So This Is Mueller's Case??

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. That sounds pretty Biblical. I know thats Trumps 2nd favorite book. Shame him and the Evangelicals are going to Hell Originally Posted by themystic

It's a legal term meaning Mueller's cases are shit.

It's a legal term meaning Mueller's cases are shit. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So what was been proven illegal about the case so far? Why all the guilty pleas from these innocent people? I said proven, not mindless dribble and speculation on your part. Everyone knows you dont know your stuff so its ok if you cant provide factual information. Im simply giving you the opportunity to do so

So what was been proven illegal about the case so far? Why all the guilty pleas from these innocent people? I said proven, not mindless dribble and speculation on your part. Everyone knows you dont know your stuff so its ok if you cant provide factual information. Im simply giving you the opportunity to do so Originally Posted by themystic

Already been spelled out for you, but since you haven't grasped the fundamental facts as yet, let's repeat: McCabe testified under oath that the Steele dossier was absolutely necessary to secure the FISA warrants. Comey testified under oath that the Steele dossier was never corroborated as required by the FBI's own "Wood's Procedures". Comey's recently released emails reveal that he and his compadres knew the substance of the Steele dossier was questionable and that they knew that Steele was in contact with Isikoff at Yahoo News when Comey, et al, used Isikoff's article -- circular reporting in violation of U.S. laws and regulations -- to secure FISA warrants. Mueller's indictments are based on fruit of the poisonous tree.

It's a legal term meaning Mueller's cases are shit. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Tell that to the one's going to jail or have flipped on Trump!

Tell that to the one's going to jail or have flipped on Trump! Originally Posted by WTF

I'll let the new AG tell them after the new AG exposes the fraudulent origins of the FISA warrants Mueller is hanging his hat on.

Pointing out substantive facts that are destined to torpedo Mueller's nonsense is "whining". Who is "Muller"? You didn't answer the question. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yes I did must have gone over your head. More like alternative facts.

Yes I did must have gone over your head. More like alternative facts. Originally Posted by bamscram

So, you specialize in pitching alternative facts? But that doesn't change the fact that Mueller is hanging his hat on fruit of the poisonous tree. BTW, who is "Muller"?

Mueller's indictments are based on fruit of the poisonous tree. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

A point i've tried to make several times to others i game with. When the FBI has admitted that they LIED to the court to get said warrants, that then SHOULD MEAN every indictment they've garnered based OFF those warrants should be voided..

A point i've tried to make several times to others i game with. When the FBI has admitted that they LIED to the court to get said warrants, that then SHOULD MEAN every indictment they've garnered based OFF those warrants should be voided.. Originally Posted by garhkal

.

Mueller’s Fruit of the Poisonous Tree It makes no difference how honorable he is. His investigation is tainted by the bias that attended its origin in 2016.
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation may face a serious legal obstacle: It is tainted by antecedent political bias. The June 14 report from Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, unearthed a pattern of anti-Trump bias by high-ranking officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Some of their communications, the report says, were “not only indicative of a biased state of mind but imply a willingness to take action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.” ...

Crossfire was launched only months before the 2016 election. Its FBI progenitors—the same ones who had investigated Mrs. Clinton—deployed at least one informant to probe Trump campaign advisers, obtained Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court wiretap warrants, issued national security letters to gather records, and unmasked the identities of campaign officials who were surveilled. They also repeatedly leaked investigative information.

Mr. Horowitz is separately scrutinizing Crossfire and isn’t expected to finish for months. But the current report reveals that FBI officials displayed not merely an appearance of bias against Donald Trump, but animus bordering on hatred. Peter Strzok, who led both the Clinton and Trump investigations, confidently assuaged a colleague’s fear that Mr. Trump would become president: “No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” An unnamed FBI lawyer assigned to Crossfire told a colleague he was “devastated” and “numb” after Mr. Trump won, while declaring to another FBI attorney: “Viva le resistance.”

The report highlights the FBI’s failure to act promptly upon discovering that Anthony Weiner’s laptop contained thousands of Mrs. Clinton’s emails. Investigators justified the delay by citing the “higher priority” of Crossfire. But Mr. Horowitz writes: “We did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on [the] investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.”

