Is Mullers evidence “The fruit of a poisonous tree “?

a reply to: Shadowbanned

Is this how you feel about the Wikileaks dump of the DNC's emails? They were obtained illegally. Did you poke around in them anyway?

But yes. We grant extraordinary power to our intelligence community in good faith, with the assumption that power won't be abused. This is especially true in the case of the FISA court which is conducted pro se, with no defense represented. Even an inkling of FISA abuse should be taken VERY seriously because the FISA court is already on shaky ground, legally speaking. If an abuse occurred it would be in our best interest to set precedent by invalidating any product of the abuse and punishing severely those involved. We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The FISA court serves an important function, and it absolutely CANNOT be allowed to be compromised.

a reply to: Ahabstar

But no one planted anything on Trump so your analogy makes no sense. If Trump committed a crime then he committed a crime, regardless of how the evidence was obtained.

a reply to: Zelun

Yes, that is exactly how I feel about the DNC leaks. Not sure what your point is. I hold both parties to the same standards.

a reply to: Shadowbanned

My point was that FISA abuse is pretty much the worst case scenario, the end of an era sort of thing. It isn't about Trump, or any party affiliation really.

Do you remember when Trump said that Trump Tower had been wiretapped, and everyone laughed? Well...now we know about Crossfire Hurricane. We also know(to a reasonable degree of certainty) that FISA applications regarding Carter Page were rejected until the inclusion of Steele's intelligence product, and that it was done by questionable means, namely leaking the information to the press, then citing the subsequent reporting as corroboration. That doesn't trip your WTF alarm? That amounts to gaming the fourth amendment. Let me know if you don't see how, I'll go into further detail, but it's a BIG deal.

I'll come right out and say that I like Trump, I like that he's an asshole, because that's the sort of person you want in charge. Nice people have a hard time making things happen, because you will inevitably step on people's toes in the process. That is NOT to say that I would ignore evidence of crimes were they presented, illegally obtained or not. I haven't seen any. What I HAVE seen is what appears to be the politicization of MY intelligence community, resulting in three years of investigations, bickering, and innuendo. It's awful. It's like just throwing away three years of potential progress. I hope the next 5 go better.

a reply to: Zelun

It trips my "premeditated narrative" alarm. No one is going to jail, the only thing that will continue happening is tabloid-like news to drive that wedge further into the collective consciousness of America.

a reply to: Shadowbanned

Please expound on that. The phrase "the truth is stranger than fiction" comes to mind. Like how the D-Day invasion would never have been successful if the allies hadn't engaged in counterintelligence activities involving cardboard cutouts of tanks.

Our intelligence apparatus needs to be apolitical. I get viscerally disturbed when considering whether it's possible we've already been sold down the river. I tend to think it's more complicated than that.

a reply to: Zelun

Why has no one been thrown in jail if everyone is committing crimes in Washington? Because there always seems to be some kind of legal loophole or technicality to exonerate them. The same reason why after all these dossiers and investigations we're no closer to knowing the truth. The reports and dossiers are just vague enough to give both sides ammo for their case. A contrived narrative to keep people arguing amongst themselves for years on end. The Russia narrative has driven a huge wedge between the American people, as intended.

a reply to: Shadowbanned

Right! The Steele Dossier should have been ignored. Instead it lead to a 2.5yr-long inquiry. I hate to say it, but follow the money bud. Who gained? It sure as hell wasn't us.

ETA: and before you say Trump, recognize that would basically amount to 5-D chess.

a reply to: Zelun

If those in power wanted division then they have gotten it, all while Trump's supporters gloss over the fact that he approved the selling of weapons to terrorists and gave the biggest tax cut in history to those who have drowned out the common man's voice in politics with their lobbying.


Everything is going to plan, unfortunately. People have completely forgotten about the divide and conquer tactics used by the "deep state" and have happily engaged in it and furthered it. Sad in my opinion.

a reply to: Shadowbanned

Selling weapons to terrorists? Are you referring to dealing with the Saudis? Even "terrorists" have a self-evident right to bear arms, and if they buy from us, well, even better.

Lobbyists speak for masses of "common men." There's nothing inherently wrong with paying someone to hold your place in line. That's capitalism baby. I think the stigma against lobbyists is a major victory for the very forces that you purport to have an interest in dividing us. Money talks bud. It's even qualifies as free speech.

