Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

[para bellum]

You claim she has the law in her back pocket, yet at the same time she has concerns about the illegal call she made.

And there is also the fact that Fani gave her immunity before she testified to the grand jury. That goes to the frame of mind.

I don't think "I was just doing my job" is a defense for breaking the law in another State. It will be up to McAfee to decide if the phone call is admissible. There are exceptions sometimes depending on how the evidence was obtained.

It's a fairly minor point because the jury will have to weigh the entire phone call, not just one or two out-of-context sentences. The call itself is not incriminating, it's just Trump trying to get Raffy to look at some of the problem ballots already identified.

And whether there is even a trial at all will likely depend on the SCOTUS ruling on Presidential immunity. I think McAfee was planning for August, but the case may not even survive until then...

 

[Marener]

I don't think "I was just doing my job" is a defense for breaking the law in another State. It will be up to McAfee to decide if the phone call is admissible. There are exceptions sometimes depending on how the evidence was obtained.

It’s hard for me to see a Georgia judge interpreting Florida law. That doesn’t seek to be part of their purview.

 

[para bellum]

It’s hard for me to see a Georgia judge interpreting Florida law. That doesn’t seek to be part of their purview.

I don't even know if Trump's attorneys will move to exclude the tape. If they do, they will have to make the case for exclusion, and the Judge will have to rule on it.

He doesn't really have a choice- it's deny or grant.

It's really 2 questions- was the tape recorded illegally, and what does Georgia law say about admissibility.

 

[Marener]

I don't even know if Trump's attorneys will move to exclude the tape. If they do, they will have to make the case for exclusion, and the Judge will have to rule on it.

He doesn't really have a choice- it's deny or grant.

It's really 2 questions- was the tape recorded illegally, and what does Georgia law say about admissibility.

I can’t see a Georgia judge making a ruling based on Florida law.

Either Fuchs is part of law enforcement which is exempt from the law.

Or Fuchs is not part of law enforcement in which case it can be admitted since it’s not Fani Willis’s problem and can be admitted.

 

[para bellum]

I can’t see a Georgia judge making a ruling based on Florida law.

Sure. He could easily say "I'm not interested in Florida's law, the recording is not illegal under Georgia law."

It's entirely his choice. If he says it's "fruit from a poisonous tree", he can do that too.

Either Fuchs is part of law enforcement which is exempt from the law.

Or Fuchs is not part of law enforcement in which case it can be admitted since it’s not Fani Willis’s problem and can be admitted.

Just because you work for the State doesn't make you law enforcement. Maybe her claim that she recorded it for law enforcement purposes would hold up, but the fact that she took it straight to the Washington Post argues against that.

Fani Willis is in no legal jeopardy for Fuchs' acts, but admissibility of evidence is ALWAYS a prosecutor's problem.

 

[Marener]

Sure. He could easily say "I'm not interested in Florida's law, the recording is not illegal under Georgia law."

It's entirely his choice. If he says it's "fruit from a poisonous tree", he can do that too.

Just because you work for the State doesn't make you law enforcement. Maybe her claim that she recorded it for law enforcement purposes would hold up, but the fact that she took it straight to the Washington Post argues against that.

Fani Willis is in no legal jeopardy for Fuchs' acts, but admissibility of evidence is ALWAYS a prosecutor's problem.

Exclusion rules prevent the prosecution from illegally obtaining evidence. It does not prevent them from using evidence other people have illegally obtained.

 

[para bellum]

Exclusion rules prevent the prosecution from illegally obtaining evidence. It does not prevent them from using evidence other people have illegally obtained.

It is not nearly so cut and dried as you make it. There are exceptions when evidence is acquired in "good faith", but the doctrine of "fruit from the poison tree" says evidence from illegal State activities is not admissible. That includes illegal wiretaps.

The plaintiff is the State of Georgia. You guys have already said Fuchs was acting in her official capacity as an employee of the State when she made the recording. So if she illegally acquired the evidence, it IS the State illegally obtaining the evidence.

 

[Delldude]

since your OP is claiming that Cheney withheld information the report is the ONLY piece of information that is relevant.

My OP never made that claim......it was you who was off topic and in the wrong thread.....

