Is Mullers evidence “The fruit of a poisonous tree “?

Haven’t heard much about this anywhere. It might not be anything but it certainly should be up for discussion.

“The fruit of a poisonous tree” refers to illegally obtained evidence that may not be admissible in court. If the FISA warrants that initiated the Russian probe were in fact illegal.

It could very well make all evidence any way linked to that abuse of power inadmissible.

Especially with premeditated malice.

I found a good example that is case law going back to 1934.

We are called upon for the second time to review affirmance by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of petitioners' convictions under an indictment for frauds on the revenue. In Nardone v. United States, 302 U.S. 379 , 58 S.Ct. 275, this Court reversed the convictions on the first trial because they were procured by evidence secured in violation of 605 of the Communications Act of 1934, c. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, 1103; 47 U.S.C., 605, 47 U.S.C.A. 605. For details of the facts reference is made to that case. Suffice it here to say that this evidence consisted of intercepted telephone messages, constituting 'a vital part of the prosecution's proof'.

Snip

This Court found that the logically relevant proof which Congress had outlawed, it outlawed because 'inconsistent with ethical standards and destructive of personal liberty.' 302 U.S. 379, 384 , 58 S.Ct. 275, 277. To forbid the direct use of methods thus characterized but to put no curb on their full indirect use would only invite the very methods deemed 'inconsistent with ethical standards and destructive of personal liberty.' What was said in a different context in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 , 40 S.Ct. 182, 183, 24 A.L.R. 1426, is pertinent here: 'The essence of a pro- [308 U.S. 338, 341]   vision forbidding the acquisition of evidence in a certain way is that not merely evidence so acquired shall not be used before the Court but that it shall not be used at all.' See Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 307 , 41 S.Ct. 261, 264. A decent respect for the policy of Congress must save us from imputing to it a self-defeating, if not disingenuous purpose.
Here, as in the Silverthorne case, the facts improperly obtained do not 'become sacred and inaccessible. If knowledge of them is gained from an independent source they may be proved like any others, but the knowledge gained by the Government's own wrong cannot be used by it' simply because it is used derivatively. 251 U.S. 385, 392 , 40 S.Ct. 182, 183, 24 A.L.R. 1426

Snip

Since the Circuit Court of Appeals did [308 U.S. 338, 343]   not question its timeliness, we shall not. And the hostility of the trial court to the whole scope of the inquiry reflected his own accord with the rule of law by which the Circuit Court of Appeals sustained him, and which we find erroneous.
The judgment must be reversed and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
REVERSED.

Link

There are exceptions to the supreme courts findings.

The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions.[citation needed] The tainted evidence is admissible if:
1. it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source; or
2. it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
3. the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
4. the search warrant was not found to be valid based on probable cause, but was executed by government agents in good faith (called the good-faith exception).

Link

1: “ untainted evidence” The steele dossier was definitely tainted

2: they’ve never discovered anything on page or trump.

3: Attenuation is weakly connected. it was the basis for the investigation that seems like a direct link to me .

4: “Good Faith” lol

All this is up to a federal court judge to decide not me. I just wanted to give my thoughts and the reason I came to my opinion.

Trump is not going to court over this issue... so it doesn't matter.

a reply to: DanDanDat

I should’ve been clear.

My point was is it admissible in Congress if it violates the fourth amendment ?

I think not .

a reply to: Fallingdown

The impeachment process is political; they don't need proof to impeach a president or to remove him from office. They just need enough votes.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: Fallingdown

The impeachment process is political; they don't need proof to impeach a president or to remove him from office. They just need enough votes.

so then why hasnt the dem majority house begun?
are they afraid the people will see that they are going to attempt to overturn a duly elected president for no actual crime?

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: Fallingdown

The impeachment process is political; they don't need proof to impeach a president or to remove him from office. They just need enough votes.

That will NEVER happen.

Not a Trump fan, but even I know that he has done nothing to deserve that. Is he a good person? Probably not. But he has been good for the state of the country. No one can deny that. He can/will/should have a second term.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: Fallingdown

The impeachment process is political; they don't need proof to impeach a president or to remove him from office. They just need enough votes.

so then why hasnt the dem majority house begun?
are they afraid the people will see that they are going to attempt to overturn a duly elected president for no actual crime?

