Mueller Investigation!

[Howl]

The missing "Prof." Mifsud is coming to America?  This is a very interesting development.  Remember that Mifsud has the academic credentials of Sebastian Gorka, which is to say, weak and suspect, hence the italics around Prof. in the initial sentence. 

[AmazonGrace]

Our friend George's lawyers just quit. 

 

[fraurosena]

Well, this is unexpected.

Graham backs bill to protect Mueller

Quote

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday urged Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to hold a vote on a bill to protect special counsel Robert Mueller.

“I would certainly vote for it,” Graham told reporters, according to Reuters. “I don’t see any movement to get rid of Mueller. But it probably would be good to have this legislation in place just for the future.” 

Graham co-sponsored the legislation to protect the Mueller investigation in April 2018. It would codify Department of Justice regulations that say only a senior official can fire Mueller or another special counsel, and would give a special counsel the ability to challenge their firing in court.

The South Carolina Republican worked with Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) on the legislation and previously voted for it in committee.

The special counsel is examining ties between President Trump's campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.

Democrats and some Republicans have raised concerns that the ouster of Attorney General Jeff Sessions last week threatens the investigation.

Trump replaced Sessions with Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general, who has criticized the probe in the past.

Democratic leaders, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), have called for Whitaker to recuse himself from the investigation.

"Given his record of threats to undermine & weaken the Russia investigation, Matthew Whitaker should recuse himself from any involvement in Mueller’s investigation," she tweeted. "Congress must take immediate action to protect the rule of law and integrity of the investigation."

McConnell said last Friday that legislation protecting Mueller was not needed because he doesn't believe President Trump will fire the special counsel.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, told reporters Tuesday that he supported the bill to protect Mueller but would not lobby McConnell on allowing the legislation to move forward, Reuters reported. 

Although seeing is believing.

[Howl]

Hmmmm, maybe Lindsay knows the McConnell will block it so he's pretending to do something appropriate, knowing there is zero risk that the Senate will move to protect the Special Counsel. 

[fraurosena]

Of course Jeff Flake can afford to make this stand. But will it make that much of a difference, that McTurtle bows to his demand?

Flake says he won't vote to advance judicial nominees until bill protecting Mueller gets a vote

Quote

Sen. Jeff Flake said on Wednesday that he will not vote to advance any judicial nominees pending in the Judiciary Committee, or vote to confirm any of the judicial nominees awaiting a vote on the Senate floor, until Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell brings forward a bill to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller from being fired by President Trump.

"I have informed the Majority Leader that I will not vote to advance any of the 21 judicial nominees pending in the Judiciary Committee, or vote to confirm the 32 judges awaiting a confirmation vote on the floor, until S. 2644 is brought to the full Senate for a vote," Flake said.

The bill would require that any special counsel be removed by the attorney general or the highest ranking Senate-confirmed Justice Department official. The bill also mandates that the special counsel have written notice explaining reasons for dismissal, and allow the special counsel to challenge removal in court.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly expressed displeasure with Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He also ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions last week, and installed Mueller skeptic Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general. Democrats and some Republicans fear that Mr. Trump is gearing up to fire Mueller.

McConnell told CBS News' Nancy Cordes that he did not see any indication the legislation needed to be brought up, so he "doesn't think any legislation's necessary." 

The bill passed the Judiciary Committee in April as compromise legislation sponsored by Republicans Flake and Sen. Thom Tillis, and Democratic Sens. Chris Coons and Cory Booker. Flake and Coons unsuccessfully tried to bring the bill to a Senate floor vote on Wednesday. McConnell objected to the request for a vote.

As one of the 11 Republican members of the 21-member Judiciary Committee, Flake has the power to block the 21 judicial nominees pending from advancing to a vote on the Senate floor. Flake may not have as much influence regarding the confirmation of 32 judicial nominees currently awaiting a vote on the Senate floor. As Republicans currently have a narrow 51-49 advantage, a judge can still be confirmed even if one Republican senator defects.

McConnell has said that his most important role during the Trump administration has been in confirming judicial nominees, including two Supreme Court justices. Flake, who is retiring at the end of the year, is threatening to impede that process.