Irrelevant and off topic...

So you're admitting you're irrelevant and off topic.

I wondered WTF you were talking about.

Your thread so I can't argue your mistake.

LOL..........dude, you're on a roll.

Mine are part of the record.

The same records the committee deleted over 100 encrypted files?

My "own" is the J6 report

These the same reports files that the democrats have been resisting giving GOP access to?

 

[Dadoalex]

My OP never made that claim......it was you who was off topic and in the wrong thread.....



I wondered WTF you were talking about.

LOL..........dude, you're on a roll.


The same records the committee deleted over 100 encrypted files?

These the same reports files that the democrats have been resisting giving GOP access to?

apologies.

This is the thread where Trump's "lawyers" can't get what you claim is an illegally obtained recording excluded.

I guess these things happen when you pay your attorneys in Trump Bux

 

[Delldude]

apologies.

This is the thread where Trump's "lawyers" can't get what you claim is an illegally obtained recording excluded.

I guess these things happen when you pay your attorneys in Trump Bux

No biggie.

 

[SavannahMann]

Excerpts from a recent book detail how Willis has based her entire case on an illegally taped phone call. And even bragged about it.


Democrat Fani Willis’ legal troubles extend beyond recent revelations that she deceptively hired her otherwise under-qualified, secret, married lover to run the political prosecution of former President Donald Trump and other Republicans in Georgia. A new book from Mike Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman admits that a widely misunderstood phone call, on which Willis’ political prosecution rests, was illegally recorded. That means the entire prosecution could crumble with defendants having a new avenue to challenge Democrat lawfare.
__________________________
For years, the media and other Democrats have held up Willis as a brilliant and credible prosecutor of Republicans. The new book suffers from poor timing, with Willis and her lover accused of perjury, subornation of perjury, bribery, and kickbacks related to the prosecution. Willis could be removed from the prosecution as early as this week.

Illegal Phone Call Recording​

“Unlike many of her fellow Republican consultants with whom she had worked, Fuchs had a friendly working relationship with members of the Fourth Estate,” Isikoff and Klaidman write before describing Fuchs’ regular leaks to The Washington Post, which conservatives despise for its left-wing propaganda, hoaxes such as the Russia-collusion lie, and smears of conservatives such as Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Fuchs first gave The Washington Post fabricated quotes they later had to retract about a phone call President Trump had with someone in the elections office. Though Fuchs was not busted for her lie until March 2021, months after the fabricated quotes were used to impeach President Trump, the authors of the book say the embarrassment of being found out taught her the importance of recording phone calls such as the early January 2021 phone call that forms the basis of Willis’ investigation. They do not explain how this lesson worked in terms of the space-time continuum.

In any case, Fuchs recorded a phone call between Trump, Raffensperger, and their associates. Fuchs ended the call by saying they should get off the phone and work to “preserve the relationship” between the two offices. Instead, she immediately leaked the phone call to The Washington Post, which published it hours later.

Covering up the Crime​

This is where the authors of the book admit that the very recording of the call was a crime:



Republicans had long suspected Fuchs was the source of the audiotaped call and, further, that she had illegally recorded it in Florida. Fuchs had noted in a Facebook post that she was in Florida visiting family around the time of the call. The book describes the close working relationship and “secret collaboration” of the Liz Cheney-led Jan. 6 committee and Fani Willis’ prosecutorial team. Fuchs should have been a major part of the televised show trial Cheney put on, further convincing Republicans that Fuchs had illegally taped the call and Cheney was helping cover that up. (Incidentally, the book portrays Cheney as the real leader of the Jan. 6 committee, that she viewed it as a “platform for her to resuscitate her political career” and would “provide a springboard for a Cheney presidential run.”)

The authors go on to say Fuchs would attempt to escape prosecution for the call if a Florida official brought charges by claiming she taped and immediately leaked the call to The Washington Post for “law enforcement purposes.” The authors somewhat hilariously describe this claim as an “effective defense.”

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree​

The problem for Fani Willis’ political prosecution is that the book convincingly shows the entire prosecution rests on a piece of evidence that everyone now knows was illegally obtained — never mind that the evidence has also been completely misinterpreted.

