What happens if Flynn wiretap was illegal?

[radical right]

Change the scenario.

A judge orders a warrant to search your home for drugs but an illegal weapon is found. If the warrant was found to illegal, the evidence of an illegal weapon is inadmissible as it would not have been discovered except for the illegal warrant.

Let's make it even worse. The police get a warrant to search 100 main street, but instead go to 200 main street, where they find illegal guns and drugs. In this case the exercise of that warrant is clearly illegal, and any evidence they collected inadmissible The problem is that the people at 200 mail street, after being indicted pled guilty to possession, made a full allocution, and agreed not to appeal their conviction, signed off by the defendants and their lawyers.

The allocution can be used as evidence in any other matter

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Change the scenario.

A judge orders a warrant to search your home for drugs but an illegal weapon is found. If the warrant was found to illegal, the evidence of an illegal weapon is inadmissible as it would not have been discovered except for the illegal warrant.

The warrant would not be "illegal" unless it was obtained fraudulently on the part of the police, or on the part of the judge.

If the police and judge believed in good faith the tip that led them to get the warrant, the evidence would still be admissible, even if the root cause for the warrant was factually incorrect.

That's the problem, if you would learn to read what I posted. If the warrant was illegally obtained, there was no "good faith".

For example, if the info about Flynn contacting the Russians came from a FISA warrant on someone else, it is not admissible for anything.

 

[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.

Change the scenario.

A judge orders a warrant to search your home for drugs but an illegal weapon is found. If the warrant was found to illegal, the evidence of an illegal weapon is inadmissible as it would not have been discovered except for the illegal warrant.

The warrant would not be "illegal" unless it was obtained fraudulently on the part of the police, or on the part of the judge.

If the police and judge believed in good faith the tip that led them to get the warrant, the evidence would still be admissible, even if the root cause for the warrant was factually incorrect.

That's the problem, if you would learn to read what I posted. If the warrant was illegally obtained, there was no "good faith".

For example, if the info about Flynn contacting the Russians came from a FISA warrant on someone else, it is not admissible for anything.

...and if you would learn to read what I posted, you'll see that I directly addressed the idea of an "illegal warrant" in the post you first replied to, clown shoes.

 

[radical right]

The warrant would not be "illegal" unless it was obtained fraudulently on the part of the police, or on the part of the judge.

If the police and judge believed in good faith the tip that led them to get the warrant, the evidence would still be admissible, even if the root cause for the warrant was factually incorrect.

The US justice system is an adversarial system. Justice is done by both sides being entitled to adequate legal representation. That is where objections to the evidence can be made. Once the evidence is accepted without objection at trial or on appeal, it's legitimacy can no longer be contested.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Change the scenario.

A judge orders a warrant to search your home for drugs but an illegal weapon is found. If the warrant was found to illegal, the evidence of an illegal weapon is inadmissible as it would not have been discovered except for the illegal warrant.

The warrant would not be "illegal" unless it was obtained fraudulently on the part of the police, or on the part of the judge.

If the police and judge believed in good faith the tip that led them to get the warrant, the evidence would still be admissible, even if the root cause for the warrant was factually incorrect.

That's the problem, if you would learn to read what I posted. If the warrant was illegally obtained, there was no "good faith".

For example, if the info about Flynn contacting the Russians came from a FISA warrant on someone else, it is not admissible for anything.

...and if you would learn to read what I posted, you'll see that I directly addressed the idea of an "illegal warrant" in the post you first replied to, clown shoes.

What you did is a typical lib tactic! You answered a question that wasn't asked, and then when you are called on it with the correct information, you deflect as though it was my fault.

That only works on other liberals who are stupid enough to fall for it.

Why are you intent on being dishonest? Do they not have standards for mods anymore?

I normally put blatant liars like you on ignore, but in your case I can't.

 

[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 tip that later turned out to be a lie as the basis.

Change the scenario.

A judge orders a warrant to search your home for drugs but an illegal weapon is found. If the warrant was found to illegal, the evidence of an illegal weapon is inadmissible as it would not have been discovered except for the illegal warrant.

The warrant would not be "illegal" unless it was obtained fraudulently on the part of the police, or on the part of the judge.

If the police and judge believed in good faith the tip that led them to get the warrant, the evidence would still be admissible, even if the root cause for the warrant was factually incorrect.

That's the problem, if you would learn to read what I posted. If the warrant was illegally obtained, there was no "good faith".

For example, if the info about Flynn contacting the Russians came from a FISA warrant on someone else, it is not admissible for anything.

