In other words the DNC is saying: “We are suing because the White Hats within the MIL/IC drafted DJT for their long-planned and sneaky counter coup which successfully foiled our 16-year coup d’etat to destroy the United States of America. Oh, and WikiLeaks published the truth about all this despite our Mockingbird MSM’s best efforts to suppress it. Damn them. P.S. And Russia was just a beard.”
I think Q is asking how ostensibly illegally gathered evidence via surveillance (No Such Agency) can be used as evidence in a Court or Tribunal. One answer is that a series of overarching warrants were secretly obtained based on clear evidence of an on-going coup d’etat against a duly elected President. These warrants may have been obtained during the Transition and remain in place. The thousands of sealed Indictments have been prepared based on the fruit of these legal warrants. At least that’s one way the info could be used as evidence.
Yes anon but warrants would still be necessary to conduct the surveillance if the the material is essential and has to be properly entered as evidence. Declassification does not make info gained from White Hat surveillance legal or admissible as evidence. Last, parallel construction will, IMO, still make the Intel gathered inadmissible as it represents “fruit gathered from the poisonous tree”. Mueller kept hemming and hawing when asked about PC during a recent appearance. For the above reason.
P.S. Unless the Rules of Evidence are different than Federal under the UCMJ during a Miltary Tribunal.
Was only able to come up with this, anons, but will dig into the “Military Rules of Evidence” (MRE..lol) and check.
“Rules Of Evidence. What evidence is admissible in a court-martial is spelled out in the Military Rules of Evidence (MRE). As required by the UCMJ, these rules are closely patterned after the Federal Rules of Evidence used in United States District Courts for civilian cases.”
“Under the Military Rules of Evidence, which implement the Fourth Amendment, evidence illegally seized by government agents from a protected place is inadmissible. Mil.R.Evid. 311-317, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1995 ed.). The equivalent of a civilian search warrant in the military is a commander's search authorization. Mil.R.Evid. 315(d)(1). To satisfy the Fourth Amendment and the Military Rules of Evidence, there must be probable cause for a search authorization, Mil.R.Evid. 315(f)(1), and the search authorization must be specific. Mil.R.Evid. 315(b)(1).”
http:// www. armfor. uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/1997Term/97-0297.htm
But this entire line of digging assumes that UCMJ jurisdiction was applied for and granted way back and has been controlling the entire time.
Yes anon. Heard it also. It was like a “heads up” whistle to somebody. Maybe not for NP.
Yes anon. Strange indeed. Like he’s got diarrhea of the mouth. I think that he subconsciously wants to tell all and if one just sat silent and listened, he would. His personal attorney must be tearing his or her hair out at this point.