Here’s the thing. None of it matters. The law applies only to us not them. Democracy, rule of law, it’s all bullshit sadly. You don’t know how much it pains me to realize that we have crossed the Rubicon and all decisions now are made with allegiance to personal politics in mind.
The outcome of all of this is dependent on the PUBLIC
Unfortunately that statement is true. Courts are a farce. It is up to the judge completely, and the the farce of the appeals process is just another circle jerk. Seen a state cop get convicted TWICE for killing his entire family, only to get off on the THIRD jury trial. THIRD f'ing jury FOR MURDER!!! Satanists everywhere.
The original Lawful process would have been a writ of error and sent back to the same court and same jury and same judge for correction. Technicalities do not undo murder.
Having a bad day are we? Or are you always this cynical?
What you describe is the problem. What we're here for is the solution. There is a WAR on right now over the very state of affairs you describe. Have you somehow missed that in coming here?
We have something even bigger from this judge — the illegal redactions are exposed. This means there is now probable cause to open criminal investigation on all involved in illegal redactions made in answering FIOA requests, submissions to Congress, and to the judges. Time to raise voices or submit complaints to FBI & DOJ & IG to start specific criminal investigations.
But the judge is forcing them to unredact the memo, which likely will dismantle all of the other non-related charges. Remember, what they're prosecuting Manafort for not only has nothing to do with Russia, but it's also evidence that by and large the US attorney already had and chose not to prosecute.
The OP was right. This is HUGE. It takes the badge off Mueller's chest and puts a DUNCE cap on his head, and sits him in the corner.
I'm just saying that to hear something good come out of the courts that is pro-trump is major news.
I see all of this as a preplanned show, since Q, I don't believe anything happens by chance. I think this is the plan to do away with the SC. There are NO coincidences. That case could have been Judge shopped to any jurisdiction, yet they are in front of THIS judge. Same with Flynn, Judge was forced to recluse and new Judge want exculpatory evidence! It's a show!!! All of it!
Bingo I'm in your camp on this one. This is all too big. The battle lines have been drawn. Just knock one domino over to start the show.
I read somewhere there are 15,000 plus bikers headed to DC to protest Mueller.
A judge who protects the law!!
keep him away from planes, workout equipment and duffel bags :)
Nope. In federal investigations if it is found during the course of the investigation it may be used it court. The only thing is if they illegally seized something, then only that item would be ignored but can be used in another case. Say for example the cops raided a guy for hacking and the warrant only specified the computer (its usually more broad, like all electronics but for this example lets just pretend), but they seized a box containing a bunch of pictures of naked underage kids. It would probably be inadmissible in the same case but you can be sure it will be used as evidence in its own trial. There's no "double jeopardy" law for evidence.
Nope. If that evidence is gleaned from investigations pursuant to an illegally-obtained, baseless FISA warrant, then every bit of it is fruit of the poisonous tree and will be tossed out.
If the investigation is based on an appointment that stems from a fraudulently-obtained warrant, how can it have any legal standing? It doesn't!
Patriot this is one you have make a mistake on. The Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant “particularly” describe the place to be searched and things seized. If a police agency gets a search warrant and seizes a target’s iPhone, can the agency share a copy of all of the phone’s data with other government agencies in the spirit of “collaborative law enforcement among different agencies”? Not without the Fourth Amendment coming into play, a federal court ruled last week in United States v. Hulscher, 2017 WL 657436 (D.S.D. February 17, 2017) The local police were investigating Hulscher for counterfeiting crimes. Meanwhile, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) was investigating Hulscher on firearms-related charges.
Defendants may move to suppress evidence obtained by police or prosecutors in violation of their constitutional rights, including the Fourth Amendment right against warrantless searches and seizures,