...and if you would learn to read what I posted, you'll see that I directly addressed the idea of an "illegal warrant" in the post you first replied to, clown shoes.

What you did is a typical lib tactic! You answered a question that wasn't asked, and then when you are called on it with the correct information, you deflect as though it was my fault.

That only works on other liberals who are stupid enough to fall for it.

Why are you intent on being dishonest? Do they not have standards for mods anymore?

I normally put blatant liars like you on ignore, but in your case I can't.

Don't whine, fuckwit. If you don't have the self control to scroll past my posts, that's not my fucking problem.

Go back and re-read my posts in this thread. Perhaps you'll figure it out.

 

[radical right]

What you did is a typical lib tactic! You answered a question that wasn't asked, and then when you are called on it with the correct information, you deflect as though it was my fault.

That only works on other liberals who are stupid enough to fall for it.

Why are you intent on being dishonest? Do they not have standards for mods anymore?

I normally put blatant liars like you on ignore, but in your case I can't.

The problem is that in the immediate case, the defendant would at best have been "tricked" into making a full confession. The USSC already ruled that such tactics are perfectly legal. The resulting confession, and information from it, are legal evidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Sure, there is. Look it up. It is not my job to educate the willfully and woefully ignorant.

Criminal libel is a British common law thing. Those rules made it here to an extent (our legal system is mostly based on common law, and libel as a common law tort is still a thing) - but prosecutions and convictions for "criminal libel" are so exceedingly rare in the US that it basically doesn't exist here.

There is no such thing as a federal criminal libel statute.

16 states still have criminal libel laws on the books, but they are incredibly rarely prosecuted - there have been 16 convictions for criminal libel in the US in the last 50 years.

Libel is a tort, not a crime.

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.

Sure, there is. Look it up. It is not my job to educate the willfully and woefully ignorant.

Criminal libel is a British common law thing. Those rules made it here to an extent (our legal system is mostly based on common law, and libel as a common law tort is still a thing) - but prosecutions and convictions for "criminal libel" are so exceedingly rare in the US that it basically doesn't exist here.

There is no such thing as a federal criminal libel statute.

16 states still have criminal libel laws on the books, but they are incredibly rarely prosecuted - there have been 16 convictions for criminal libel in the US in the last 50 years.

Libel is a tort, not a crime.

Argue with the law books, not me. You said there was not such a thing and now you say there is. My point is made.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Change the scenario.

A judge orders a warrant to search your home for drugs but an illegal weapon is found. If the warrant was found to illegal, the evidence of an illegal weapon is inadmissible as it would not have been discovered except for the illegal warrant.

The warrant would not be "illegal" unless it was obtained fraudulently on the part of the police, or on the part of the judge.

If the police and judge believed in good faith the tip that led them to get the warrant, the evidence would still be admissible, even if the root cause for the warrant was factually incorrect.

That's the problem, if you would learn to read what I posted. If the warrant was illegally obtained, there was no "good faith".

For example, if the info about Flynn contacting the Russians came from a FISA warrant on someone else, it is not admissible for anything.

...and if you would learn to read what I posted, you'll see that I directly addressed the idea of an "illegal warrant" in the post you first replied to, clown shoes.

What you did is a typical lib tactic! You answered a question that wasn't asked, and then when you are called on it with the correct information, you deflect as though it was my fault.

That only works on other liberals who are stupid enough to fall for it.

Why are you intent on being dishonest? Do they not have standards for mods anymore?

I normally put blatant liars like you on ignore, but in your case I can't.

Don't whine, fuckwit. If you don't have the self control to scroll past my posts, that's not my fucking problem.

Go back and re-read my posts in this thread. Perhaps you'll figure it out.

Like I said, they must have incredibly low standards for mods to have one that cannot read and is a complete jerk to just about everyone.

 

[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.

Sure, there is. Look it up. It is not my job to educate the willfully and woefully ignorant.

Criminal libel is a British common law thing. Those rules made it here to an extent (our legal system is mostly based on common law, and libel as a common law tort is still a thing) - but prosecutions and convictions for "criminal libel" are so exceedingly rare in the US that it basically doesn't exist here.

There is no such thing as a federal criminal libel statute.

16 states still have criminal libel laws on the books, but they are incredibly rarely prosecuted - there have been 16 convictions for criminal libel in the US in the last 50 years.

Libel is a tort, not a crime.

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.

Sure, there is. Look it up. It is not my job to educate the willfully and woefully ignorant.

Criminal libel is a British common law thing. Those rules made it here to an extent (our legal system is mostly based on common law, and libel as a common law tort is still a thing) - but prosecutions and convictions for "criminal libel" are so exceedingly rare in the US that it basically doesn't exist here.