Similarly, although Mr. Horowitz found ... Mr. Comey did make decisions based on political considerations. He told the inspector general that his election-eve decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation was motivated by a desire to protect her assumed presidency’s legitimacy....

... if Crossfire was politically motivated, then its culmination, the appointment of a special counsel, inherited the taint. All special-counsel activities—investigations, plea deals, subpoenas, reports, indictments and convictions—are fruit of a poisonous tree, byproducts of a violation of due process. That Mr. Mueller and his staff had nothing to do with Crossfire’s origin offers no cure.

When the government deprives a person of life, liberty or property, it is required to use fundamentally fair processes. The Supreme Court has made clear that when governmental action “shocks the conscience,” it violates due process. Such conduct includes investigative or prosecutorial efforts that appear, under the totality of the circumstances, to be motivated by corruption, bias or entrapment....

The totality of the circumstances creates the appearance that Crossfire was politically motivated. Since an attempt by federal law enforcement to influence a presidential election “shocks the conscience,” any prosecutorial effort derived from such an outrageous abuse of power must be suppressed... But given what is now known, due process demands, at a minimum, that the special counsel’s activity be paused. Those affected by Mr. Mueller’s investigation could litigate such an argument in court.

(WSJ)

Mueller's Investigation Is Hopelessly Compromised.

In a courtroom, the fruit of a poisonous tree is tossed out....

This is not the slow unfolding of justice but scenes from a show trial, one in which the only serious crimes are committed by abusive prosecutors and investigators, so intoxicated by their own political self-righteousness that they can brag to their paramours about the “fix” on Trump.

(The Spectator)

Mueller Investigation: Illegal 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree'

By Lynne

Over the past year the United States and, secondarily, the rest of the world, have been bombarded with the Democratic Party’s take on “Russia collusion.” Democrats have persistently declared that President Donald J. Tramp’s political ascendancy signals Armageddon. The insults started with the snarky “he’s not one of us,” to myriad accusations of anti-Semitism, racism, serial sexual harassment, xenophobia, vulgar speech, facilitation of white supremacists and violence, a crashed economy, and soured foreign relations. When none of these accusations stuck, they settled on an unrelenting, unsubstantiated drumbeat of claims that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to affect the outcome of the presidential election.

At last, the truth regarding these false accusations has been uncovered. The declassified House memo has revealed the perfidy of the Democrats’ ‘accusations against Trump, and the illegality of the Special Counsel and his investigation.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States’ Constitution provides that:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularity describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be searched.”

From that principle, United States criminal law has evolved to provide a balancing act between the rights of the individual against unlawful privacy invasion, and the rights of the “State” to apprehend and prosecute lawbreakers. Myriad laws exist to protect the individual from illegal searches and seizure, while providing authorities a roadmap that ensures due process is effectuated.

Also, it is imperative to note that every attorney is required to take a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, before being allowed to practice law. Attorneys working in governmental judicial offices are required to take an expanded, special oath. It is incumbent upon every attorney to uphold their oath and not perpetrate a fraud on the court.

Regardless of court, state or federal, the same principles apply: a warrant application must be signed by an authorized agency, that states with specificity the person to be searched or wiretapped, the alleged crime, and the exact location of the search or wiretap. Any exculpatory evidence, that which exists to exonerate the target of the warrant, must be included. Moreover, every application must be accompanied with an affirmation that all the facts contained therein are true.

To further protect the individual against the overarching power of the State, certain “exclusionary” rules prohibit the State from using evidence that is obtained, illegally. One such doctrine is known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” established in the Supreme Court case Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States. (The phrase itself was first used by Justice Felix Frankfurter in Nardone v. United States.)

Essentially, this doctrine provides that if the State obtains evidence from an illegal source (the poisonous tree), that evidence is tainted. Accordingly, any tainted evidence (fruit) is also poisonous and may not be admitted into any court proceeding...

The FISA Court was not created to spy on United States presidential candidates.