Here he is making is statement:

 

[AmazonGrace]

It's meaningless grandstanding IMO. Does the Senate have a break for Christmas?  How many judge-appointing legislative days does Flake even have left before his replacement comes along?

 

Anyone who doesn't get appointed before Christmas will get appointed the first thing after the new recruits start.

[fraurosena]

Oh. How... revealing.

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Howl]

Heh!  "Maria Butina flipped like a GOP House seat."

From twitter: 

A napping box is (I think) the equivalent of a dirt nap. She's not in a good place right now.  

 

[fraurosena]

 

[fraurosena]

Judge in Mueller Case Upholds Legal Theory that Makes Collusion a Crime

Quote

Is collusion a crime? Since the beginning of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, allegations of “collusion” have dominated the debate. President Trump regularly claims there was “no collusion” with the Russians seeking to influence the 2016 presidential election. His attorneys and other supporters also have repeatedly argued that even if collusion took place, that would not be criminal. But last week, in a case brought by Mueller, a federal judge upheld the legal theory under which “collusion” may indeed be a crime.

I’m not sure how the term “collusion” became so central to discussions of the Mueller investigation. It really should be banned altogether. (I know, I know — this from the guy who just wrote a blog post with “collusion” in the title, right? But hey, I can’t unilaterally disarm.) All it does is breed confusion and lead to diversionary arguments about whether collusion is criminal.

It’s true there is no criminal statute titled “collusion.” But as I’ve noted in several places (here and here, for example) the relevant crime is conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371. Collusion refers to an agreement with others to achieve some improper end. In criminal law, we call that a conspiracy – a partnership in crime. And the breadth of the federal conspiracy statute makes it particularly well-suited for cases like Mueller’s probe of Russian interference with the election.

Title 18 Section 371 prohibits conspiracies to commit an offense against the United States, which means a conspiracy to commit any federal crime. But it also broadly prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States “in any manner or for any purpose.” For nearly a century the Supreme Court has held that conspiracies to defraud the United States include conspiracies to impair, obstruct, or defeat the lawful functions of the federal government though deceit or dishonesty. This is true even if the actions of the conspirators are not independently illegal, and even if the government is not deprived of any money or property.

In this post in the summer of 2017, I argued Mueller could use this theory to charge that individuals who agreed to work together to interfere with the election through deceptive and dishonest methods conspired to impair, obstruct, or defeat the function of the Federal Election Commission to administer a fair and honest election. This legal theory would apply not only to Russians but also to any members of the Trump campaign or other Americans who worked — or colluded — with them. And it applies whether or not the actions taken by the co-conspirators are otherwise illegal; in other words, the “collusion” itself can be the crime.

Mueller’s Russia Indictment

On February 16, 2018, Mueller’s grand jury returned an eight-count indictment against thirteen Russian individuals and three Russian companies. It charges that the defendants conspired to influence the 2016 presidential election, primarily through social media. To do so, they allegedly set up numerous social media accounts using fake identities and posing as Americans. They created many posts that were pro-Trump and critical of Hillary Clinton. They organized political rallies and other events in the U.S., again using their fake social media accounts and online personas. They interacted with U.S. campaign officials and volunteers while posing as American political activists. They engaged in political activities such as efforts to suppress black voter turnout, stir up anti-Muslim sentiment, and spread allegations of election fraud. The indictment also alleges that members of the conspiracy traveled to the U.S. under false pretenses in order to gather intelligence for the social media operations. (You can read my more detailed analysis of the indictment here.)

Count One of the indictment charges all the defendants with a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by impairing, obstructing or defeating its lawful government functions under 18 U.S.C. 371. It alleges that the co-conspirators, through their actions, conspired to do the following:

• Undermine the function of the Federal Election Commission, by failing to report expenditures on behalf of candidates in the election as required and by secretly making illegal foreign campaign contributions;
• Undermine the function of the Justice Department, by failing to register as foreign agents as required by FARA (the Foreign Agent Registration Act), which allows DOJ to monitor the political activities of foreign agents in the U.S.; and
• Undermine the function of the State Department, by making false statements on visa applications and thwarting State’s mission to monitor who is entering the country and for what purpose.

Collectively, these allegations charge a conspiracy to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, or defeating the operations of these various agencies, which help to ensure that federal elections are run fairly and freely without improper influence from foreign actors.

