Jerome Corsi’s Theory of Roger the Rat-Fucker’s Mule Prosecution

I did something rash recently. I bought Jerome Corsi’s book, Silent No More.

It’s a … remarkable work of autobiographical fiction. It has two unbelievable chapters — one on how he met Stone and one claiming to describe how he figured out WikiLeaks had John Podesta’s emails; I’ll deal with the former in this post, and do a follow-up on the latter.

The rest of the book is a narrative of Corsi’s botched cooperation that is fairly clearly designed to provide all the details of his interactions with Mueller’s team to others, without, however, even clarifying details about events that should be central to the story.

Corsi continues to hide details of his Strip House trip with Stone

One of those missing details is what date Corsi introduced Stone to Ted Malloch over dinner at the Strip House in NYC. After that dinner, Stone had Corsi email two requests to Malloch, one of which is the email that appears in Corsi’s botched plea:

a. On or about July 25, 2016, Person 1 sent an email to CORSI with the subject line, “Get to [the founder of Organization 1].” The body of the message read: “Get to [the founder of Organization 1] [a]t Ecuadorian Embassy in London and get the pending [Organization 1] emails . . . they deal with Foundation, allegedly.” On or about the same day, CORSI forwarded Person 1’s email to the overseas individual.

b. On or about July 31, 2016, Person 1 emailed CORSI with the subject line, “Call me MON.” The body of the email read in part that the overseas individual “should see [the founder of Organization 1].”

c. On or about August 2, 2016, CORSI responded to Person 1 by email. CORSI wrote that he was currently in Europe and planned to return in mid-August. CORSI stated: “Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.… Time to let more than [the Clinton Campaign chairman] to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton]. That appears to be the game hackers

A second request from Stone — which Corsi says was sent August 16 — Corsi describes as being limited to Bernie Sanders’ brother, but at least one other description I’ve heard about may also include a reference to WikiLeaks.

Here’s the context of Corsi’s two references to that dinner and his description of the August 16 email:

After meeting Roger Stone in February 2016, I arranged a dinner in New York City with Roger and Ted Malloch, a strong supporter of Donald Trump, for the next time both were in New York City at the same time. Malloch was anxious to assist the Trump campaign and he hoped Malloch [sic] could arrange to have him appointed to Trump’s presidential advisory staff—a hope that never materialized.


On Tuesday, August 16, 2016, I sent Ted Malloch an email in the U.K., asking Ted if he could find Bernie Sanders’ brother who was in the U.K. at that time. My email to Malloch continued: “He (Bernie Sanders brother) is on the record of saying he plans to vote for Trump. Roger Stone suggested you might track down Sanders’ brother.” This was the third request Stone made of Malloch. At the dinner in New York City when I introduced Roger to Ted, Roger asked Ted to research Bill Clinton’s time as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. Roger believed Bill Clinton had been dismissed from the program because Clinton had raped a female graduate student at Oxford. Then, on July 25, 2016, I passed Roger’s email onto Ted, asking Ted to go see Assange in London. Ted waned [sic] an advisory position with the Trump campaign and Stone believed Malloch could improve his chances by scoring on one of these three requests. To the best of my recollection, Ted never said anything to me to suggest he had succeeded on any of the three requests.

One published version of the dinner puts it in late February or March, almost immediately after Corsi met Stone.

Corsi told the Guardian he introduced Malloch to Stone over steaks at the Strip House in midtown Manhattan in late February or March 2016. Mueller’s investigators “wanted to know about the dinner”, he said. When asked if Assange was discussed during the meal, Corsi said he was not a “human tape recorder”.

I think the actual date of the meeting is later, but if that date is right — given the possibility that WikiLeaks came up at the meeting — it would have Stone pursuing information about what WikiLeaks had around the same time as (possibly even before) the Russians first hacked John Podesta on March 19.

Update: One other detail of Corsi’s suppression of details about Malloch. In the book, he describes the only time he met with Trump during the campaign.

During the campaign, I only recall seeing Trump once up close, and that was as Trump was entering the elevator at Trump Tower. On that occasion, Trump jokingly pointed at me and said, “That’s trouble there.” The last time I recall having a telephone conversation with Trump was in 2011.

Elsewhere, however, he made it clear that that exchange happened with Malloch.

Corsi said he spoke to Trump only once during the 2016 presidential campaign. It happened when he brought London-based conservative author Ted Malloch to Trump Tower to show him the campaign headquarters and possibly meet Trump. Corsi said Malloch was interested in potentially doing policy work for the campaign.

