What happens if Flynn wiretap was illegal?

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes, a court order does make it legal - even if the court order was based on false intelligence.

If a judge orders a warrant to search my home for drugs, and no drugs are found, that does not make the warrant "illegal" - even if they used a false tip as the basis.

It makes any findings inadmissible.

No, it doesn't.

The findings would only be inadmissible if another (higher) judge found that the initial warrant was issued in error of law, not error of fact.

In other words, if the initial judge signing the warrant made the legally correct choice using the facts on hand at the time, the warrant is valid and the evidence found is admissable - even if the facts on hand at the time are later proven to be incorrect.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, it doesn't.

The findings would only be inadmissible if another (higher) judge found that the initial warrant was issued in error of law, not error of fact.

In other words, if the initial judge signing the warrant made the legally correct choice using the facts on hand at the time, the warrant is valid and the evidence found is admissable - even if the facts on hand at the time are later proven to be incorrect.

Well, yeah. I don't disagree with that.

If they acted improperly (lying), then any evidence they find based on that legally-issued warrant is inadmissible. But, the autinuation doctrine could still allow it to be admissible.

 

[Care4all]

The left and GOP establishment are prosecuting president Trump in the media, this will never see the inside of a courtroom where Trump would prevail.

He may never be charged with any criminal actions while president, but he can be impeached and kicked out....even without any crimes and simply misdemeanors, and then be prosecuted for any crimes out of office, but the new president will more than likely pardon the ex president....

so yeah, I too doubt he would see any inside courtrooms or jail time....but he could be removed from office...which would be a big feat, if the Senate did that by the 2/3's vote.

 

[GreenBean]

We are weaponizing our intelligence apparatus to attack political enemies.

How adorable...sounds very HITLER to me.

If illegal, then all resultant evidence is inadmissible. It would be considered "fruit of the tainted tree". In addition, any evidence obtained consequently from discovery based upon tainted evidence is also inadmissible.

I would like to think that if the evidence is inadmissible than the defense team would've been competent enough to realize that ?!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, it doesn't.

The findings would only be inadmissible if another (higher) judge found that the initial warrant was issued in error of law, not error of fact.

In other words, if the initial judge signing the warrant made the legally correct choice using the facts on hand at the time, the warrant is valid and the evidence found is admissable - even if the facts on hand at the time are later proven to be incorrect.

Well, yeah. I don't disagree with that.

If they acted improperly (lying), then any evidence they find based on that legally-issued warrant is inadmissible. But, the autinuation doctrine could still allow it to be admissible.

What it really boils down to is whether or not the statements that the judge relied upon in to issue the warrant were made in good faith - not whether they were factually correct or not.

 

[mudwhistle]

We are weaponizing our intelligence apparatus to attack political enemies.

How adorable...sounds very HITLER to me.

If illegal, then all resultant evidence is inadmissible. It would be considered "fruit of the tainted tree". In addition, any evidence obtained consequently from discovery based upon tainted evidence is also inadmissible.

Easy to tell.

Was there a court order?

If yes- legal.

If not- not legal.

Was there a court order?

A court order doesn't make it legal.

What if the court order was issued based on lies?

Yes, a court order does make it legal - even if the court order was based on false intelligence.

If a judge orders a warrant to search my home for drugs, and no drugs are found, that does not make the warrant "illegal" - even if they used a tip that later turned out to be a lie as the basis.

However, if the evidence presented to the FISA judge was based off of known fabricated evidence the investigators can be charged with perjury for lying to a judge. They are swearing an oath in court that the evidence they presented wasn't fabricated and is authentic to the best of their knowledge.

 

[iceberg]

The unmasking was the issue.

If a traitor is talking to the Russians, you don't want the traitor unmasked?

Then you are a traitor, too.

We done here?

Explosive Revelation of Obama Administration Illegal Surveillance of Americans

traitor to the country or one mans policies?

if you say that one man is the president great. we use that as a baseline and now the same "respect" need to be shown to trump. FISA has said what they did was wrong. since they're the ones who issue these warrants then i'll take them at their word to know more about this than *any* of us in here.

the next question i ask is - if trump now does this as freely as obama did, do you, and in particular, the left, still have no issue with it?

Once again, our government was not spying on Flynn. They were wiretapping the Russians.

If you don't want to be caught talking to the Russians, DON'T CALL THEM!

pretty narrow focus geared to see 1 thing, to me anyway.

why is it so wrong to talk to the russians? and if wrong, why did obama do it and get caught on tape making deals of his own? so simply talking to russia can't be the issue or all in our gov would be guilty.

and if this were "ok" then i believe FISA wouldn't go on record indicating otherwise. since again they issue the damn warrants, they know before ANY of us.

Wow.

I can't believe this has to be explained.

Do you know what the difference is between Obama and Flynn? Do you understand the Logan Act?

The PRESIDENT'S job is to negotiate with other nations, and to punish hostile nations.

As an outsider looking in, it was NOT Flynn's job to undermine our government's dealings with a hostile nation.

