Jump to content

FUNNY thing about Muellers "evidence"... MUCH of it MAY have been gathered because of surveillance authorized using the FAKE Dossier... AND SO, may ALL be diallowed because it was gathered ILLEGALLY !!


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, untitled said:

Nothing to do with a dossier. FOX lied to you.

Sorry bitch, but if they used the dossier to get FISA warrants,  knowing the information was false,  the information they got from those wiretaps is not admissible, whether it lead to a crime or not. 

 

And Congress got access to the FBI documentation last week, so it won't be long before we know. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Golfboy said:

Sorry bitch, but if they used the dossier to get FISA warrants,  knowing the information was false,  the information they got from those wiretaps is not admissible, whether it lead to a crime or not. 

 

 

 

DON'T expect any of these shitstains to understand the "poison fruit" doctrine that is WELL ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dontlooknow said:

Till he shows a link i dont believe it. 

Till you show us what McDonald's you own that has 27,000 customers a day we don't believe you

 

dontlooknow

  •  
  • Senior Member
  • 53,708 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Missouri

Posted 22 April 2015 - 12:45 PM

Ive won a lot of awards at my mcdonalds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dontlooknow said:

Till he shows a link i dont believe it. 

 

WHO needs a LINK when the LAW IS CLEAR AS A BELL!!!

 

 

 

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is an evidentiary rule that, together with the exclusionary rule, gives the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution its teeth. Prior to 1914, warrantless and other shady searches conducted by law enforcement were quite common in America and were detrimental to those facing criminal charges from the evidence obtained during the searches.

However, in 1914, things changed. The United States Supreme Court took up the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S. Ct.341, 58 L. Ed. 652 (1914), wherein a warrantless search of a home belonging to a man named Fremont Weeks was searched and the evidence that was found was used to convict him of illegal gambling. The case wended its way to the land’s highest court, where ultimately the justices ruled that evidence obtained in this manner was not able to be used in court. The man had his conviction overturned and the exclusionary rule was introduced.

The exclusionary rule was the precursor to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. This legal metaphor regards tainted evidence (fruit) obtained through illegal searches or other police misconduct (the poisonous tree) as inadmissible in court. For example, you are driving and are stopped by police because you were speeding. You are clearly not impaired by drugs or alcohol, yet the police ask to search your vehicle. You politely refuse to grant consent, yet the search is done anyway and the police find a pound of marijuana in the trunk of your car. A good criminal defense attorney should be able to have your charges dismissed because the search itself was illegal.

This rule would also apply if, during questioning by police, a suspect asks for access to a lawyer but police ignore the request and keep questioning him or her. Hours later, under duress and tired from the interrogation, the suspect winds up confessing to robbing a bank. Such a confession is now tainted because the police failed to stop questioning the suspect after a request for an attorney was made. As with most rules, however, there are exceptions to this exclusion.

The Four Main Exemptions

  1. The evidence was found, at least in part, as a result of another untainted or independent source.
  2. Despite the tainted source, the evidence would inevitably have been discovered anyway.
  3. Attenuation exists between an illegal activity and its discovery by law enforcement.
  4. While the search warrant (or lack thereof) was not intrinsically valid, it was executed by agents of the government who were found to be acting in good faith.

As you can see, the rules regarding the admissibility of evidence in criminal cases are complex and subject to nuance and interpretation. Prosecutors will argue vociferously in court that the evidence should be introduced at trial, is not tainted and was legally obtained. A defendant without a criminal defense attorney in possession of a vast knowledge of evidentiary rules and exceptions is at a distinct disadvantage at trial. But hope is not lost if you are convicted on bad evidence, as this can be taken up on appeal with the conviction ultimately being overthrown by a higher court’s ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MidnightMax said:

 

DON'T expect any of these shitstains to understand the "poison fruit" doctrine that is WELL ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

 

 

 

Poor, poor Shitstain!

 

"It's fake it's fake  it's fake  it's fake  it's fake  it's fake  it's fake  it's fake  it's fake !'