Shortly after Corsi and Malloch entered the lobby, Trump happened to be getting into the elevator, Corsi said.

“We said hello. Trump points to me and he points to Malloch and he says, ‘There’s trouble there,'” Corsi said. “And he laughs, we laugh, and that’s the only time I spoke to Donald Trump [during the campaign].”

Corsi never explains what crime he stopped short of committing with Stone

The book is also entirely inconsistent with the fact that before Corsi first lied to Mueller’s prosecutors, his lawyer, David Gray, suggested that Corsi had had the opportunity to engage in, but stopped short of, committing some crime.

Gray said he was confident that Corsi has done nothing wrong. “Jerry Corsi made decisions that he would not take actions that would give him criminal liability,” he added, declining to elaborate.

Asked if Corsi had opportunities to take such actions, Gray said, “I wouldn’t say he was offered those opportunities. I would say he had communications with Roger Stone. We’ll supply those communications and be cooperative. My client didn’t act further that would give rise to any criminal liability.”

As I note here, Gray’s pre-interview comments make it really hard for Corsi to claim faulty memory.

Corsi emphasizes Stone’s ongoing, yet deniable, role in Trump’s campaign

I raise those two details as background to what Corsi lays out in the chapter called, Meet Roger Stone. It describes:

  • Meeting Stone for the first time on February 22, 2016
  • Claiming that Stone’s campaign role as an “outside adviser” was intentionally designed to give Trump plausible deniability regarding Stone’s “various maneuvers”
  • Learning that — at least in February 2016 — Stone spoke to Trump every day and got him to adopt about 70% of his suggestions
  • Giving Stone the credit for getting Paul Manafort hired

And then it goes into a theory of Stone’s crime, real or imagined, I’m not sure which.

Corsi avoids the GRU indictment like the plague but nevertheless suggests Stone could be the mule

Mind you, I’m not sure if this is Corsi’s theory about what Stone actually did or what he thinks Mueller thinks Stone did (the theory is somewhat inconsistent with what Corsi suggests Mueller thinks Stone did as presented later in the book, which is more focused on Julian Assange). In part, it addresses what he seems to think Democrats suspect about Stone.

Democratic opponents of Trump raised the question that if Roger Stone had known in advance that Assange was holding the Podesta emails, as evidenced by his tweet on August 21, was it possible Stone had colluded with the Russians and with WikiLeaks? Had all this happened by accident or were the WikiLeaks DNC email drops just Roger Stone’s crowning achievement in a career distinguished by dirty tricks. Put simply: Did Roger Stone coordinate with Russia to steal the DNC emails and give them to WikiLeaks, having having arranged with Assange in advance a strategy to use the hacked DNC emails to prevent Hillary from achieving the White House?

But it ends by suggesting that when he was first subpoenaed, he “suspected immediately” that he was a key link in a theory that (bizarrely) had Stone serving as a mule between Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks (it’s worth noting that Corsi claims to believe, erroneously, that the Podesta emails came from a DNC server, in which case the reference could be about the Podesta emails).

On August 28, 2018, when I was served the subpoena from the Mueller grand jury, I suspected immediately the prosecutors in the Special Counsel office were in possession of evidence that suggested I might have been the link between Stone and Assange. As David Gray and I prepared to go to Washington, we speculated Mueller may have targeted me as the link who provided Stone his advance knowledge in August 2016 that Assange possessed DNC emails from John Podesta that WikiLeaks planned to release serially over a number of days as the 2016 “October Surprise,” designed to deal a knock-out punch to the Clinton campaign. If I was Stone’s link to Assange, was this the connection with WikiLeaks that Stone used to get WikiLeaks the Guccifer 2.0 hacks of the DNC computers?

The theory relies on a really weird timeline of the relevant events, which I’ve reproduced below. Several things stick out about the timeline. First, Corsi dates WikiLeaks’ indexing of Hillary’s FOIAed emails as part of WikiLeaks’ election year activities (something he continues later in the book). That’s interesting because of Cambridge Analytica’s related efforts in that early period (not to mention the funding of an attack on Hillary as being close to Russia), as well as the way a WikiLeaks’ request for Hillary’s speech transcripts precedes the John Podesta hack. If Corsi knows that that indexing was part of a larger campaign (and as I’ll show in the follow-up post, he does know stuff about WikiLeaks he should not), then it suggests that he knows that WikiLeaks knew the hacks were coming.

