press conference in which he failed to produce Clinton-related documents.

Assange had given several interviews over the preceding months in which he claimed that WikiLeaks would drop information that would be damaging to the Democrat and her campaign. Pro-Trump operatives like Corsi and Stone salivated over the prospect and speculated about what information WikiLeaks would dump.

Corsi also sent a text message to Stone after the Assange press conference that matches up with his tweets from the same time period.

“Assange made a fool of himself,” Corsi wrote to Stone on Oct. 4, 2016.

“Has nothing or he would have released it. Total BS hype.”

Stone, who provided the text to TheDCNF, said it provides further evidence that Corsi did not have an actual link to WikiLeaks.

The special counsel wants to find out whether Corsi and Stone had a direct WikiLeaks contact who previewed the stolen emails and whether they informed Trump or his associates about the forthcoming release.

Stone made public comments and posted tweets of his own that showed that he had some insight into WikiLeaks’ plans. But he claims he did not know the source or content of the WikiLeaks releases until the group posted the first batch of Podesta documents.

Instead, Stone claims that a left-wing comedian named Randy Credico was providing him with vague updates about WikiLeaks’ plans to release anti-Clinton information.

“Julian Assange has kryptonite on Hillary,” Credico texted to Stone on Aug. 27, 2016.

“Hillary’s campaign will die this week,” he wrote on Oct. 1, 2016.

Credico suggested in some text messages that his WikiLeaks contact was a lawyer for the group who he called one of his best friends.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/30/c...y-exculpatory/

Manafort Prosecutor Has a History of Bullying, Withholding Information, Critics Say

Robert Mueller's top man on the Russia investigation skirts ethics, goes all-out to prevent people from mounting an effective defense

By Brendan Kirby |
Monday, October 30, 2017

Andrew Weissmann, a key prosecutor on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, has a history of aggressive tactics in pursuing targets — including actions that critics argue have crossed ethical boundaries.

Reporters covering Mueller’s probe of Russia’s election interference saw Weissmann entering the grand jury room in U.S. District Court in Washington on Friday. That same grand jury handed up indictments against Paul Manafort, who ran President Donald Trump’s campaign for two months last year, and longtime Manafort associate Rick Gates.

[lz_ndn video=33184453]

Weissmann’s critics accuse him of strong-arming witnesses and withholding information favorable to the defense when he oversaw prosecutions of executives at Enron, Arthur Andersen, and Merrill Lynch more than a decade ago.

“He is very good at stretching the law to encompass conduct that is not criminal,” said Sidney Powell, an attorney who represented former Merrill Lynch executive James Brown.

Weissmann and several other members of Mueller’s campaign drew complaints from Republicans earlier this year after revelations that they have been heavy contributors to Democratic political campaigns. But Weissmann’s conduct as a prosecutor might be more troubling.

Powell told LifeZette that prosecutors withheld evidence about statements that two potential witnesses in the Merrill Lynch prosecution made contradicting the government’s case. She said prosecutors gave the defense a summary of an interview with Enron executive Jeffrey McMahon indicating that he did not remember a buyback agreement that was key to the case.

But McMahon’s actual statement, which the defense did not get, indicated that there was no deal.

“That’s more than just a bad summary. That’s actively misleading,” said Bill Hodes, an attorney who worked with Powell to try to get Brown a new trial after he already had served his sentence.

Hodes said the information likely would never have come to light had then-Attorney General Eric Holder not ordered a review of recent prosecutions after allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in the corruption trial of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) in 2008.

Powell said the documents withheld by prosecutors in her case included yellow highlights emphasizing key portions of the statement.

“They knew exactly what they were doing because they had literally highlighted it,” she said.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found prosecutors should have turned over the evidence.

“Favorable information was plainly suppressed from McMahon’s notes,” the judges wrote.

But the court ruled that the withheld evidence was not “material” to the case and let the conviction stand.

Ethics Complaint Against Weissmann

Powell, who wrote a book in 2014 on prosecutorial misconduct — “Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice” — said the appeals court did overturn 12 of 14 charges against four Merrill Lynch defendants and completely acquitted one of them.

The affair led to an ethics complaint against Weissmann with the New York State Bar Association. Powell said she signed on to that complaint. She said the bar, without notifying the complainants, transferred the complaint to the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility.

Hodes, who prepared the complaint against Weissmann and others, recalled that the Justice Department sent the case back to the bar association and then defended Weissmann and the others against the allegations.
“It’s kind of odd that first they’re investigating them and then they were defending them,” he said.

