The following article appeared in the
American Thinker on February 5th
Over the past year the United States
and, secondarily, the rest of the world, have been bombarded with the
Democratic Party’s take on “Russia collusion.” Democrats have persistently
declared that President Donald J. Tramp’s political ascendancy signals
Armageddon. The insults started with the snarky “he’s not one of us,” to
myriad accusations of anti-Semitism, racism, serial sexual harassment,
xenophobia, vulgar speech, facilitation of white supremacists and violence, a
crashed economy, and soured foreign relations. When none of these accusations
stuck, they settled on an unrelenting, unsubstantiated drumbeat of claims that
the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to affect the outcome of the
presidential election.
At last, the truth regarding these
false accusations has been uncovered. The declassified House memo has revealed
the perfidy of the Democrats’ ‘accusations against Trump, and the illegality of
the Special Counsel and his investigation.
![]() |
Robert the Sanctimonious |
The Fourth Amendment to the United
States’ Constitution provides that:
“The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularity describing the place
to be searched and the persons or things to be searched.”
From that principle, United States
criminal law has evolved to provide a balancing act between the rights of the
individual against unlawful privacy invasion, and the rights of the “State” to
apprehend and prosecute lawbreakers. Myriad laws exist to protect the
individual from illegal searches and seizure, while providing authorities a
roadmap that ensures due process is effectuated.
Also, it is imperative to note that
every attorney is required to take a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution and
the laws of the United States of America, before being allowed to practice law.
Attorneys working in governmental judicial offices are required to take an
expanded, special oath. It is incumbent upon every attorney to uphold their
oath and not perpetrate a fraud on the court.
Regardless of court, state or
federal, the same principles apply: a warrant application must be signed by an
authorized agency, that states with specificity the person to be searched or
wiretapped, the alleged crime, and the exact location of the search or wiretap.
Any exculpatory evidence, that which exists to exonerate the target of the
warrant, must be included. Moreover, every application must be
accompanied with an affirmation that all the facts contained therein are true.
To further protect the individual
against the overarching power of the State, certain “exclusionary” rules
prohibit the State from using evidence that is obtained, illegally. One such
doctrine is known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” established in the
Supreme Court case Silverthorne
Lumber Co. v. United States. (The phrase itself was first used by
Justice Felix Frankfurter in Nardone
v. United States.)
Essentially, this doctrine provides
that if the State obtains evidence from an illegal source (the poisonous tree),
that evidence is tainted. Accordingly, any tainted evidence (fruit) is also
poisonous and may not be admitted into any court proceeding.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court (FISC), is a federal court established to oversee requests for
surveillance against foreign spies inside the United States. Warrants are
typically issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or the National
Security Agency (NSA). The Department of Justice (DOJ) may also file warrant
applications. The FISA Court was not created to spy on United States
presidential candidates.
However, during the presidential
campaign of 2016-2017, the FBI filed a warrant with the FISA court based on a
dossier paid for by the Democratic National Party (DNC) and then presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton. The warrant did not specify the genesis of the
report. Instead, it cited as a secondary source a Yahoo news article, based on
information provided by the same, uber-biased author of the dossier. Because
the warrants are only valid for ninety days, the warrant was signed and
submitted by the FBI six times! And, for six times, they were signed by
attorneys who had sworn an oath to act with fidelity to the courts. It appears
that without the now-disabused dossier as supporting evidence, the FISA Court
would never have signed the warrants -- thus the warrants were poisonous trees.
Carter Page, then advisor to
Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump, was the first target of the
FISA-granted surveillance for purportedly colluding with Russia. From Page, the
surveillance morphed to other inner circle members of the Trump campaign, and
ultimately, after Trump’s presidential victory, to Trump himself, in the
creation of a special counsel, former FBI Director, Robert Mueller.
Instead of a neutral investigation
into whether Trump colluded with Russia to win the presidential election,
Mueller stacked his team with partisan Democrats, negating even a whiff of
impartiality.
Now that the credibility of the
dossier that formed the basis of the FBI warrant application has been totally
eviscerated, it epitomizes a poisonous tree. Clearly, under United States
criminal law, the Mueller investigation is fruit of the poisonous tree and must
be shut down.
No comments:
Post a Comment