 

"OK, so it's NOT fake but you can't use it you can't use it you can't use it you can't use it!!!!!!'

 

:D  :D  :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Z09 said:

Till you show us what McDonald's you own that has 27,000 customers a day we don't believe you

 

dontlooknow

  •  
  • Senior Member
  • 53,708 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Missouri

Posted 22 April 2015 - 12:45 PM

Ive won a lot of awards at my mcdonalds.

How is that billion dollar pizza coming along?:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, with exception to Papadopolis, all of the money laundering was known for years. A lot of it was discovered around the time Bush left office and Obama entered office. But somehow, it didn't matter to anyone in the FBI, the DOJ or to politicians until they could use the crimes as a political weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shintao said:

How is that billion dollar pizza coming along?:D

Yeah...

Remember when you claimed the minimum wage went up in your town to $15.00 an hour and now pizza's are like $40.00..

 

but nobody cares...They pay it....

You pay almost $40.00 for a pizza and you accept it?

 

 

 

shintao

 

LMAO!! I pay $37. for my pizzas, and $8. for my wings. I accept the prices, my pizza place is still hot in business & delivers to my doorstep.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dontlooknow said:

Lol lmao. Look at zo9 go. Lol

 

Yeah, shitstain MORON.

 

Sad that you are TOO FUCKING STUPID to realize just how much you have been PWNED by every right winger here!!!

 

And Z probably pulls your chain the hardest and mostest!!!

 

We get GREAT laughs just by coming here and watching your fucking moronic shitstained ass!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DemoMan said:

Crazy Russian whore - NOTHING in that dossier has been disproven.

NOTHING.


Choke on it.  :D

 

 

HA!!  EVERYONE associated with it are RUNNING from it... it is COMPLETELY UN-CORROBERATED...  THOSE kinds of allegations are not to be "disproven" (and putting the responsibility on Trump to disprove), but need to be PROVEN ( they NEED to be provided with EVIDENCE, WITNESSES, and SOURCES)... THIS piece of TRASH had NONE of that... and Hillary and the DNC are RUNNING AWAY from it...

 

NOT very re-assuring if I was in YOUR shoes !!

 

YOU CHOKE on IT !!  :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ConservativeWAVE said:

what part of th dossier has anything to do with the crimes many is charged with?  the talking point is that these were alleged offenses committed before he ever met trump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, harryramar said:

what part of th dossier has anything to do with the crimes many is charged with?  the talking point is that these were alleged offenses committed before he ever met trump

 

Nothing... however, IF the evidence was illegally obtained, the defense can LEGALLY, and APPROPRIATELY, ask that it be denied...  because If THEY (the Administration) had not BROKEN the law to obtain the evidence (which would have been surveillance and conversations that would not have been authorized otherwise), they would have no evidence... To do otherwise would be encouraging law enforcement to BREAK the law,

 

What's more, in THIS case, the Manifort indictment, and probably the Kelly indictment also, were BOTH based on evidence gathered in this way... ILLEGALLY... and NIETHER has ANYTHING to do with the REAL investigation... which was Trump collusion  !!

 

It's a HOUSE of CARDS !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dontlooknow said:

Attack mueller is the new fox news republican tactic. 

 

ONLY if it warranted... and since he  has been:

 

1)  A friend of James Comey

2)  Involved in the cover-up of the REAL Russian Collusion (Uranium One deal and investigation), and

3)  Director of the FBI during a period where inappropriate behavior by the FBI was condoned and encouraged...

 

I believe if it a FAIR criticism, and Mueller would do well to listen to the complaints... because this will ALL EXPLODE very soon !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ConservativeWAVE said:

 

ONLY if it warranted... and since he  has been:

 

1)  A friend of James Comey

2)  Involved in the cover-up of the REAL Russian Collusion (Uranium One deal and investigation), and

3)  Director of the FBI during a period where inappropriate behavior by the FBI was condoned and encouraged...

