Did Adam Schiff Out Himself as Leaker to Washington Post?

Adam Schiff (D-CA) may have been an anonymous source for the Washington Post as it reported allegations that have led to the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Schiff may have outed himself during his opening arguments in the Senate trial of the president on Wednesday, as he cited an opinion article written by the Post editorial board — an odd reference in a presentation of factual evidence.

The House Intelligence Committee chairman cited a Sep. 5, 2019 editorial titled: “Trump tries to force Ukraine to meddle in the 2020 election.”

The Post editorial helped create an atmosphere of suspicion and anticipation that led to the complaint’s release and the impeachment itself. And on Wednesday, the Post editorial conveniently provided a “fact” — a “reliably told” story — that Schiff could cite in his case for Trump’s removal.

But Schiff did not explain why he would treat an opinion article as “fact.” Editorials are not typically reliable sources of original reporting.

The most logical explanation is that Schiff considered the article “factual” because he himself was the source. He seems to have cited the Post in the same way the FBI in the “Crossfire Hurricane” case cited Yahoo! News to the FISA court without revealing Yahoo! was using the same source as the FBI.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/23/pollak-did-adam-schiff-out-himself-as-leaker-to-washington-post/

>>7894927

Jimmy Carter campaign buttons

>>7894958

>>7894958

The year is 1976 Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan are locked in a heated political battle. Chief of Staff Dick Cheney is tasked with introducing Stuart Spencer, the man who helped Reagan get elected Governor of California, to President Ford.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6097586/mediaindex

>>7895091

>>7895099

>https://trendingpolitics.com/breaking-doj-says-comey-did-not-have-probable-cause-to-start-trump-investigation/

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

A doctrine that extends the exclusionary rule to make evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from evidence that was illegally obtained. As the metaphor suggests, if the evidential "tree" is tainted, so is its "fruit." The doctrine was established in 1920 by the decision in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, and the phrase "fruit of the poisonous tree" was coined by Justice Frankfurter in his 1939 opinion in Nardone v. United States.

Like the exclusionary rule itself, this doctrine is subject to three important exceptions. The evidence will not be excluded:

1) if it was discovered from a source independent of the illegal activity;

2) its discovery was inevitable;

3) or if there is attenuation between the illegal activity and the discovery of the evidence.

Further, if the primary evidence was illegally obtained, but admissible under the good faith exception, its derivatives (or "fruit") may also be admissible.

>>7895268

mini Commemorative Golden Balls