However, during the presidential campaign of 2016-2017, the FBI filed a warrant with the FISA court based on a dossier paid for by the Democratic National Party (DNC) and then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The warrant did not specify the genesis of the report. Instead, it cited as a secondary source a Yahoo news article, based on information provided by the same, uber-biased author of the dossier Because the warrants are only valid for ninety days, the warrant was signed and submitted by the FBI six times! And, for six times, they were signed by attorneys who had sworn an oath to act with fidelity to the courts. It appears that without the now-disabused dossier as supporting evidence, the FISA Court would never have signed the warrants -- thus the warrants were poisonous trees....

Instead of a neutral investigation into whether Trump colluded with Russia to win the presidential election, Mueller stacked his team with partisan Democrats, negating even a whiff of impartiality.

Now that the credibility of the dossier that formed the basis of the FBI warrant application has been totally eviscerated, it epitomizes a poisonous tree. Clearly, under United States criminal law, the Mueller investigation is fruit of the poisonous tree and must be shut down....

(American Thinker)

He was investigating the NFL's handling of a domestic violence case

"In 2014 the National Football League (NFL) asked Mueller to investigate its much-criticized handling of a domestic abuse incident involving Ray Rice of the Baltimore Ravens. In the final report, he notably concluded that the NFL had not seen the surveillance-video footage of Rice punching his then fiancée prior to initially suspending him for only two games. However, Mueller did find that the league had failed to thoroughly investigate the incident."


His entire career has been exceptional, in both public and private capacity.

Ken Starr completely supports Mueller. (Ken Starr by the why)
"Former independent counsel Ken Starr defended special counsel Robert Mueller on Monday amid President Trump's attacks on the probe into Russia's election meddling.

"We have to do it. We have to hold the president accountable," Starr told Hill.TV's Buck Sexton and Krystal Ball on "Rising," when asked about Mueller's probe.

"I've been harshly critical of the president for his criticisms in terms of the attorney general, as well as the Mueller probe," he said.

"I have criticized or expressed concerns about some of the people around Bob Mueller, but I have very high confidence in Mueller himself," he continued."

What do you expect?

This was his last job before getting on the government tit: A Domestic Violence Case!!!



Ken Star is even criticizing him for his lameass "investigation"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'll let the new AG tell them after the new AG exposes the fraudulent origins of the FISA warrants Mueller is hanging his hat on. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yea yea yea....like when yall said Flynn was going to change his plea...never happened.

He was investigating the NFL's handling of a domestic violence case

"In 2014 the National Football League (NFL) asked Mueller to investigate its much-criticized handling of a domestic abuse incident involving Ray Rice of the Baltimore Ravens. In the final report, he notably concluded that the NFL had not seen the surveillance-video footage of Rice punching his then fiancée prior to initially suspending him for only two games. However, Mueller did find that the league had failed to thoroughly investigate the incident."


His entire career has been exceptional, in both public and private capacity.

Ken Starr completely supports Mueller. (Ken Starr by the why)
"Former independent counsel Ken Starr defended special counsel Robert Mueller on Monday amid President Trump's attacks on the probe into Russia's election meddling.

"We have to do it. We have to hold the president accountable," Starr told Hill.TV's Buck Sexton and Krystal Ball on "Rising," when asked about Mueller's probe.

"I've been harshly critical of the president for his criticisms in terms of the attorney general, as well as the Mueller probe," he said.

"I have criticized or expressed concerns about some of the people around Bob Mueller, but I have very high confidence in Mueller himself," he continued."


Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

I agree, we do have to hold the President accountable.

But first, the President has to do something to be held accountable for.

As it stands, the only thing this special prosecutor has that he can hold President Trump accountable for is getting more Electoral Votes than Hillary Clinton.

Yea yea yea....like when yall said Flynn was going to change his plea...never happened. Originally Posted by WTF

Never said that, so you can stop saying that I did. My position was, and remains, Mueller's case against Flynn, et al, was fruit of the poisonous tree and that Flynn will eventually be exonerated.

https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=106...4&postcount=21

https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=106...&postcount=367

https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=106...&postcount=452

When President Trump is exonerated by the Special Council, he should then give a blanket pardon to everyone involved in the entire "Russian Collusion" fiasco.

I'm still waiting for the "Collusion" that could have well changed anything. Or is it still a "illusion