When the indictment was handed down, it seemed likely that none of the defendants would ever see the inside of a courtroom. They are all in Russia and Putin is unlikely to cooperate in any efforts to extradite them. But somewhat surprisingly, one Russian company, Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, entered an appearance through its attorneys and began vigorously to fight the case.

Concord’s Challenge to the Indictment

Concord first moved to have the case thrown out on the grounds that Robert Mueller’s appointment was illegal and he had exceeded his authority. District Judge Dabney Friedrich (who was appointed by Trump, by the way) denied that motion. Concord appealed the ruling by joining the appeal of Roger Stone associate Andrew Miller, who is also challenging Mueller’s authority. That case was argued before the D.C. Circuit on November 8 and a decision is pending.

Concord then filed a motion to dismiss the conspiracy count, the only count in which it is charged. The motion amounted to a broad attack on the legal theory behind a conspiracy to defraud the United States. Concord’s primary argument was that the indictment does not identify the particular DOJ or FEC regulations that Concord supposedly violated. It claimed prosecutors could not simply charge it with interfering with the functions of these agencies without pointing to specific violations, because “there is no such crime as interfering with an election.” In addition to identifying the relevant rules and regulations with particularity, Concord argued, the government was required to prove that Concord acted willfully: that it knew about those rules and knew it was illegal to violate them.

In a ruling on November 15, Judge Friedrich rejected Concord’s arguments. She held it is well-established that conduct may violate section 371 without proof that it also violated any other statute or regulation. The crime is the violation of section 371 itself – no other violation is required. As long as the government proves the defendants conspired to defeat lawful government functions through deceitful or dishonest conduct, that is sufficient. As the government pointed out in its brief, the point is not that the defendants necessarily committed some other specific violation. It’s that they improperly prevented the relevant agencies from even being aware of their activities so the agencies could ascertain whether there was any such violation.

The indictment does identify the roles of the different agencies and their relevant government functions that were undermined. It charges that Concord thwarted the DOJ and FEC by failing to report information it was under a legal duty to disclose. As to the FEC, that information related to illegal foreign campaign contributions that were made via the defendants’ activities, which provided things of value to the campaign. As to DOJ, the violations consisted of failure to register as a foreign agent under FARA. And when it comes to the State Department, the defendant’s deception was affirmative false statements on their visa applications about why they were coming to the United States. The judge ruled that the indictment’s description of these government functions and how the defendants’ activities undermined those functions was more than sufficient to put Concord on notice of the nature of the charges.

Concord had argued the indictment was also defective because it failed to allege that Concord itself committed any violations; for example, that it was required to register as a foreign agent and failed to do so. The flaw in that claim, however, is that the charge against Concord is conspiracy, not the underlying FARA or other violations. In a conspiracy charge, one defendant may conspire to help another conspirator commit the relevant acts, even if that defendant will not or could not commit them itself. It’s not necessary to allege that Concord violated FARA or filed false visa applications – only that it agreed to help others do so.

Concord also argued that the conspiracy charge requires the government to prove willfulness – in other words, that the defendants were aware of the specific election law or FARA provisions they were violating and acted with knowledge that what they were doing was unlawful. This higher degree of criminal intent is required for certain tax crimes and regulatory offenses, and would have been the standard if Concord had actually been charged with violating the election law or FARA. Concord argued that since the offenses involved were complex regulatory violations that required proof of willfulness, a conspiracy to violate those provisions should require willfulness as well.

But the judge ruled that a 371 conspiracy does not require willfulness. To prove a 371 conspiracy the government must prove the defendants used methods that were deceitful or dishonest. This requirement minimizes any risk that innocent actors may be swept up within a conspiracy charge simply because they didn’t understand the complex regulations. The court agreed the government will have to prove the defendants had general knowledge about the functions of these agencies in order to prove that they conspired to defeat those functions. But it rejected Concord’s claim that the government must prove the defendants had specific knowledge about the precise legal provisions that they were violating or impeding. A general knowledge of the functions and requirements of the three agencies, as alleged in the indictment, is sufficient.

