Hello, and welcome to the beginning of the end of the Mueller Investigation.
Today we’re going to discuss the legal doctrine of the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.”
I want to take you back in time to 1920, where Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. delivered an opinion of the Supreme Court where this famous legal doctrine makes its first appearance in Supreme Court Jurisprudence. While the doctrine is not fully realized until almost 20 years later, we see the Supreme Court first contemplate the issue.
Now, Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920) was a case where federal agents illegally seized tax records, made copies, and tried to present them as evidence in the prosecution of Silverthorne Lumber Company. Now, long story short, the Supreme Court was not having any of that. A rather famous quote delivered by Oliver, known for his short but scathing opinions, reads:
In our opinion, such is not the law. It reduces the Fourth Amendment to a form of words. The essence of a provision 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.
Holmes further states:
Of course, this does not mean that the facts thus obtained 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 in the way proposed.
Hmmm. Well what do we now have confirmation of that we have known for weeks if not months?
- The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ and FBI officials, but excluded from the FISA applications.
- Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.
Any almonds activating yet? No? Well, let me continue.
In 1939, Justice Frankfurter delivered the opinion of the Supreme court in the case Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939)which finally gave the legal doctrine we know today its name. Below is a quick excerpt that may pique your interest in how this applies to the Trump sham investigation into “collusion” with the Russians:
The burden is, of course, on the accused in the first instance to prove to the trial court’s satisfaction that wiretapping was unlawfully employed. Once that is established — as was plainly done here — the trial judge must give opportunity, however closely confined, to the accused to prove that a substantial portion of the case against him was a fruit of the poisonous tree. This leaves ample opportunity to the Government to convince the trial court that its proof had an independent origin.
Getting there yet? What else do we now have confirmation of?
- The Steele dossier formed an essential part of the intial and all three renewal FISA applications against Carter Page.
Wait, wait, wait. So the basis of the FISA applications that were carried out during the end of the Obama administration were based on this?
On January 11, 2017, The Guardian reported that the FBI initially applied for a FISA warrant in June 2016, requesting to “monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials.” This initial request was denied.
A source told The Guardian that the FBI then submitted a more narrowly focused request in October, “but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.”
So, now we know “more narrowly focused” just means that the Dossier was used as the basis for the approved FISA applications. The same dossier that was misrepresented to the FISA Court Judge, despite the FBI and DOJ knowing the political basis of the dossier itself.
But, but, muhhh people involved said everything was done appropriately and there was no foul play going on.
What happened to Comey? What recently happened to McCabe? What is about to happen to the COUNTLESS other FBI and DOJ officials involved in this debacle that will be revealed soon by the Inspector General, Horowitz?
I’ll give you a hint. Heads will roll. Didn’t you find it strange that Mueller decided to postpone Mike Flynn’s sentencing?
I certainly did, and now I think it is more clear why.
Mueller knows he’s fucked. His whole special counsel investigation was based on these “illegal” FISA warrants, that were illegally presented to the FISA court despite the FBI’s and DOJ’s knowledge of its origin. McCabe was asked explicitly by Congress if he knew this and he testified that he didn’t remember. Also of note, the insurance policy that was mentioned in a metting held in his office involving the disgraced FBI agent THAT SERVED ON MUELLER’S SPECIAL COUNSEL Peter Strozk.
Also of note:
- Six of the 15 lawyers have not made campaign contributions to any political campaigns at the federal level.
- Among the lawyers who did make contributions, a total of $62,043 went to Democrats and $2,750 to Republicans, according to the special counsel’s office.
- In terms of Clinton specifically, election filings indicate that three lawyers gave her 2016 presidential campaign a total of $700; and three gave a total of $18,100 to either her 2016 campaign or her 2008 run for the presidential nomination.
This is the beginning of the end of the Mueller Investigation. Take it to the bank, as Nancy Pelosi would say.
Any evidence of wrongdoing, these sham indictments with no relation to “Russian Collusion” will all go away. The Supreme Court still stands by their support of Constitutional Fourth Amendment rights. This will not go over well. There is already extreme disfavor for special counsels in general, due to their wide ranging latitude in effectively serving as an unchecked fourth branch of government that circumvents the judiciary. Severe doubts have been raised in past Supreme Court Jurisprudence about the validity of the constitutionality of such counsels. This certainly will be a blow in future cases with how the Supreme Court looks to be composed at this moment, and into the future.
This level of bias, mixed with a seemingly unlimited power of the special counsel, has been a problem for decades. This issue is now the hot talking point of the year. We know Trump has known all of this information since at least March 4th, 2017. He knew, and waited this long for vindication.
Well guess what REEEEEEEEEEEEsisters? Vindication is here. Your day of reckoning is upon you. Mueller will not be able to effectively stage a coup on our legitimately elected president. The democrats are the only party that we have proof of that colluded with foreign agents to try and influence the election.
This suprisingly based article from September of 2017 sheds some more insight onto the scope of these abuses:
Officials involved in the surveillance and unmasking of U.S. citizens have said their actions were legal and not politically motivated. And there are certainly legitimate areas of inquiry to be made by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. But look at the patterns. It seems that government monitoring of journalists, members of Congress and political enemies — under multiple administrations — has become more common than anyone would have imagined two decades ago. So has the unmasking of sensitive and highly protected names by political officials.
The corruption has been identified. The corruption will be weeded out. Look for the Inspector General to be dropping names of more agents within the FBI and DOJ officials involved in this scandal.