IT's funny how you people keep moving the goalposts.

First, it's Flynn was tapped. Then when it is explained that Flynn wasn't tapped, it's the unmasking of Flynn. And then you come along and toss in some completely unrelated shit about spying on Americans.

Here's the funniest thing of all: Trump has literally embraced the police state with both hands.

and when you get into that tone there's no sense in replying.

catch ya next thread.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

We are weaponizing our intelligence apparatus to attack political enemies.

How adorable...sounds very HITLER to me.

If illegal, then all resultant evidence is inadmissible. It would be considered "fruit of the tainted tree". In addition, any evidence obtained consequently from discovery based upon tainted evidence is also inadmissible.

Easy to tell.

Was there a court order?

If yes- legal.

If not- not legal.

Was there a court order?

A court order doesn't make it legal.

What if the court order was issued based on lies?

Yes, a court order does make it legal - even if the court order was based on false intelligence.

If a judge orders a warrant to search my home for drugs, and no drugs are found, that does not make the warrant "illegal" - even if they used a tip that later turned out to be a lie as the basis.

However, if the evidence presented to the FISA judge was based off of known fabricated evidence the investigators can be charged with perjury for lying to a judge. They are swearing an oath in court that the evidence they presented wasn't fabricated and is authentic to the best of their knowledge.

If the investigators perjured themselves to attain the warrant, then yes - that evidence can be thrown out.

But there is no reason to believe that has occurred.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

problem with your statement is Flynn was NEVER wire tapped....

The Russian Ambassador Kislyak was legally being monitored/tapped.

Flynn happened to call him... but Kislyak has been monitored for years if not decades and Flynn would have been aware of that as a former DIA director....unless he simply was stupefied by some act of God or simply suffered from a brain fart???

Or, maybe arrogant enough to think president Trump would protect him somehow, from his lawlessness, because he was covering up something harmful to Trump or family by lying to the FBI???

Pushing the ''illegal to tape Flynn angle''

WOULD MOST CERTAINLY have been used by Flynn's lawyers to get everything thrown out, IF they Could have used it legally....

You are correct. Flynn was never wiretapped. It was the Russian. No doubt Flynn, knowing that as part of the transition team it was legal to make these contacts might not have thought anything of it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The investigation of FISA has nothing to do with Flynn or the Special Counsel.

The parameters and protocols of the wide spread grasp of FISA is being drawn in, thank heavens.

Trump is not aware that it will prevent him from easily spying on his enemies.

The Obama FISA grew out of the Bush FISA, which grew in reaction to 9-11.

All presidents and both parties are culpable in this matter.

 

[mudwhistle]

If illegal, then all resultant evidence is inadmissible. It would be considered "fruit of the tainted tree". In addition, any evidence obtained consequently from discovery based upon tainted evidence is also inadmissible.

Easy to tell.

Was there a court order?

If yes- legal.

If not- not legal.

Was there a court order?

A court order doesn't make it legal.

What if the court order was issued based on lies?

Yes, a court order does make it legal - even if the court order was based on false intelligence.

If a judge orders a warrant to search my home for drugs, and no drugs are found, that does not make the warrant "illegal" - even if they used a tip that later turned out to be a lie as the basis.

However, if the evidence presented to the FISA judge was based off of known fabricated evidence the investigators can be charged with perjury for lying to a judge. They are swearing an oath in court that the evidence they presented wasn't fabricated and is authentic to the best of their knowledge.

If the investigators perjured themselves to attain the warrant, then yes - that evidence can be thrown out.

But there is no reason to believe that has occurred.

There's plenty of evidence of that.
I'm sure it will all come out in the wash.
People will be going to prison over this.....and I doubt that it will be Trump.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The wiretap is no more illegal than it is that Trump is not subject to obstruction of justice.

The unmasking was the issue.

If a traitor is talking to the Russians, you don't want the traitor unmasked?

Then you are a traitor, too.

We done here?

Explosive Revelation of Obama Administration Illegal Surveillance of Americans

traitor to the country or one mans policies?

if you say that one man is the president great. we use that as a baseline and now the same "respect" need to be shown to trump. FISA has said what they did was wrong. since they're the ones who issue these warrants then i'll take them at their word to know more about this than *any* of us in here.

the next question i ask is - if trump now does this as freely as obama did, do you, and in particular, the left, still have no issue with it?

Once again, our government was not spying on Flynn. They were wiretapping the Russians.

If you don't want to be caught talking to the Russians, DON'T CALL THEM!

pretty narrow focus geared to see 1 thing, to me anyway.

why is it so wrong to talk to the russians? and if wrong, why did obama do it and get caught on tape making deals of his own? so simply talking to russia can't be the issue or all in our gov would be guilty.

and if this were "ok" then i believe FISA wouldn't go on record indicating otherwise. since again they issue the damn warrants, they know before ANY of us.

Because Obama was authorized to do so as President. A candidate and a president-elect are not authorized.