The timeline is also weird for the way it jumps over all the exchanges between Stone and Corsi in the aftermath of the DNC email release, details that are absolutely central to the rest of the narrative in the book.

It’s oddest, however, in the way this chapter makes no mention of the initial Guccifer 2.0 posts, even though in his chapter purporting to explain how he knew Podesta’s emails were coming, Corsi admits to having tracked those releases very closely (and links two of the posts). Just as notably, Corsi’s narrative only mentions Mueller’s GRU indictment indirectly (an odd habit he continues in his Podesta explanation), instead relying on the 2018 coverage of the indictment for his claims about what’s in it. Even there, however, Corsi doesn’t link the coverage (not even Fox!) where Stone admitted he’s the person cited in the GRU indictment. This leads Corsi to treat the mention of Stone in the GRU indictment to be merely “suspect” rather than confirmed.

Clearly, Stone’s tweets with Guccifer 2.0 target him as a likely suspect for that person, especially given that Stone remained in regular contact with Trump even after Stone resigned as Trump’s political advisor.

Perhaps both those choices are just attempts to avoid acknowledging familiarity with the evidence that would utterly disprove his later whack theories about the Podesta emails (which go well beyond the Podesta emails). But it seems to adopt a very indirect method to avoid admitting that, yes, Stone was DMing with  Guccifer 2.0, but that nothing in the public record suggests those DMs were criminal in any way.

Let me be clear: There’s nothing in the public record that suggests Stone had a role in getting any files from the Russians to WikiLeaks (though I considered the possibility Guccifer 2.0 was a source for the men here). But the handoff of the Podesta emails is part of the operation that remains unexplained. And even while Corsi goes to great lengths to spin up this theory of Stone’s prosecution, he (a guy who puts his PhD in his Twitter handle) studiously avoids the primary sources that make this case.


February 22, 2016: Stone and Corsi first meet

March 16, 2016: First WikiLeaks drop (in reality, indexing of documents obtained via FOIA)

July 13, 2016: Guccifer 2.0, a hacker who previously claimed to have breached the computers of the DNC, released a cache of purported DNC documents to The Hill

July 14, 2016: Guccifer 2.0 sends WikiLeaks link to archive of DNC documents [Corsi botches this section badly, in part by getting the year of the GRU indictment wrong]

July 22, 2016: DNC release “Julian Assange timed the release of the DNC emails to be the Friday before the DNC National Nominating Convention”

July 24, 2016: DWS resigns

July 24, 2016: Robby Mook announces Russia hacked emails “for the purpose of helping Donald Trump”

July 25, 2016: Assange tells NBC “there is no proof whatsoever” he got emails from Russia

August 21, 2016: Stone tweets “Podesta’s time in the barrel”

October 7, 2016: WikiLeaks starts dumping Podesta files

November 7, 2016: “final WikiLeaks post … dropped by WikiLeaks on November 7, 2016, three days after the presidential election was held.”

March 10, 2017: Stone post Corsi relies on to describes his DMs with Guccifer 2.0

July 13, 2018: WaPo story on Stone and the GRU indictment

July 15, 2018: NYT story on GRU indictment

August 28, 2018: Corsi subpoena

As I disclosed last July, I provided information to the FBI on issues related to the Mueller investigation, so I’m going to include disclosure statements on Mueller investigation posts from here on out. I will include the disclosure whether or not the stuff I shared with the FBI pertains to the subject of the post. 

44 replies
  1. P J Evans says:

    Ah, the kind of book where, when it shows up in a library book sale, you wonder if it goes under “fiction” or “biography” (Dewey 900-something).

  2. bmaz says:

    Even knowing it might be a tad chillier there than here, I was on my way to visit before I learned you had this kind of screed in yer house.

  3. punaise says:

    “Hello, I’m Mr. Ted’s”
    Corsi’s a horse, of course, of course,
    And no one can talk to a horse of course
    That is, of course, unless it’s the horse of the infamous Mr. Ted.
    Go right to the source and ask the Corsi
    He’ll give you the answers, full of hypocrisy
    He’s always on a steady course.
    Talk to Mr. Ted’s horse.
    People yakkity yak at a steak house waste your time of day
    But Mister Ted’s will never speak unless he has something to say.
    Corsi’s a horse, of course, of course,
    And this one’ll talk ’til his voice is hoarse.
    You never heard of a talking horse?
    Well listen to this.
    I am Mister Ted’s.

  4. Frank Probst says:

    What are the odds that Corsi is still in legal jeopardy at this point? He’s a “hanging thread” in the Mueller investigation right now, and I don’t count the draft plea deal as anything that would follow Mueller’s “talking indictments” methods. For a while, I was thinking that Corsi had skated, but that was before the FBI scooped up a load of Stone’s devices when they arrested him, and then Andrew Miller’s attempt to get his subpoena withdrawn/quashed/whatever failed. Now I think Mueller is still going to tie up a bunch of Stone leads after he sees what’s in the latest trove in seized info yields, and Corsi would fall into that basket. Thoughts?

    • emptywheel says:

      I think that’s likely. I still don’t rule out Corsi having fucked up the case in chief in some way, though. But they sort of have to prosecute him if they can.

  5. earlofhuntingdon says:

    I’m not “a human tape recorder,” could not sound more evasive and defensive to a federal investigator. It also suggests the question found a sweet spot on the racket.

    For a guy with a PhD from the U of M campus on the Charles River, he’s not very smart.

  6. Ty Barto says:

    So let me see if i got it.
    In Feb 16 Stone, Corsi meet to introduce Ted M. who thinks he might get a Trump job but ends up in the thick of Wikileaks scandal?

    The Russian spy GRU/Gucifer 2.0 delivers some of the hacked goods to The Hill in mid July 16 but the rest go to Wikileaks?

    Stone and Corsi email about Wikileaks continually during the campaign. Corsi being the one that seems to get the info from Wikileaks from maybe Ted M. but anyway Corsi has the details before Stone?

    Wikileaks release plan seems to be of interest but also the idea that The Hill reporters would not be able to work beyond the reach of USA law as Assange is. The combination of a place like The Hill likely publishing all the content they wanted when they got it and you know if it was proved to have been provided by Russian spies, that would have mattered to those journalists. what is Wikileaks legal status as a publisher when the content is from spies manipulating our election?

  7. Frank Probst says:


    I can’t figure him out, tbh. I have the same issues with Roger Stone and Carter Page. I can’t tell how much of what I’m seeing is a media persona versus how much is real. Corsi seems like the nuttiest of the three, but he’s been part of Swift Boat, Obama’s birth certificate, and now this, so he’s got a pretty good track record of being involved in conspiracy theories that end up being believed by enough people to cause a lot of trouble. You could dismiss this as just being a result of the sheer amount of bullshit that pours out of him, but I think he’s a lot slyer than he initially seems.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      I suspect Corsi is smart, tenacious, about as outrageous as Stone, deeply committed to conservative causes and as deeply anti-democratic.  I think he enjoys the drama, and the guerilla tactics.  He also seems to be a human whack-a-mole: press him here, he pops up there, oily as ever.

      He’s nobody’s fool, but he always acts like one.  Like Trump, though, he’s not quite sure of himself.  If he were, he would prance less about having his Harvard PhD.

      • Wajim says:

        “. . . Prance less . . .” Spot on there, earl.  A serious tell.  I take it you’ve been around a block or two.

  8. Ben says:

    What do you make of Corsi’s phone log on October 7, 2016 — in which had three back-to-back 20-minute calls: (1) Roger Stone (2) “Total Bank Solutions” (3) Roger Stone — as discussed by Andrew Prokop (Vox) two days ago:

    Corsi claims the Total Bank Solutions call was with Dennis Santiago, about whom, at another point in the book, he says: “showed a keen interest in Assange” in “meetings with [conservative reporter Thomas] Lipscomb and me.”

  9. anaphoristand says:

    EW, thanks for linking to your previous Guccifer piece. I must have missed it when it was first posted, but its operating theory has long seemed the most likely explanation to me for the otherwise bizarre Stone obstruction campaign. With Assange/Wikileaks as the source of the emails there’s still the vestige of the radical transparency org to offer some plausible deniability, and thus the paranoia with which Stone approached covering his tracks would seem wholly disproportionate to his likely legal exposure. However, if Stone acquired them from Guccifer, who he either at the time or later learned to be a GRU cutout (and upon learning this, still reported nothing to the FBI), his and Corsi’s subsequent behavior makes a lot more sense.

  10. punaise says:

    @ Wajim and VG (welcome back!) above:

    It’s more of an affliction, odd things rattling around the old (but not retired) noggin. Not *yet* actionable by any authorities…

  11. Eureka says:

    Thank you for this public service.  It sounds like you’re gonna have to rinse out your brain with some good beer when this is all done.

    I always think of these characters in terms of the reveals in your (bi/tri-phasic) Joule attack posts, about which I natter on periodically- I think they are some of your most important reporting on this conspiracy.
    From them, I thought Stone specifically brought Manafort on board to try to get an advantage or better wedge into the RU hacks game (and for some of the same reasons, those posts impact my view of the later Manafort extraction for Bannon).  So it stands out where you cited Corsi as crediting Stone with getting Manafort hired. 

    Not having read the book, I don’t know if the context renders this plausible (but it’s Corsi, so that probably doesn’t matter), but re:  the bizarre Stone Mule story, is Corsi possibly substituting words/acts for a story instead about Stone *suggesting-directing* Guccifer 2.0 to get (e.g.) the analytics data (and get them to WikiLeaks)?  Ie not a literal transmission of hacks from “Gu” to WL via Stone but a verbal/written facilitation of data from RU to WL via Stone?

    • Rayne says:

      In re: Stone getting Manafort hired — I can’t help wonder why Corey Lewandowski was ever with the campaign. On the face of it Corey getting canned and replaced by Manafort looks like payback for Corey’s apparent deep-sixing of Stone which is what Corey wants people to think happened in 2015.

      And now that I’ve written that golf piece today and wondered at the manner in which Trump acquired the property for his first golf course in Palm Beach County, the exit of Lewandowski from the Trump campaign looks iffy as why he was there at all.

      • Eureka says:

        I haven’t spent lots of time thinking about Lewandowski, so my immediate reaction is colored by my pet notions as to what may have been going on.  Looking at the wiki, he is hooked up with Boisse now–  and Boisse is who introduced Bannon to Trump in 2011, and then Boisse came into the campaign as ‘deputy campaign manager’ Sept 2016 on the heels of Bannon/Conway mid-August.

        Even more oddly, Boisse and Lewandowski co-wrote some Dec. 2017 book about their experiences on the campaign.  Hrmm… at widely disparate times.

        Anyway, my gut reaction after all this is that Lewandowski was supposed to keep Trump tamped down and run a legit (sic, lol) campaign while Mercers/ Bannon/ Cruz had the possible RU access (and at least an attack prepared on HRC’s camp. mgr’s RU ties) and then-most legit path to nom.  Then Stone fought to get Manafort in because he knew of or suspected what ‘access’ Trump might be missing out on.  Jump forward post-convention, no more chance for Cruz even with delegate gaming, and Bannon/Mercers (have to) get on board with Trump, the Manafort drama has to go…

        Those links have lots of interest value- the interview has lots of snippets that jumped at me.  Trump and Stone’s convos in Lewandowski’s presence having been ~ ‘limited in scope’ or however it was put repeatedly, plus this, HAHAHA:

        LEWANDOWSKI: Look, he wasn’t doing anything on the campaign. He was living in Florida, you know, doing, you know — I don’t know what he was doing, to be honest with you, but he had no value, and so I didn’t want to pay somebody for not doing anything.

        Also having read your post, I’m glad you reminded of the Lewandowski incident having been in that jurisdiction.  Maybe a no-charges parting gift?

        • Eureka says:

          The only other off-the-bat thought I had re Lewandowski after reading the wiki re his history pre-Trump:  there seems to have been “sleeper Trumps” all over various localities before Trump’s campaign.  Disruptive chaos agent types.  So maybe that was his value, a value which also seems Bannon-inspired.  One relevant wiki snippet that made me think of him like these folks:

          In 2012, while still working for Americans for Prosperity, Lewandowski unsuccessfully ran for town treasurer of Windham, New Hampshire. NPR reported that during the campaign, Lewandowski “upended the town’s politics, using public records laws to probe local government and launching robocalls targeted at voters to stoke outrage over a visit to the town by President Obama.”[11] Robert Skinner defeated Lewandowski, receiving 1,941 votes to Lewandowski’s 714.[27]
          (internal links removed)

          ADD: but sometimes they do win and are very disruptive to local government.

        • Eureka says:

          *better, “parting-gift”

          Also I have to add this from Rayne’s link as well because it’s amusing, imagining the job of handling Trump post-Stone convos.  Lewandowski talking about Stone says:

          LEWANDOWSKI: Who makes up these crazy ideas, says crazy things, only to recants them or say that he didn’t actually do what he said he did. And so people like that I didn’t think were helpful on the campaign. And so, you know, I didn’t enjoy when Roger was calling.

          (emphasis added)

          Doesn’t sound like-  on the whole-  those Stone-Trump calls were “limited in scope.”  They all deserve each other.

        • Zinsky says:

          David Bossie is almost as vile of a human being as Roger Stone.  He certainly has done lasting damage to our democracy like Stone.  He was the architect of or deeply involved with many of the Bill and Hillary Clinton fairy tales that Republicans find so endearing and irresistible and which persist to this day.  In fact, the sham front organization, Citizens United, was created as a vehicle for creating, spreading and cultivating many of the right-wing’s greatest Clinton myths like:  (1) Vince Foster was killed by Hillary Clinton after a lovers spat [she was in Japan when he committed suicide]  (2)  The Clintons somehow made money off their investment in the Whitewater real estate deal (they actually lost $68,000] and  (3) Clintons ran some sort of drug smuggling operation out of tiny Mena, Arkansas [no drugs, money or any other legitimate evidence of smuggling was ever found].  Bossie of course somehow wrangled and exploited the conservatively biased judicial system to get the SCOTUS to enshrine money as speech and corporations as people and America is going to suffer mightily as a result.

            • Zinsky says:

              At least one, PJ.  Corsi is a prolific confabulist.  Refer to Joe Conanson’s excellent book, The Hunting of the President, for more on Bossie, Citizens United, David Hale and other nefarious worms on The Arkansas Project, funded in large part by Richard Mellon Scaife.

        • Rayne says:

          A no-charges parting gift, or a staged exit? It seems rather convenient looking back that a Breitbart reporter was the person he grabbed in that particular county.

          The strap on my tinfoil hat needs to be tightened, I’m sure, but…?

          • Eureka says:

            Lol Rayne, that’s why I came back and added ~eyebrow quotes to *”parting gift.”  Plenty of potential options, including that Cory’s hot-head reputation (as indicated by the wiki, as seen on tv, etc) was exploited by ratfuckers who set up both CL and perhaps ‘encouraged’ an otherwise unwitting reporter.  Lots of players involved there, and lots of options for different combinations of witting/unwitting players.  It sounds like you are looking at the ‘all in’ (on it) option.  I’d have to look back at tapes/write-ups to have more of an opinion.  But given ratfucker history and documented CL/Stone antipathy (i.e. CL’s own words, at least) and the possibility that Stone wanted CL out (and Manafort in), I’d save the foil for reheating some leftovers.

            • Rayne says:

              Lewandowski’s career after his exit has been so spotty it’s as if there’d been a right-wing burn notice of sorts put out on him. Granted he’s quite good at shooting himself in the foot but he hasn’t landed in a steady gig; nobody’s giving him conservative welfare to reward him or to shush him up. My tinfoil keeps slipping, I may have to upgrade to the heavy duty stuff.

  12. I Never Lie and am Always Right says:

    Punaise- always trying to stirrup trouble.

    Someone from a French island might call this book Corsi-caca.

  13. AnotherKevin says:

    Related to the idea that Corsi is busy spinning a version of this sordid business that roughly fits with what he believes Mueller has, but which also undermines the case in chief, what do you think of the supposed Corse/Stone “vicious feud”?

    My immediate gut reaction to hearing these guys turn on each other was that it was more shenanigans, meant to give credence to Corsi’s BS by making it appear he was telling the truth to get back at his new “enemy.” I get queasy when I read too much about these guys, so I may be missing the real story here, but it seems like theater, aimed at the gullible press (and at allowing them to communicate and get their stories in sync).

    BTW, I’m very happy to read above that charges against Corsi are still likely. Thanks for reading though and analyzing his “tell all” book.

  14. Semanticleo says:

    The Culture of Rat-Fuckers is prevarication and rooting out compulsive liars gets complicated when the habit is so ingrained they do it when unnecessary.  But the patience is paying off in the Long Haul.  The Long Haul was never possible before the advent of Trump with his concentrated arrogance, but we’ve finally reached the Apex of tolerance for white-collar thugs.

  15. CaliLawyer says:

    Did Corsi’s book, either version, address his failed plea? The claim that Manafort fed campaign data to Kilimnik intrigues me because that data would seem to have more utility for the IRA than the GRU, his old home. If so, it suggests to me that the Russian campaign coordinated at a high level, contrary to some speculation that it was more of a “throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks” operation.

Comments are closed.