Concord also argued, briefly, that the conspiracy to defraud charge is invalid because it does not allege a deprivation of money or property. Typically, fraud does require a deprivation of money or property. But the Supreme Court has long held that a conspiracy to defraud the government in 371 is broader than traditional fraud and includes conspiracies to impair lawful government functions as discussed above. Concord made this argument simply to preserve it for the record. That means it may ultimately ask the Supreme Court to revisit the law concerning 371, if it gets to that point. But for now, the trial judge was not free to ignore the Supreme Court precedent, so she also denied Concord’s motion on this ground.

Roger Stone

Yes, Collusion Is a Crime – Or at Least it Can Be

This court ruling should drive another nail in the coffin of the argument that collusion is not a crime. It clearly can be, and the crime is conspiracy – even if no other independent criminal violations are identified. Mueller’s use of that theory in his Russian social media indictment is a textbook example of a 371 conspiracy to defraud the U.S., and that theory has now been validated by the trial judge’s ruling.

To be fair, this was a motion to dismiss, which presents a very high bar for a defendant to succeed. To prevail prosecutors only needed to demonstrate that the indictment makes allegations legally sufficient to support the charges. Proving those allegations, of course, is another matter — and the government will need to prove the facts beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury if the case ultimately proceeds to trial. But the legal theory is clearly valid, as this court ruling confirms.

The indictment that includes Concord does not include any Americans. That is the great outstanding question in the Mueller investigation: did any Americans join in the conspiracy? Were Americans involved, knowing that Russians were secretly working to help the Trump campaign while concealing their true identities and failing to report their activities as required? If so, they could be joined into the same conspiracy through a superseding indictment or could be charged in a new conspiracy. Much of the grand jury activity surrounding associates of Trump ally Roger Stone seems to be looking at these issues. Stone apparently had contact with various Russians – knowingly or not – and seemed to have advance notice of when stolen Democratic emails would be leaked.

It remains to be seen whether Mueller will conclude that the activities of Stone and others amounted to a conspiracy or to something less – perhaps just sleazy, hardball politics. Everything will depend on the evidence about what Stone and others knew and when they knew it – and that is likely now a focus of the grand jury’s inquiry. But if Mueller finds that Trump associates did conspire – or collude – with the Russians in these activities, he clearly has a legal basis on which to proceed.

 

[fraurosena]

Aannnndddd.....Mueller gets another one into negotiations for a plea deal.

Stone associate Jerome Corsi is in plea negotiations with special counsel

Quote

Conservative writer and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi is in plea negotiations with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, according to Corsi and another person with knowledge of the talks.

The talks with Corsi — an associate of both President Trump and GOP operative Roger Stone — could bring Mueller’s team closer to determining whether Trump or his advisers were linked to WikiLeaks’ release of hacked Democratic emails in 2016, a key part of his long-running inquiry.

Corsi provided research on Democratic figures during the campaign to Stone, a longtime Trump adviser. For months, the special counsel has been scrutinizing Stone’s activities in an effort to determine whether he coordinated with WikiLeaks. Stone and WikiLeaks have repeatedly denied any such coordination.

Stone has said that Corsi also has a relationship with Trump, built on their shared interest in the falsehood that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

Corsi confirmed the plea negotiations after they were first reported by The Washington Post Friday. “It’s true. Your story is accurate,” he said, declining to comment further except to say there may be further developments next week.

David Gray, an attorney for Corsi, declined to comment, as did a spokesman for Mueller. An attorney for Trump declined to comment.

Stone said in a statement that he was not aware of any plea discussions involving Corsi, describing him as an investigative journalist “whose activities I would think would largely be covered under the First Amendment.”

The deal is not yet complete and could still be derailed. Last week, Corsi said his efforts to cooperate with prosecutors had broken down and that he expected to be indicted on a charge of allegedly lying. He described feeling under enormous pressure from Mueller and assured his supporters that he remains supportive of the president.

In a webcast and a series of interviews, Corsi said he had spoken to prosecutors for 40 hours and feared that he could spend much of the remainder of his life in prison.

After two months of interviews, Corsi, 72, said he felt his brain was “mush.”

“Trying to explain yourself to these people is impossible . . . I guess I couldn’t tell the special prosecutor what he wanted to hear,” he added.