Are we clear now?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those who argue against the provisions of the Logan Act deliberately are actionable under criminal libel.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Easy to tell.

Was there a court order?

If yes- legal.

If not- not legal.

Was there a court order?

A court order doesn't make it legal.

What if the court order was issued based on lies?

Yes, a court order does make it legal - even if the court order was based on false intelligence.

If a judge orders a warrant to search my home for drugs, and no drugs are found, that does not make the warrant "illegal" - even if they used a tip that later turned out to be a lie as the basis.

However, if the evidence presented to the FISA judge was based off of known fabricated evidence the investigators can be charged with perjury for lying to a judge. They are swearing an oath in court that the evidence they presented wasn't fabricated and is authentic to the best of their knowledge.

If the investigators perjured themselves to attain the warrant, then yes - that evidence can be thrown out.

But there is no reason to believe that has occurred.

There's plenty of evidence of that.
I'm sure it will all come out in the wash.
People will be going to prison over this.....and I doubt that it will be Trump.

Not really.

But you keep that faith alive!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Those who argue against the provisions of the Logan Act deliberately are actionable under criminal libel.

What?



Criminal Libel?



Tell me you jest.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Those who argue against the provisions of the Logan Act deliberately are actionable under criminal libel.

There no such thing as "criminal libel".

Also, I have no idea what this statement is supposed to mean.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We are weaponizing our intelligence apparatus to attack political enemies.

How adorable...sounds very HITLER to me.

If illegal, then all resultant evidence is inadmissible. It would be considered "fruit of the tainted tree". In addition, any evidence obtained consequently from discovery based upon tainted evidence is also inadmissible.

Easy to tell.

Was there a court order?

If yes- legal.

If not- not legal.

Was there a court order?

a court order doesnt make it legal.

The court order makes it legal.

Did you get your law degree from Obama University?

 

[Faun]

We are weaponizing our intelligence apparatus to attack political enemies.

How adorable...sounds very HITLER to me.

If illegal, then all resultant evidence is inadmissible. It would be considered "fruit of the tainted tree". In addition, any evidence obtained consequently from discovery based upon tainted evidence is also inadmissible.

That may apply to court proceedings but I’m fairly certain it does not apply to impeachment proceedings.

 

[Faun]

problem with your statement is Flynn was NEVER wire tapped....

The Russian Ambassador Kislyak was legally being monitored/tapped.

Flynn happened to call him... but Kislyak has been monitored for years if not decades and Flynn would have been aware of that as a former DIA director....unless he simply was stupefied by some act of God or simply suffered from a brain fart???

Or, maybe arrogant enough to think president Trump would protect him somehow, from his lawlessness, because he was covering up something harmful to Trump or family by lying to the FBI???

Pushing the ''illegal to tape Flynn angle''

WOULD MOST CERTAINLY have been used by Flynn's lawyers to get everything thrown out, IF they Could have used it legally....

And you think everything has been conducted above board.
The bit about spying on political opponents is espionage.
They talk about this plea-bargain being just the tip of the iceberg, but this espionage is the real conspiracy.
Nevermind that the same FBI agent that did a terrible job interviewing Hillary was a strong Hillary supporter and was also on the Mueller team investigating Trump, and conveniently a Trump Hater.....an obvious conflict of interest.

there was no spying or eavesdropping on Flynn, the Repubs in congress already investigated such.

As far as the guy that was fired during the summer BY MUELLER, Mueller did the right thing by removing him as soon as he found out.

Good for Mueller, it shows he does not want anyone tainting this investigation....he's a straight Ace.

FISA would disagree with you.

Explosive Revelation of Obama Administration Illegal Surveillance of Americans

That’s not FISA, it’s conservative-leaning National Review.

 

[Faun]

The wiretap is no more illegal than it is that Trump is not subject to obstruction of justice.

The unmasking was the issue.

If a traitor is talking to the Russians, you don't want the traitor unmasked?

Then you are a traitor, too.

We done here?

Explosive Revelation of Obama Administration Illegal Surveillance of Americans

traitor to the country or one mans policies?

if you say that one man is the president great. we use that as a baseline and now the same "respect" need to be shown to trump. FISA has said what they did was wrong. since they're the ones who issue these warrants then i'll take them at their word to know more about this than *any* of us in here.

the next question i ask is - if trump now does this as freely as obama did, do you, and in particular, the left, still have no issue with it?

Once again, our government was not spying on Flynn. They were wiretapping the Russians.

If you don't want to be caught talking to the Russians, DON'T CALL THEM!

pretty narrow focus geared to see 1 thing, to me anyway.

why is it so wrong to talk to the russians? and if wrong, why did obama do it and get caught on tape making deals of his own? so simply talking to russia can't be the issue or all in our gov would be guilty.

and if this were "ok" then i believe FISA wouldn't go on record indicating otherwise. since again they issue the damn warrants, they know before ANY of us.

Obama was president when making deals with Russia. Trump was not. Only one president at a time.