It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Fallingdown
If Trump was wire tapping your phone and recording all of your online activity for prosecution.
I am not in charge of running the country nor am I in charge of national security. There is no reason for anyone to tap my phone.
Dershowit cites in his book two former Supreme Court justices — Byron White and David Souter — as suggesting there may be room for court oversight of impeachment decisions.
Two former, well-respected justices of the Supreme Court first suggested that the judiciary may indeed have a role in reining in Congress were it to exceed its constitutional authority. Justice Byron White, a John F. Kennedy appointee, put it this way:
"Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibility because the Senate has precipitated a crisis.
Justice David Souter, a George H. W. Bush-appointee, echoed his predecessor: "If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results ... judicial interference might well be appropriate."
It is not too much of a stretch from the kind of constitutional crises imagined by these learned justices to a crisis caused by a Congress that impeached a president without evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The president is not above the law, but neither is Congress, whose members take an oath to support, not subvert, the Constitution. And that Constitution does not authorize impeachment for anything short of high crimes and misdemeanors.
originally posted by: Fallingdown
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.
There was no suggestion — [neither] from Papadopoulos nor in the record of the meeting that we sent back to Canberra — there was no suggestion that there was collusion between Donald Trump or Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russians,” Downer said.
“All we did is report what Papadopoulos said, and that was that he thought that the Russians may release information, might release information, that could be damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign at some stage before the election,” he continued.
originally posted by: DanDanDat
Trump is not going to court over this issue... so it doesn't matter.
originally posted by: Shadowbanned
So basically we're looking for a way to dismiss any evidence that may incriminate Trump by undermining the methods used to obtain such information in advance? If the evidence shows Trump is guilty of something then why would we ignore the information just because it was obtained illegally?