It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 31 2019 @ 05:06 PM

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.

first they came for.......

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 05:09 PM
a reply to: Fallingdown

I get that you want illegally obtained evidence thrown out. It would be. If any good lawyer was on his game.

Never mind.... I was asking why everyone is so willing to look for a way to give him a pass.

The FISA warrant was legally obtained. Its been looked at over and over for inconsistencies in jurious prudence and I guess it is going to be looked at once again. Unless someone lies I do not think it is going to be any different this time.

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 05:15 PM
a reply to: DanDanDat
Impeachment of a president requires treason, bribery, or other high crime or misdemeanors. It is not political, it is a criminal charge. It is basically an indictment of the president.

A sitting president cannot be removed from office before the end of his term because people don't like him. This may be the case where you're from but in America it takes proof of a criminal act or a regularly scheduled vote every 4 years.

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 05:23 PM

originally posted by: Sillyolme

The FISA warrant was legally obtained.

Some FOIA releases say otherwise, and the IG Report (due soon) may determine all 4 FISA warrants were illegal.


posted on May, 31 2019 @ 05:24 PM
a reply to: DanDanDat

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.

To sell a book you’ve got to read some first . He cite’s former supreme court justices positions .

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.

I’ve heard the trumps an idiot crap on the news since he made the statement about the judicial review. But instead of believe it I researched it .


The supreme court has injected it self into political issues before. The presidents dates back to 1803 with their decision on Marbury v. Madison.

There’s other examples but I’ll give you the most recent one . It’s the 2000 presidential election between bush and gore. SCOTUS ruled and it was purely politics political .

So yes if the circumstances are right SCOTUS can interfere in the political realm .

I’ve been using words like may, could and might because I know I can’t read the future .

You’ve been using words like can’t , couldn’t and won’t .

Do you have any precident ?

Neither of us can be positive .

edit on 31-5-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 05:25 PM

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Fallingdown

The courts have no place in any impeachment proceedings. They cannot overturn anything.

The Supreme Court could for cause (or harm).

Like proven corruption and perjury during the Senate Trial 😎

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 05:54 PM
wait a minute, does Silly think the dossier is true? No one has asked her that at this point, we may have to take a few steps back first.

question, was the dossier used in conjuction with other information to get a FISA warrent.

if yes, it's tainted, unquestionably, becuase the dossier, in whole or in part, contains false information.

to obtain a FISA warrent, all information must be true, not some, but all "i guess it is",or " I think it is" is not how it works in Pro Se hearings (pro se being the prosecution's side but not the defendants side, or one sided).

So yeah, if the dossier was used the warrent is invalid, no warrant no legal basis for surveillance ( which is the defintion of Spying, hmm?)

which would invalidate the 22 month investigation, which would nullify the indictments of cohen, manfort, flynn, ect.

So yeah, there is more at stake then "OMB OMB"

and silly how would you like ME recording your phone conversations and web surfing, bet that would scare the crap outta ya huh? so yea, poisin fruit from a tainted tree affects ALL of us

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 06:19 PM

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.

As far as I know, the Carter Page FISA warrant is the only one that has been released publicly, so it's the only one we can really comment on. First, it is clearly stated on page 2 of the document that the basis for requesting the warrant is information that was given to the FBI by the State Department in October, 2016. The next sentence in the document which presumably describes exactly what that information was, is redacted and still classified. In discussing why they think Page was acting as a foreign agent, they use a variety of open source, non-classified sources to justify their belief. That includes news reports both broadcast and printed that placed Page in Moscow in July, 2016 where was an invited speaker at a conference the Russians hosted. The FISA warrant request also made reference to allegations that Steele made about two Russians Page met with secretly while he was at that conference. So that's the extent to which Steele's information was used in the Carter Page FISA warrant.

Second, the Carter Page FISA application was also clearly stated as being for a counterintelligence, not a criminal, investigation. That means there was no particular expectation that any information that they turned up would be used against him in court. And, in fact, no criminal charges were ever brought against Page as a result of the FISA warrant, so the whole "fruit of a poisonous tree" argument is moot in his case.

Finally, there's no evidence the "Russian Probe" was started by FISA-obtained information of any kind. Comey started Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016, just a few days after the Australian government notified the US government that George Papadopolous had met with Russian agents back in April of that year. Even Devin Nunes' own staff agreed that Crossfire Hurricane was triggered by the Papadopolous information.

Then CIA director John Brennan testified to Congress that, starting in late July, he began sharing classified information with the FBI that amounted to leads on contacts between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign. Presumably, that information came from intercepted communications and human sources within the Intelligence Community (IC).