There is no such thing as a federal criminal libel statute.

16 states still have criminal libel laws on the books, but they are incredibly rarely prosecuted - there have been 16 convictions for criminal libel in the US in the last 50 years.

Libel is a tort, not a crime.

Argue with the law books, not me. You said there was not such a thing and now you say there is. My point is made.

If it makes you feel better to declare victory, I won't stop you.

But if someone ever defames you, the police will laugh in your face if you try to "press charges".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The warrant would not be "illegal" unless it was obtained fraudulently on the part of the police, or on the part of the judge.

If the police and judge believed in good faith the tip that led them to get the warrant, the evidence would still be admissible, even if the root cause for the warrant was factually incorrect.

That's the problem, if you would learn to read what I posted. If the warrant was illegally obtained, there was no "good faith".

For example, if the info about Flynn contacting the Russians came from a FISA warrant on someone else, it is not admissible for anything.

...and if you would learn to read what I posted, you'll see that I directly addressed the idea of an "illegal warrant" in the post you first replied to, clown shoes.

What you did is a typical lib tactic! You answered a question that wasn't asked, and then when you are called on it with the correct information, you deflect as though it was my fault.

That only works on other liberals who are stupid enough to fall for it.

Why are you intent on being dishonest? Do they not have standards for mods anymore?

I normally put blatant liars like you on ignore, but in your case I can't.

Don't whine, fuckwit. If you don't have the self control to scroll past my posts, that's not my fucking problem.

Go back and re-read my posts in this thread. Perhaps you'll figure it out.

Like I said, they must have incredibly low standards for mods to have one that cannot read and is a complete jerk to just about everyone.

I get it. You're butthurt that I'm a mod. Guess what?

I don't give a fuck, and neither does anyone else. Stop whining, grow the fuck up and move the fuck on.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That's the problem, if you would learn to read what I posted. If the warrant was illegally obtained, there was no "good faith".

For example, if the info about Flynn contacting the Russians came from a FISA warrant on someone else, it is not admissible for anything.

...and if you would learn to read what I posted, you'll see that I directly addressed the idea of an "illegal warrant" in the post you first replied to, clown shoes.

What you did is a typical lib tactic! You answered a question that wasn't asked, and then when you are called on it with the correct information, you deflect as though it was my fault.

That only works on other liberals who are stupid enough to fall for it.

Why are you intent on being dishonest? Do they not have standards for mods anymore?

I normally put blatant liars like you on ignore, but in your case I can't.

Don't whine, fuckwit. If you don't have the self control to scroll past my posts, that's not my fucking problem.

Go back and re-read my posts in this thread. Perhaps you'll figure it out.

Like I said, they must have incredibly low standards for mods to have one that cannot read and is a complete jerk to just about everyone.

I get it. You're butthurt that I'm a mod. Guess what?

I don't give a fuck, and neither does anyone else. Stop whining, grow the fuck up and move the fuck on.

No. Not butthurt. Disappointed they would lower themselves to put someone as ignorant as you in that position. I guess they have no quality control either.

Everyone sees you for what you are, so there is no need for you to try to impress anyone with your limited vocabulary with a plethora of profanity.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

...and if you would learn to read what I posted, you'll see that I directly addressed the idea of an "illegal warrant" in the post you first replied to, clown shoes.

What you did is a typical lib tactic! You answered a question that wasn't asked, and then when you are called on it with the correct information, you deflect as though it was my fault.

That only works on other liberals who are stupid enough to fall for it.

Why are you intent on being dishonest? Do they not have standards for mods anymore?

I normally put blatant liars like you on ignore, but in your case I can't.

Don't whine, fuckwit. If you don't have the self control to scroll past my posts, that's not my fucking problem.

Go back and re-read my posts in this thread. Perhaps you'll figure it out.

Like I said, they must have incredibly low standards for mods to have one that cannot read and is a complete jerk to just about everyone.

I get it. You're butthurt that I'm a mod. Guess what?

I don't give a fuck, and neither does anyone else. Stop whining, grow the fuck up and move the fuck on.

No. Not butthurt. Disappointed they would lower themselves to put someone as ignorant as you in that position. I guess they have no quality control either.

Everyone sees you for what you are, so there is no need for you to try to impress anyone with your limited vocabulary with a plethora of profanity.

Let me try my best to make this clear to you.

No one gives a fuck about your feelings.

There's no crying in baseball. Stop whining, and let's try get back on topic, shall we?

 

[iceberg]

If he thought it was legal, then why lie to the FBI about it?