“And Fuchs did what was arguably the single gutsiest and most consequential act of the entire post-election battle,” the authors write. “Without telling Raffensperger or Meadows, she taped the call.”

“It was all the evidence Fani Willis needed to get started,” they write of the leaked recording, adding, “The recording was the single piece of damning evidence that had launched the investigation.”

With this evidence provided in the hagiography of Willis, those persecuted by her political prosecution could argue the entire investigation is corrupted by the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.

“Fruit of the poisonous trees is a doctrine that extends the exclusionary rule to make evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from evidence that was illegally obtained,” according to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. “As the metaphor suggests, if the evidential ‘tree’ is tainted, so is its ‘fruit.’ The doctrine was established in 1920 by the decision in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, and the phrase ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ was coined by Justice Frankfurter in his 1939 opinion in Nardone v. United States. The rule typically bars even testimonial evidence resulting from excludable evidence, such as a confession.”


With Fani Willis repeatedly saying the entire investigation into Republicans was the result of a phone call that was illegally recorded, defendants might pursue legal recourse. It’s the latest challenge for Willis, even if the political ally judge reviewing whether she can continue prosecuting Georgia Republicans rules in her favor.

Book Admits Fani Willis' Investigation Began With Illegal Recording

A new book admits that a widely misunderstood phone call, on which Fani Willis' political prosecution rests, was illegally recorded.

thefederalist.com

I’m actually shocked. This is the first claim of Trump innocence or reason to find him Not Guilty that actually sort of fits. I mean every other claim has been either idiotic or just based on a lie. But this actually has some merit.

I don’t think it is as simple as the linked article claims. I’m sure there are a ton of precedents on the issue. And the complaint may be overruled or upheld.

But this actually has some merit. Unlike every other claim this may actually be right. If this actually holds up in the courts, then it would prove the old statement true. A blind squirrel will find a nut now and then.

 

[Delldude]

I’m actually shocked. This is the first claim of Trump innocence or reason to find him Not Guilty that actually sort of fits. I mean every other claim has been either idiotic or just based on a lie. But this actually has some merit.

I don’t think it is as simple as the linked article claims. I’m sure there are a ton of precedents on the issue. And the complaint may be overruled or upheld.

But this actually has some merit. Unlike every other claim this may actually be right. If this actually holds up in the courts, then it would prove the old statement true. A blind squirrel will find a nut now and then.

How about it may only be the tip of the iceberg?

 

[SavannahMann]

How about it may only be the tip of the iceberg?

The problem is all the other excuses and predictions have been childish or just wrong.

The argument of automatic full immunity for all time. Just dumb. There is no way that you can tell me that the Founders intended the President to be a King. Absolute Nonsense.

The rest are nonsensical false equivalence. The fake electors in the many states. The argument put forth was Nixon and Kennedy did it in 1960. Not even close. While the election was being decided in recounts the two campaigns did name electors. But they did not forge documents to certify them. Once the decision was reached and certified, the electors for Kennedy were provided authentic documentation. Those for Nixon were not.

The stolen documents? There have been so many excuses and false equivalencies that one wonders why anyone takes anything said by Trump or his supporters seriously.

I don’t think this one is going to work either. The reason is that it wasn’t the cops who made the illegal recording.

So here is the real problem. It shows Trump really did the crime, but he may skate on this one on a technicality. As I said, I don’t know the precedence and I’ll be interested to see what several lawyers I follow think. They know the precedence. I don’t. I suspect it isn’t going to work out the way you want because it wasn’t raised in court. There hasn’t been a motion to suppress the evidence before the judge.

So let me ask you this question. Do you really want someone who committed the crime to be President? If this is disqualifying then I certainly do not want him convicted. I want the right thing according to the courts. But you seem to be saying he would make a good president because he got off on a technicality.

 

[Delldude]

The problem is all the other excuses and predictions have been childish or just wrong.

That depends on one political perspective, wouldn't you think?

The argument of automatic full immunity for all time. Just dumb.

Argument has some merit. Do you want a president to be inhibited from making decisions or taking actions in the best interest of the country at a particular moment to be engrossed in possible criminal ramifications after office?

The fake electors in the many states.