At that time, he gave no indication that he intended to plead guilty, instead casting himself as an unfairly targeted victim of a Mueller campaign against Trump.

Then, Corsi abruptly fell silent, canceling a scheduled Nov. 13 interview with NBC. Gray, his attorney, told NBC that he had just spoken to the special counsel’s office and had advised Corsi to cancel.

Since then, Corsi has resumed talks with Mueller’s team about a possible deal that could result in him agreeing to plead guilty in exchange for leniency, according to the person familiar with the situation.

Stone said in his statement Friday that “my friend Dr. Corsi has been under a tremendous amount of pressure and it is beginning to affect him profoundly. He has stated publicly that he is being asked over and over to say things he simply does not believe occurred.”

It is not clear what information Corsi could leverage to get a deal with prosecutors. However, he told the Daily Caller last week that prosecutors are focused on whether he had developed a source with inside information about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s plans.

Corsi said he did not have a direct source to the group. Instead, he said he developed a theory that Assange had access to hacked emails belonging to Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and that WikiLeaks would release them in October 2016.

He told the Daily Caller that he shared his prediction with many people, including Stone.

If Mueller could prove that Corsi learned about Podesta’s emails from Assange or another person in contact with him, he could try to link WikiLeaks’ releases to Stone or others in Trump’s world.

Stone told the publication that Corsi never relayed such information.

“He never told me that he had figured out or believed that John Podesta’s emails had been stolen,” Stone said.

On Aug. 21, 2016, Stone tweeted “it will soon the Podesta’s time in the barrel.” He has insisted his tweet had nothing to do with any plan by WikiLeaks and that it was based on research Corsi had provided to him about work Podesta and his lobbyist brother Tony had done involving Russia.

“He simply told me of their Russian business deals in banking gas and uranium,” Stone said in a text message this week to The Washington Post. “There was NO WikiLeaks context.”

Stone told the House Intelligence Committee in September 2017 that his Podesta tweet was “based on a comprehensive, early August opposition research briefing provided to me by investigative journalist, Dr. Jerome Corsi, which I then asked him to memorialize in a memo that he sent me on August 31st, all of which was culled from public records. There was no need to have John Podesta’s email to learn that he and his presidential candidate were in bed with the clique around Putin.”

Stone has since said that the information in the Aug. 31 memo — which he received 10 days after his now-infamous tweet — was similar to information that Corsi had relayed to him verbally before the tweet.

The prediction that Corsi said he made that Assange would publish Podesta’s emails was correct: on Oct. 7, 2016, WikiLeaks began publishing 50,000 emails stolen from Podesta’s account, releasing them in batches of a few thousand at a time each day leading up to the November election.

Corsi told the Daily Caller that he based his prediction on public sources of information, including the fact that Podesta was not among the Democrats whose emails had been published by WikiLeaks when the group released Democratic National Committee correspondence in July.

He said he concluded that WikiLeaks must be holding back Podesta’s correspondence to make a bigger splash later in the campaign.

Podesta did not work for the DNC and the emails were stolen from his private Gmail account, not an address linked to the Democratic Party.

Corsi told the Daily Caller that Mueller’s prosecutors did not believe his explanation and pressed him to name his WikiLeaks source. They were especially interested, he said, in a trip he took to Italy with his wife that he said coincided with his realization about the Podesta emails.

“They said they wanted me to tell the truth, but when I did tell the truth they told me it was preposterous, and they wouldn’t accept it,” Corsi said.

Stone is under scrutiny because he made a series of comments during the campaign that suggested he was in contact with Assange and knew of WikiLeaks’ plans.

Since then, Stone has vigorously contended that his comments were exaggerations based on public information, as well as tips from New York radio host and comedian Randy Credico.

Stone has also told The Post that Corsi had a relationship with Trump and spoke directly with the Republican candidate during the campaign.

Stone said the two men became friendly after Corsi published a book in 2011 advancing the false theory that Obama was not qualified to hold office because he was not born in the United States. Trump became a leading proponent of that falsehood.

 

[onekidanddone]

Corsi? Corsie? Corgie? Cosi? Corset? Who?  He might have handed me a Diet Coke once,

[AmazonGrace]

Georgie goes to jail 

 

[fraurosena]

Interesting. I wonder how he'll feel once he is in prison...