 

I believe if it a FAIR criticism, and Mueller would do well to listen to the complaints... because this will ALL EXPLODE very soon !!

 

Yeah, you're right

 

How are those Hillary indictment coming along?

Snicker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 5:23 PM, ConservativeWAVE said:

 

HA!!  EVERYONE associated with it are RUNNING from it...

 

no one is "running" from it, ScreamingWhore.

 

YOU:  it is COMPLETELY UN-CORROBERATED... 

 

Lie, ScreamingWhore. A WHOLE LOT of it has been corroborated.

 

YOU:  THOSE kinds of allegations are not to be "disproven".

 

You do if you are going to call it "fake", ScreamingWhore. But you can't, can you, ScreamingWhore.

 

YOU:  (and putting the responsibility on Trump to disprove), but need to be PROVEN ( they NEED to be provided with EVIDENCE, WITNESSES, and SOURCES)...

 

 A WHOLE LOT of it has been corroborated, ScreamingWhore.

 

YOU:  THIS piece of TRASH had NONE of that... and Hillary and the DNC are RUNNING AWAY from it...NOT very re-assuring if I was in YOUR shoes !! YOU CHOKE on IT !!  :huh:

 

Poor, mentally deranged screaming whore.   Reality is coming to fuck you right in the ass.
REALLY HARD.

:D:D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2017 at 10:23 AM, MidnightMax said:

 

WHO needs a LINK when the LAW IS CLEAR AS A BELL!!!

 

 

 

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is an evidentiary rule that, together with the exclusionary rule, gives the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution its teeth. Prior to 1914, warrantless and other shady searches conducted by law enforcement were quite common in America and were detrimental to those facing criminal charges from the evidence obtained during the searches.

However, in 1914, things changed. The United States Supreme Court took up the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S. Ct.341, 58 L. Ed. 652 (1914), wherein a warrantless search of a home belonging to a man named Fremont Weeks was searched and the evidence that was found was used to convict him of illegal gambling. The case wended its way to the land’s highest court, where ultimately the justices ruled that evidence obtained in this manner was not able to be used in court. The man had his conviction overturned and the exclusionary rule was introduced.

The exclusionary rule was the precursor to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. This legal metaphor regards tainted evidence (fruit) obtained through illegal searches or other police misconduct (the poisonous tree) as inadmissible in court. For example, you are driving and are stopped by police because you were speeding. You are clearly not impaired by drugs or alcohol, yet the police ask to search your vehicle. You politely refuse to grant consent, yet the search is done anyway and the police find a pound of marijuana in the trunk of your car. A good criminal defense attorney should be able to have your charges dismissed because the search itself was illegal.

This rule would also apply if, during questioning by police, a suspect asks for access to a lawyer but police ignore the request and keep questioning him or her. Hours later, under duress and tired from the interrogation, the suspect winds up confessing to robbing a bank. Such a confession is now tainted because the police failed to stop questioning the suspect after a request for an attorney was made. As with most rules, however, there are exceptions to this exclusion.

The Four Main Exemptions

  1. The evidence was found, at least in part, as a result of another untainted or independent source.
  2. Despite the tainted source, the evidence would inevitably have been discovered anyway.
  3. Attenuation exists between an illegal activity and its discovery by law enforcement.
  4. While the search warrant (or lack thereof) was not intrinsically valid, it was executed by agents of the government who were found to be acting in good faith.

As you can see, the rules regarding the admissibility of evidence in criminal cases are complex and subject to nuance and interpretation. Prosecutors will argue vociferously in court that the evidence should be introduced at trial, is not tainted and was legally obtained. A defendant without a criminal defense attorney in possession of a vast knowledge of evidentiary rules and exceptions is at a distinct disadvantage at trial. But hope is not lost if you are convicted on bad evidence, as this can be taken up on appeal with the conviction ultimately being overthrown by a higher court’s ruling.

 

Tell us numbnut, what illegal means was used by the FBI to obtain evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...