I think it's pretty clear that the US IC began intercepting communications between the Russians and members of the Trump campaign beginning in late 2015 or early 2016, following tips given to them by the intelligence services of friendly countries. By July of 2016, shortly after Trump became the Republican nominee, the counterintelligence function in the US IC decided it had to get very serious about figuring out the extent to which the Russians had penetrated the Trump team, since they might end up in the White House. FISA warrants came after that.

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 06:23 PM
a reply to: Fallingdown

Yes. Yes it is.

That's why I am encouraging the evil leftists to go forward with impeachment. I want their hypocrisy to be open to the world.

This was a witch hunt after an attempted coup.

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 06:28 PM
a reply to: 1947boomer

They had it all figured out and "Timed" well in advance didn't they 😎

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 07:01 PM
a reply to: 1947boomer

you are correct in your assesment but are a slight bit lacking as to details.

who started crossfire hurricane?

and as to the FISA documents, how were they signed?? in what order?

I think crossfire hurricane was stated by strzok

who is Misfud, where is Misfud?

Nothing you said was wrong, but it was incomplete

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 07:51 PM
a reply to: 1947boomer

First Carter Page had been under continual surveillance since 2013. With redaction‘s come assumptions so I’m going to make one too . The October warrant could have referenced when the Russians tried to recruit him in 2013. Which was omitted from the FISA warrant . If that’s true withholding evidence when applying before the court is illegal .

Which makes sense as to why they referenced steele’s allegations instead of the earlier investigation in which they found nothing .

Second : It may have started as a counter intelligence investigation into Russia. But it ended up a criminal case and the chain of evidence is subject criminal law . It might be admissible if it was obtained in good faith . With the evidence out so far no one can make a decision on that. So it’s hardly a moot point .

Did you read in the OP where the supreme court ruled. Not only is illegally obtained evidence inadmissible it shouldn’t be used in investigations either .

Finally: As for Papadopoulos the Australian diplomat said papadopoulos made no specific claims of Russian collusion .

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.

Words of a drunk guy in a bar.

That’s pretty flimsy evidence by itself for starting an international espionage investigation into a presidential candidate.

But that’s not germane to this thread. I’m talking about the Carter Page warrant not the beginning of crossfire hurricane .

I don’t believe a word Brennan says. He lied about the steele dossier. Why do you think he lied and what else could they be withholding ?

We haven’t seen any evidence and God knows what is redacted .

But my question in the OP is, was the FISA WARRANT illegal ? Was evidence withheld ? Why was evidence given as truthful even partially from a document Comey knew wasn’t verified ? For me that all adds up to intent .?

If the judge looks at that rules The evidence was illegally obtained and presented with deception . I could be stricken from the record .

Again everyone seems to want to render a verdict. I’ve tried not to make any such claim because we don’t have the evidence.

But it’s hardly a “Moot”. ( that kind of ticked me off ) lol

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 08:00 PM

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Trump is not going to court over this issue... so it doesn't matter.

This can’t be stressed enough.

This whole fake, contrived, totally fabricated issue is over. It was always over before it even began.
Like the Kavanaugh accusations, one hundred percent fake.

The only true certainty is: Trump is getting a second term.

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 08:07 PM
a reply to: DBCowboy

Impeachment is a gimme as far as I see. But it’s going to end up being a win for Trump if the evidence is admissible or not .

But a ruling on a illegal chain of evidence could prove that the beginning of the investigation was with malice.

None of those people want to go to jail.

As the investigation on a whole continues. DC is going to be a paradise for ornithologists because of all the birds singing .

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 08:31 PM
a reply to: Fallingdown

breaking tonight...evidence of Mueller manipulating the Flynn transcript when writing the Mueller Report. He removed parts.

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 09:13 PM
a reply to: SouthernForkway26

Yes he can

posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 01:22 AM
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?

posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 10:38 PM

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?

Why? Because our justice system says you are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt,and breaking rules is wrong.

posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 11:13 PM
a reply to: yuppa

Sounds to me like the OP is trying to get ahead of the curve by dismissing possible evidence of a crime based on a technicality. If trump committed a crime then what does it matter if the evidence was obtained illegally? Is someone no longer guilty of a crime just because the evidence of the crime was obtained illegally?
edit on 1-6-2019 by Shadowbanned because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 11:18 PM
a reply to: Shadowbanned

Or if you were charged with possession of a narcotic and your coming into possession was that the police officer planted it on you and you happen to have video footage proving it was planted...your charges of possession, despite actually possessing (planted) evidence, would be dropped. Because planting evidence to find is illegal.

In this case finding evidence when you legally shouldn’t be searching, means they get off.

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in