There's more to this than meets the eye. It falls under the alternate elector issue. They think they have good reason for doing that, it's up to the courts.

The stolen documents? There have been so many excuses and false equivalencies that one wonders why anyone takes anything said by Trump or his supporters seriously.

So you lay it all on Trump and/or his supporter? What about what comes out of DOJ? You believe they are always truthful?

I don’t think this one is going to work either. The reason is that it wasn’t the cops who made the illegal recording.

Fuch's is the Deputy SOS, one of her duties is enforcement of election law.

It shows Trump really did the crime, but he may skate on this one on a technicality.

They recording shows Trump looking for votes, no inference to breaking the law to get them.

I suspect it isn’t going to work out the way you want because it wasn’t raised in court.

I already pointed out Willis, quite possibly has cooked her own goose. I don't think this taping issue has been brought up in her recent hearings, I could be wrong. I wasn't looking for any specific outcome.

Do you really want someone who committed the crime to be President?

You already have one in power now.

But you seem to be saying he would make a good president because he got off on a technicality.

If prosecution fails one way or another to prove their case, that's the way the system is set up, beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt......works both ways for defense and prosecution.

 

[para bellum]

Fuch's is the Deputy SOS, one of her duties is enforcement of election law.

I was just pondering this, and it just made no sense to me why Fani had to give her immunity- it's not like she would be immune in Florida.

The single-person consent issue is a red-herring. There are exceptions to that law for privileged communications. For a State employee to record a call with the Secretary of State and the President, and then leak it to the press? I am pretty sure, not positive but that was a privileged communication, and what she did was a felony under Georgia's privacy statutes.

If that's the case, McAfee might look at that recording differently than if it was just recorded from Florida but otherwise "no problem".

 

[Delldude]

I was just pondering this, and it just made no sense to me why Fani had to give her immunity- it's not like she would be immune in Florida.

The single-person consent issue is a red-herring. There are exceptions to that law for privileged communications. For a State employee to record a call with the Secretary of State and the President, and then leak it to the press? I am pretty sure, not positive but that was a privileged communication, and what she did was a felony under Georgia's privacy statutes.

If that's the case, McAfee might look at that recording differently than if it was just recorded from Florida but otherwise "no problem".

What I saw was some type of immunity during testimony before J6. It may be in that article or a link.

 

[para bellum]

What I saw was some type of immunity during testimony before J6. It may be in that article or a link.

No, it was immunity before the Georgia grand jury.

"A lawyer for Raffensperger’s office asked the January 6 committee not to call her as a witness for reasons the committee’s lawyers assumed were due to her potential legal exposure. The committee agreed. But when she was called before a Fulton County special grand jury convened by Fani Willis, she was granted immunity and confirmed the taping, according to three sources with direct knowledge of her testimony."

 

[Delldude]

No, it was immunity before the Georgia grand jury.

"A lawyer for Raffensperger’s office asked the January 6 committee not to call her as a witness for reasons the committee’s lawyers assumed were due to her potential legal exposure. The committee agreed. But when she was called before a Fulton County special grand jury convened by Fani Willis, she was granted immunity and confirmed the taping, according to three sources with direct knowledge of her testimony."

OK.....there was some BS with J6 too.

Did you see testimony from Raffensperger, where he was asked if he thought Trump's 11,000 votes was asking him to break the law?

 

[para bellum]

Did you see testimony from Raffensperger, where he was asked if he thought Trump's 11,000 votes was asking him to break the law?

No, I haven't even looked for that. I listened to the entire call, and there isn't anything nefarious, so I was just waiting to see if it makes it to trial.

 

[Marener]

It is not nearly so cut and dried as you make it. There are exceptions when evidence is acquired in "good faith", but the doctrine of "fruit from the poison tree" says evidence from illegal State activities is not admissible. That includes illegal wiretaps.

The plaintiff is the State of Georgia. You guys have already said Fuchs was acting in her official capacity as an employee of the State when she made the recording. So if she illegally acquired the evidence, it IS the State illegally obtaining the evidence.

State activities are exempted from the law because the two party consent law is about privacy, not about 4th amendment. You're crossing wires on the issue.

This isnt an illegal wiretap. It's phone conversation between two parties, the state being one of those parties.