Hodes said the Justice Department’s defense pointed to the fact that the defendant had lost his appeal without addressing the fact the bar association’s ethics rules require a higher level of compliance with the spirit of a Supreme Court ruling governing what information prosecutors must disclose to the defense.

“They refused to engage by ignoring it,” he said.

Houston lawyer Tom Kirkendall said the withheld evidence “was probably the most egregious thing that was done.”

Kirkendall, who represented three Enron executives in civil cases, said he got a “front-row seat” to the prosecution tactics in the criminal cases. He documented those tactics in a series of blog posts.

Kirkendall told LifeZette that Weissmann’s team employed extremely aggressive tactics and obtained convictions in five cases. The victories were short-lived, however.

“I find it highly ironic that Mr. Mueller, who is investigating Russian interference in the election, used KGB tactics in pursuing this case. That seems to be lost on them.”

“Every one of those convictions that were obtained from this were overturned on appeal,” he said. “Every one of them.”

Kirkendall pointed to another unusual tactic employed by Weissmann. The Enron task force in court documents named 114 unindicted co-conspirators in the case involving Enron Chairman and CEO Kenneth Lay and CEO Jeffrey Skilling.
“That was unprecedented in American criminal law that has never been done before,” he said. “The transparent purpose of doing that was an effort to chill them from testifying for Lay and Skilling. And it was effective.”

Kirkendall said his research indicates that the previous record for named unindicted co-conspirators in a federal criminal case was 60-something in the prosecution of former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards.

Said Powell: “That made most of Houston lawyer up. It was like the Houston Defense Lawyers Employment Act.”

Silencing Merrill Lynch Employees

Powell also noted that prosecutors negotiated an agreement with Merrill Lynch, agreeing not to bring criminal charges against the firm in exchange for prohibiting employees from saying anything publicly that contradicted the government’s case.

She said the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later invalidated that tactic in an unrelated case.

“I had never seen it before. I’m not sure it’s happened since,” she said. “It was the most onerous non-prosecution agreement I have ever seen.”

The charges against Manafort and Gates focus on their work as political consultants for the Party of Regions, a political party in Ukraine that favored a close relationship with Russia. Manafort worked closely with the party to help elect its candidate, Viktor Yanukovych, to the presidency in 2010. Yanukovych was ousted in 2014 after a wave of protests that were supported by the U.S. State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton.

Kirkendall said it is difficult to say for certain how Weissmann will proceed with the investigation.

“Weissmann may have changed over the last decade,” he said. “He may have become more careful.”

Mueller’s team, however, has sent signals that it will embrace hardball tactics. The special counsel’s office raised eyebrows when it sent agents to pick the lock of Manafort’s Virginia home before dawn on July 26 with guns drawn and searched him and his wife.

“It’s very unusual in the United States,” Kirkendall said. “I find it highly ironic that Mr. Mueller, who is investigating Russian interference in the election, used KGB tactics in pursuing this case. That seems to be lost on them.”
Powell said Manafort and Gates should expect the fight of their lives.

[lz_related_box id=”857135″]

“They’re going to have to work very hard to get evidence from the government which is exculpatory, that is favorable to their case,” she said. “They’re going to have to pound for that and never trust that the government has given it all to them.”

Powell said Weissmann’s history indicates he’s not shy about using whatever leverage he has to pressure witnesses and defendants.

“He’s probably the most aggressive I’ve ever seen on that,” she said.

Powell, who served as a federal prosecutor for 10 years under nine different U.S. attorneys in three different districts, said Weissmann’s conduct goes well beyond vigorous prosecution.

“None of the U.S. attorneys I know would have tolerated that crap for two seconds,” she said.

https://www.lifezette.com/2017/10/an...n-critics-say/

February 16, 2018


Andrew Weissmann: Robert Mueller's dirty cop

By Monica Showalter


One of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's lead attorneys has an ethics problem. Actually, a lot of ethics problems, considering what he's gotten away with. According to investigative journalist Sara Carter, Weissmann has been busted for withholding evidence in a previous court case involving prosecution of organized crime, to put an extra thumb on the scale of justice in his own favor. Carter writes that:

• In 1997 Andrew Weissmann was officially reprimanded by a judge in the Eastern District of New York for withholding evidence.
• Weissmann was reported to the Department of Justice Inspector General and Senate Judiciary Committee for alleged “corrupt legal practices.”
• A formal letter from U.S. Attorney Eastern District of New York Zachary Carter requested the judge to remove Weissman’s name, according to documents.
• Civil rights and Criminal Defense Attorney David Schoen said Weissmann needs to be investigated for alleged past misconduct in court cases.

More specifically, Weissmann withheld evidence to a court that would have helped the other side in a criminal case, which is required by law. In that previous case:

Evidence suggested that Scarpa was involved in a personal relationship with his FBI handler, Lindley DeVecchio. DeVeccio, who was also a witness in a case connected to the Persico case. Weissmann had DeVecchio testify against Michael Sessa, a captain in the Colombo family, despite knowing DeVecchio was under investigation by the FBI for his relationship with Scarpa. Weissmann and his team failed disclose that to the courts and presented him as a solid witness in the case, according to Schoen and court documents.

Mafiosos may not be a sympathetic bunch, but the law is the law and Weissmann didn't think it applied to him.

This, from a man gushingly portrayed in the New York Times last year as "fair."

No, actually, Weissmann doesn't really sound fair. According to the leftwing Daily Beast, in a piece published last August:

[Legal experts] believe [Weissmann's] presence on Mueller’s team means the probe may push legal boundaries as it investigates alleged collusion between Trump and Russian interests.

Then there was the Arthur Andersen case, which with Weissmann, shows a pattern of malfeasance. According to the Daily Beast:

During his years at the Justice Department, Weissmann built a reputation as a prosecutor willing to push the envelope – sometimes with disastrous results. He worked on the Justice Department’s Enron probe from 2002 to 2005. And while he was there, he helmed the prosecution of Arthur Andersen, Enron’s accounting firm, arguing that it had obstructed justice by destroying documents investigators would have needed.

Weissmann and his team took the aggressive step of indicting the entire accounting firm. According to a source familiar with the case, the firm’s defense attorneys met with them [and asked Weissmann and his team] not to do so before the indictment, arguing that the firm would be certain to dissolve if it were indicted, leaving thousands of people jobless.

“Their response indicated they didn’t care,” said the person familiar with the case.

Twenty thousand people lost their jobs over a junk case that was thrown out of court and this guy didn't care? Weissmann seems to have a history of dirty-cop tactics in his bid to make headlines, and it's particularly relevant in the current case with Robert Mueller since it now involves withheld evidence, the evidence that the phony Steele dossier, paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign, and which the FBI knew was fake, was nevertheless the basis for a FISA warrant to spy on Trump advisor Carter Page, and with it, the entire Trump team, as Team Obama went wild with the unmaskings:

Now we have the weird recusal of Judge Rudolph Contreras in the case against former NSC Advisor Michael Flynn described by Clarice Feldman here. She writes:

The only reason I can imagine why Judge Contreras was recused – note: did not recuse himself – is that he was a member of the FISC, the court that grants surveillance warrants under FISA. As the evidence mounts that the warrant [to investigate Trump advisor Carter Page based on the tainted and phony contents of the Hillary Clinton campaign's Steele dossier] was improperly granted, someone – perhaps the chief judge of the district – removed him from further participation in the case, likely because Contreras approved the warrant and its extension. If the warrant was improperly issued, all the evidence it garnered is tainted.

As to why the agreed upon delay, my thought is that Mueller wants to wait until the inspector general report so that, in a sense, his hands will be clean if the case is dropped, that he was compelled by the record to do so.

I missed it earlier, but on December 12 of last year, Judge [Emmett] Sullivan issued a tough demand of the prosecution. They are compelled immediately to turn over all exculpatory material in their possession to General Flynn. The last paragraph of the order is particularly strong:

And here Weissmann has this history of not turning over exculpatory evidence to the extent that he has been blasted by other judges, even though the law tells him to do so. There's also Weissmann's willing to take down whole companies to get a collar as well. And according to the Daily Beast, there is Weissmann's crony closeness to Obama's lieutenants such as Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch from his Brooklyn prosecutor days. Does this sound like someone who's fit for his job as dispassionate prosecutor in the nominally non-partisan Special Counsel's office?

It sounds as though Judge Sullivan is onto him and his dirty-cop prosecutorial games. Byron York has more on Sullivan here. If the case against Flynn is thrown out, it will be because of Robert Mueller's rather glaring dirty-cop problem, likely in Andrew Weissmann.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...dirty_cop.html

This whole pile of crap is a huge embarrassment to our country, compromises our national security, threatens important relationships internationally, especially with Russia, has ruined dozens of lives and cost tens and tens of folks outrageous and unnecessary legal fees, worry and time, and has violated all of their civil rights.

It's the most outrageous action by a US Department of Justice I can ever recall in my lifetime.

It's unbelievable this thing was ever started to begin with.

Breaking: Mueller Withheld Exculpatory Evidence from Court to Exonerate Trump – Mueller LIED to the Court!… Will He Be Sent to Jail Too?

by Jim Hoft December 3, 2018 679 Comments

Is justice still alive in America? Will Robert Mueller see jail time?

A new report by journalist Paul Sperry says conflicted Robert Mueller withheld evidence from the court that would exonerate President Trump from the latest accusations of Russian collusion during the 2016 election.

Mueller withheld information to the court that would exonerate President Trump.
Will Mueller be tossed in prison for lying?
Or do only Trump associates got to jail for lying to the court?

BNL NEWS @BreakingNLive

· 18h


BREAKING: Thread:
1. Mueller’s plea deal with Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen offers further evidence that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians during the 2016 election, according to congressional investigators and former prosecutors.

BNL NEWS @BreakingNLive


2. Cohen pleaded guilty to making false Statements to the Senate as discussions about the so-called Moscow Project continued 5 months longer in 2016 than Cohen had initially stated under oath....
594
10:09 AM - Dec 3, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

277 people are talking about this

BNL NEWS @BreakingNLive

· 18h


Replying to @BreakingNLive
A 9-page charging document filed with the plea deal shows Mueller is using the Moscow tower talks to connect Trump to Russia. But congressional investigators with House & Senate committees involved say Mueller withheld from the court details that would exonerate the president....

BNL NEWS @BreakingNLive


On page 7 of the statement of criminal information filed against Cohen, Mueller mentions that Cohen tried to email Putin’s office two times in 2016. But Mueller omitted the fact that Cohen did not have any direct points of contact at the Kremlin....
675
10:15 AM - Dec 3, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

379 people are talking about this

BNL NEWS @BreakingNLive

· 18h


Replying to @BreakingNLive
Sources who have seen these additional emails point out that this omitted information undercuts the idea of a “back channel” and thus the special counsel's collusion case.

BNL NEWS @BreakingNLive


Page 2 holds additional exculpatory evidence for Trump, sources say. It quotes an August 2017 letter from Cohen to the Senate intelligence committee in which he states that Trump “was never in contact with anyone about this [Moscow Project] proposal other than me.”
608
10:17 AM - Dec 3, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

361 people are talking about this

BNL NEWS @BreakingNLive

· 18h


Replying to @BreakingNLive
This section of Cohen’s written testimony, unlike other parts, is not disputed as false by Mueller, which sources say means prosecutors have tested its veracity through corroborating sources and found it to be accurate.

BNL NEWS @BreakingNLive


Mueller did also not challenge Cohen’s statement that he “ultimately determined that the proposal was not feasible and never agreed to make a trip to Russia.”
522
10:19 AM - Dec 3, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

263 people are talking about this


Dirty Cop Robert Mueller LIED to the court!

Via Real Clear Investigations:

Contrary to media speculation that Robert Mueller is closing in on President Trump, the special prosecutor’s plea deal with Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen offers further evidence that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians during the 2016 election, according to congressional investigators and former prosecutors.
Cohen pleaded guilty last week to making false statements in 2017 to the Senate intelligence committee about the Trump Organization’s failed efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Discussions about the so-called Moscow Project continued five months longer in 2016 than Cohen had initially stated under oath.
The nine-page charging document filed with the plea deal suggests that the special counsel is using the Moscow tower talks to connect Trump to Russia. But congressional investigators with House and Senate committees leading inquiries on the Russia question told RealClearInvestigations that it looks like Mueller withheld from the court details that would exonerate the president. They made this assessment in light of the charging document, known as a statement of “criminal information” (filed in lieu of an indictment when a defendant agrees to plead guilty); a fuller accounting of Cohen’s emails and text messages that Capitol Hill sources have seen; and the still-secret transcripts of closed-door testimony provided by a business associate of Cohen.
On page 7 of the statement of criminal information filed against Cohen, which is separate from but related to the plea agreement, Mueller mentions that Cohen tried to email Russian President Vladimir Putin’s office on Jan. 14, 2016, and again on Jan. 16, 2016. But Mueller, who personally signed the document, omitted the fact that Cohen did not have any direct points of contact at the Kremlin, and had resorted to sending the emails to a general press mailbox. Sources who have seen these additional emails point out that this omitted information undercuts the idea of a “back channel” and thus the special counsel’s collusion case.

Read the rest here.



https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...t-to-jail-too/