They are waiting for the optimal political moment.
It will probably happen closer to the 2020 election so Trump has difficulty campaigning.
The entire thing was political from the start - has nothing to do with any laws.

It's going to backfire, though.

a reply to: UKTruth

They are waiting for the optimal political moment. It will probably happen closer to the 2020 election so Trump has difficulty campaigning.

UH I doubt it.
The process is timely and they don't have the time as it is now.
IMO it was no more than bluster that has been easily seen through by the public.
Had mueller given ANY instance of a real crime it may be a different story.
Not many in the house will attempt impeachment against the decision of the sitting AG(who served previously as an AG).
To quote good ole pete "there is not there there".

a reply to: DanDanDat

It has to go in front of the judicial committee .

If they are political Supreme Court can overturn it .

How would you like to have your name on that footnote in history ?

The Democrats have been waiting for evidence or they would’ve already impeached Trump .

BTW

Impeachment can’t remove a president from office, conviction does .

First off,
Search for Aleksej Gubarev, XBT Holdings...known to have Russian spies using his network in continuity.

Secondly,
The Steele dossier is not what kick started the FBI's direct investigations, which began in July 2016.
search;
'Republicans and the Democrats on the House intelligence committee both say that information about George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, had prompted the FBI investigation in July 2016'

So in any case, the need to investigate was already there and a FISA would certainly be justified.

a reply to: smurfy

I said “if” the FISA warrants were illegal. There is some evidence the dossier was used . Along with claims that it was presented fraudulently and deceptively to the court .

But at this point neither of us know all the facts or what the investigation will show .

The dossier was allegedly used in October 2016 which could mean everything related from that point forward is tainted .

At no point in my OP was I referring to anything before that. I think it relies on how the instrument for the application was submitted and extended .

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: Fallingdown

The impeachment process is political; they don't need proof to impeach a president or to remove him from office. They just need enough votes.

That will NEVER happen.

Not a Trump fan, but even I know that he has done nothing to deserve that. Is he a good person? Probably not. But he has been good for the state of the country. No one can deny that. He can/will/should have a second term.

I've never expected this coming from you, wow, I am quite literally speechless.

a reply to: smurfy

The Steele dossier is not what kick started the FBI's direct investigations, which began in July 2016.

no
but it was added to information used to get a fisa warrant that had been twice previously denied
without the bs dossier there would be no fisa warrant

'Republicans and the Democrats on the House intelligence committee both say that information about George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, had prompted the FBI investigation in July 2016'

oh boy
so are you speaking of information given to pop by an agent and then retrieved from pop by an agent?
the fbi planted the info then extracted the same info from pop
then had the Australian ambassador rat him out

lol
no more than an op from the corrupt obama administration to spy on its political rivals

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: Fallingdown

The impeachment process is political; they don't need proof to impeach a president or to remove him from office. They just need enough votes.

That will NEVER happen.

Not a Trump fan, but even I know that he has done nothing to deserve that. Is he a good person? Probably not. But he has been good for the state of the country. No one can deny that. He can/will/should have a second term.

I've never expected this coming from you, wow, I am quite literally speechless.

as am I.

a reply to: Jefferton
I didn't expect that either.
Your brain out weighed your anger

originally posted by: smurfy
First off,
Search for Aleksej Gubarev, XBT Holdings...known to have Russian spies using his network in continuity.

Secondly,
The Steele dossier is not what kick started the FBI's direct investigations, which began in July 2016.
search;
'Republicans and the Democrats on the House intelligence committee both say that information about George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, had prompted the FBI investigation in July 2016'

So in any case, the need to investigate was already there and a FISA would certainly be justified.

so the FBI planting that story in papadopolis ear before the investigation started wasnt a set up to even start a investigaion then?

a reply to: Fallingdown

Why do you want evidence to be inadmissable?

So people can get away with stuff?

a reply to: Sillyolme

Do you want prosecutors to have free reign to prosecute criminals or innocent people with illegally obtained information ?

Are you OK with abolishing the fourth amendment ?

Would you like it if a cop could just kick down your door for any reason ?

How about if the police could access all of your financial data on a whim ?

If you want to keep your rights. You’ve got to protect them all the time .

Even when they don’t fit your narrative .

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: Fallingdown

The impeachment process is political; they don't need proof to impeach a president or to remove him from office. They just need enough votes.

Come on chicken Democrats, just do it!