 

[fraurosena]

Seth Abramson on Corsi:

Corsi being caught in perjury involving WikiLeaks could very well be the reason the presidunce is freaking out today.

[Howl]

Interesting piece from EmptyWheel.net

MUELLER JUST GUARANTEED HE CAN ISSUE A PUBLIC REPORT

Basically the argument is that Mueller is issuing reports via long-form indictments/charges.  Also, discussing whether Manafort is pardon-proof. 

Excerpt: 

Spoiler

 

Just about the only explanation for Manafort’s actions are that — as I suggested — Trump was happy to have Manafort serve as a mole in Mueller’s investigation.

But Mueller’s team appears to have no doubt that Manafort was lying to them. That means they didn’t really need his testimony, at all. It also means they had no need to keep secrets — they could keep giving Manafort the impression that he was pulling a fast one over the prosecutors, all while reporting misleading information to Trump that he could use to fill out his open book test. Which increases the likelihood that Trump just submitted sworn answers to those questions full of lies.

And that “detailed sentencing submission … sett[ing] forth the nature of the defendant’s crimes and lies” that Mueller mentions in the report?

There’s your Mueller report, which will be provided in a form that Matt Whitaker won’t be able to suppress. (Reminder: Mueller included 38 pages of evidence along with Manafort’s plea agreement, which I arguedshowed how what Manafort and Trump did to Hillary was the same thing that Manafort had done to Yulia Tymoshenko.)

 

 

[AmazonGrace]

Corsi deleted his emails and now his defense is that he hadn't read his emails before lying to Mueller. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-has-emails-stone-pal-corsi-about-wikileaks-dem-email-n940611

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

Corsi deleted his emails and now his defense is that he hadn't read his emails before lying to Mueller. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-has-emails-stone-pal-corsi-about-wikileaks-dem-email-n940611

I believe somewhere there is a record of those emails.  If they were ones he sent then the recipient has them. If they were sent to him  the sender has them or the service provider has them.  Emails are never deleted. Never. Corsi is a tool.

 

[fraurosena]

8 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

Corsi deleted his emails and now his defense is that he hadn't read his emails before lying to Mueller. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-has-emails-stone-pal-corsi-about-wikileaks-dem-email-n940611

I guess the presidunce got wind of this news, and he felt compelled to point out that what Hillary did was worse: she acid washed her emails after deleting them! So there! She trumps again!

, a

[fraurosena]

This is YUGE, bigly. 

The importance this should not be underestimated. This is the nail in the coffin of the presidunce. 

I love Mueller's strategy in this, btw. He is completely circumventing any obstruction by Whittaker by 'reporting' what he knows to the public through these court documents. 

[Howl]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

I love Mueller's strategy in this, btw. He is completely circumventing any obstruction by Whittaker by 'reporting' what he knows to the public through these court documents. 

Yup! It's an end run, and I think Mueller will score the touchdown plus the extra point. 

I just checked out Wiki on Jerome Corsi.  He has a 1972 poli sci doctorate from Harvard, but seems like it's pretty much all down hill from there (IMHO).  And then, my dear fellow fj-ers, there's this, because ultimately, it's all connected: 

Spoiler

 

In January 2005, Corsi told the Boston Herald that he planned to run for John Kerry's Senate seat in Massachusetts in 2008 as a Republican or Independent candidate. He later said his wife had "vetoed" this plan. Then Corsi stated: "Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party asked me to consider seriously running for president in 2008 and I am doing so." He then agreed to be nominated at the Constitution Party National Convention,but he dropped out in July 2007.

In January 2017, Corsi announced that he was leaving his position as a senior staff writer for far right fringe website  WorldNetDaily to open and lead the Washington, D.C., bureau for conspiracy theory website InfoWars. By mid-2018, he was no longer working there.

 

Howard Phillips, InfoWars, conspiracy theorist.  I've come across a few people in my life who were attracted to The Crazy like moths to a flame. It's not that they were stupid, they just had this thing about anything conspiracy and cray. 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[onekidanddone]

5 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

Did Lee suddenly get a magic 500K for a shiny new bike?

[AmazonGrace]