It's funny that the divide-and-conquer tactics employed by the bad actors are starting to unify people into a common defense, people who realize they're being pandered to, who won't back down based upon a falsely projected "majority" in opposition. You realize Nevada's Democrat governor recently veto'd a measure to effectively abolish the electoral college? A measure to force electors to vote according to the national popular vote? He said 'nope.' A Democrat. Wising up. I for one am pleasantly surprised.

a reply to: Zelun

So arming the enemy is "better" in your opinion? Yet people have an issue with Clinton supposedly helping Iran. That's irony if I've ever heard it. You can't stop terrorism if you keep funding them and arming them. You do know that, right? You officially have no room to complain about terrorism because arming them is "even better" as long as America profits off of it, according to you at least. Lol.

Like I said, I'm not one bit surprised that people have been fooled into thinking the arms deal was a good thing. You're literally telling me that arming terrorists is "even better". I wonder how many innocent people will be killed with the guns we sold the Saudis? Oh who cares, out of sight it of mind because money, right? Sickening mindset in my opinion, money is king, more important than innocent lives.

a reply to: Shadowbanned

You can't stop terrorism because it's a manufactured premise. People with the intent to kill will kill. Meanwhile we have a country to run. Further, the Saudis have NEVER been our enemy. They're the sole beacon of stability in a region that is inherently unstable. You seem to argue from a position of absolutes. That's not how the world works. Diplomacy is a activity involving compromise. But by all means, continue regarding the world in terms of absolutes. You'll still profit because the grown-ups keep talking, despite the prattle.

a reply to: Zelun

Ah, so terrorism is unstoppable now? Sounds like a good justification for arming terrorists, I guess?

Saudi Arabia is a barbaric culture, the very same culture we here on ATS seem to be afraid is invading America. Selling weapons to a sponsor of terrorism is the complete opposite of making the world a better and more safe place.

Like I said, I'm not one bit surprised that some people have been manipulated into ignoring the blatantly globalist moves Trump has made.

People have short memories. Literally every single thing people see on the news is from paid liars and charlatans. There isn't a single politician on TV who isn't following the script.

Three and a half years in office and not a single big player thrown in jail, only tabloid gossip level front page news stories based on he said she said BS.

Tell me one person who has been put in jail. Anthony Weiner doesn't count.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Lots of so called evidence used in this investigation was tainted . The fisa warrants, the evidence of Russia hacking the dnc servers should also be considered tainted because the justice department never examined them they relied on a 3rd party who dnc hired findings, the whole of information obtained from Michael Cohen should also not be used because all dealings with Mr Trump and Mr Cohen were protected by attorney client privilege by twisting Mr Cohen's arm to tattle on potus they set a dangerous precident which means now your protected communications with your lawyer can now be used against you.shey knew the whole time they can not charge a sitting president only Congress can and only for crimes he does against them its constitutional law. So all this investigation was for to smear office of president and to hamper the workings of office of president from doing his appointed job and as such should be considered sedition.

a reply to: DanDanDat

He does need to commit a crime against Congress such as perjury. They can not impeach him just because he orange man and he bad .

originally posted by: Shadowbanned
a reply to: yuppa

Sounds to me like the OP is trying to get ahead of the curve by dismissing possible evidence of a crime based on a technicality. If trump committed a crime then what does it matter if the evidence was obtained illegally? Is someone no longer guilty of a crime just because the evidence of the crime was obtained illegally?

In our country Yes they should get off BECAUSE it was obtained Illegally. judge will tell the cops do better police work next time.

I’ve been looking into this a little more. The left-leaning mainstream media and lawyers are saying this doesn’t apply because it was not the main reason for the warrant .

I don’t agree with that. Even if it comes out that it wasn’t the main reason it was still weighed on the decision .

There was a source from the the right. It was from May 2019 in which they claimed malicious reason.

Those could both be reasons for ruling the evidence inadmissible . IMO

a reply to: Shadowbanned

I agree no one should sell arms to Saudis but at least we got cash for the deal what did we get when Obama gave all that cash to Iran illegally because the money we owed Iran for warplanes we never delivered was actually owed to family of Iran's former ruler the sha of Iran not his usurper. Last I checked we got nothing in return..

a reply to: yuppa

Wasn't the DNC info obtained illegally? I guess the Democrats should be let off the hook.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
I’ve been looking into this a little more. The left-leaning mainstream media and lawyers are saying this doesn’t apply because it was not the main reason for the warrant .

I don’t agree with that. Even if it comes out that it wasn’t the main reason it was still weighed on the decision .

There was a source from the the right. It was from May 2019 in which they claimed malicious reason.

Those could both be reasons for ruling the evidence inadmissible . IMO

Hahaha
The warrant was TWICE denied and only approved after adding the dossier.
It was FRAUD.