That's the $64,000 question! WHY did Flynn LIE to the FBI?

And the investigators are trying to find the answer to that question, and the massive Trump Campaign team Russian Amnesia Syndrome Disorder

Why did most of the DNC?

Do you REALLY believe that propaganda?

do you REALLY believe trump colluded with Russia?

Yes I do believe in the least, his campaign team and son did, along with Flynn... And I find it hard to believe he was not made aware of their shenanigans....

There are so far found 14 in person meetings with the Russian operatives, 40+ text messages and 60+ phone calls that have been collected so far between the Trump campaign team and Russian government operatives.... the past 20 candidates running in the elections over the years have had ZERO contact during their campaigns with Russian gvt operatives..

Trump said there were NONE, he lied thru his teeth about it throughout the campaign....

so yes, from day one Trump and his lovefest with Putin and Russia has been very odd and so has him acting guilty and I can not simply throw out or turn a blind eye to what I have witnessed before my very eyes...

Something most certainly smells in Denmark!

40 text messages bug you but 33k deleted mails are nothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Sure, there is. Look it up. It is not my job to educate the willfully and woefully ignorant.

Criminal libel is a British common law thing. Those rules made it here to an extent (our legal system is mostly based on common law, and libel as a common law tort is still a thing) - but prosecutions and convictions for "criminal libel" are so exceedingly rare in the US that it basically doesn't exist here.

There is no such thing as a federal criminal libel statute.

16 states still have criminal libel laws on the books, but they are incredibly rarely prosecuted - there have been 16 convictions for criminal libel in the US in the last 50 years.

Libel is a tort, not a crime.

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.

Sure, there is. Look it up. It is not my job to educate the willfully and woefully ignorant.

Criminal libel is a British common law thing. Those rules made it here to an extent (our legal system is mostly based on common law, and libel as a common law tort is still a thing) - but prosecutions and convictions for "criminal libel" are so exceedingly rare in the US that it basically doesn't exist here.

There is no such thing as a federal criminal libel statute.

16 states still have criminal libel laws on the books, but they are incredibly rarely prosecuted - there have been 16 convictions for criminal libel in the US in the last 50 years.

Libel is a tort, not a crime.

Argue with the law books, not me. You said there was not such a thing and now you say there is. My point is made.

If it makes you feel better to declare victory, I won't stop you.

But if someone ever defames you, the police will laugh in your face if you try to "press charges".

I made my point, and you backed up.

 

[Care4all]

Trump will pardon Flynn just to piss off the media and the progs...

If Flynn thought so, then there would have been no reason for him to Plea Bargain all of his crimes down to the one charge, in exchange for cooperating with the Mueller team...

and remember, if any of what he is telling them turns out to be NOT TRUE, then he will be charged for all of his crimes and they will make certain he and his son are charged with some of them, at the State level, so Trump can't pardon him for those.

 

[radical right]

and remember, if any of what he is telling them turns out to be NOT TRUE, then he will be charged for all of his crimes and they will make certain he and his son are charged with some of them, at the State level, so Trump can't pardon him for those.

Mueller has been cooperating with state attorney generals, just to circumvent Trumps pardon power. The only thing worse than Trump issuing a pardon, is Trump issuing a moot pardon that Flynn can use to wallpaper his state prison cell.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Trump will pardon Flynn just to piss off the media and the progs...

If Flynn thought so, then there would have been no reason for him to Plea Bargain all of his crimes down to the one charge, in exchange for cooperating with the Mueller team...

and remember, if any of what he is telling them turns out to be NOT TRUE, then he will be charged for all of his crimes and they will make certain he and his son are charged with some of them, at the State level, so Trump can't pardon him for those.

What state has laws like that? Care to give us an example? Oh, wait! You don't know what he did, do you?

You need to knock off the mind-altering substances if you are posting!

 

[Care4all]

I don't want flynn to spend the rest of his life in jail.... I think he is bat shit crazy and has been for about 5 to 10 years now.... I don't know what made him snap...but he did snap and go bonkers.... he served his country well, before that....

 

[Care4all]

Trump will pardon Flynn just to piss off the media and the progs...

If Flynn thought so, then there would have been no reason for him to Plea Bargain all of his crimes down to the one charge, in exchange for cooperating with the Mueller team...

and remember, if any of what he is telling them turns out to be NOT TRUE, then he will be charged for all of his crimes and they will make certain he and his son are charged with some of them, at the State level, so Trump can't pardon him for those.

What state has laws like that? Care to give ius an example? Oh, wait! You don't know what he did, do you?

You need to knock off the mind-altering substances if you are posting!

coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment!