According to Fox News, and pursuant to Corsi’s complaint, “they wanted him to demonstrate that he acted as a liaison between Stone and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on one side and the Trump campaign on the other, regarding the release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee.” Furthermore, Corsi alleged that Robert Mueller’s office is “knowingly and deceitfully threatening” to charge him with providing a false statement unless he provides “false testimony” against Trump and others.
There is a major distinction between a case that relies on the word of less than credible witnesses (a weak case) and a case where the witnesses are allegedly told to lie or are blackmailed into testifying in a certain way. While prosecutors often make “deals” in criminal cases, Mueller’s alleged conduct, if true, is distinguishable because a prosecutor cannot knowingly support or encourage a witness to make false statements.
If Corsi’s allegations are true, there is no way to discern the veracity of anybody’s statements relating to the Mueller investigation, including Cohen’s most recent statements. To the contrary, all statements, including Mueller’s, should be viewed with the highest level of doubt. If this is the case, what basis if there to continue to investigate?
Ah, theres the rub. How do you prove it? Surely they put him in a closed room and made whatever threats in there, with nothing on the record. Unless Corsi wore a wire it's his word against theirs.
On the other hand, a guy like Corsi might actually wear a wire! Or rather bring a recorder and try to covertly record the meeting. But I can't imagine Mueller's team didn't check for that if they were going to be making threats and suborning perjury.