Free Flynn, Jail Clapper and Brennan

Flopping Aces ^ | 10-29-19 | Daniel John Sobieski

[Starman417]

Former Director of National Intelligence and current CNN contributor James “I Lied To Congress And Got Away With It” Clapper stammered through his interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Friday, admitting that he may be a target of U.S. Atty. John Durham’s investigation, now officially turned into a criminal probe by Atty. Gen. William Barr. As BizPacReview notes:

Obama’s former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper seemed to struggle with his poker face as he reacted to news of a DOJ criminal inquiry.

The current CNN contributor spoke with Anderson Cooper about reports of the transition of U.S. Attorney John Durham’s review into the origins of the Russia probe into a criminal investigation. And his body language spoke louder than his words.

“What do you make of this,” the CNN host asked on “Anderson Cooper 360.”

“Well, I’m very curious because presumably, I guess I’m one of those under investigation,” Clapper replied, peppering his sentence with several uses of “uh.”

“Uh” rhymes with “duh” which is the reaction to growing suspicions that based on his actions and mounting evidence that perjurer James Clapper anf Lt. Gen.. Michael Flynn might be headed in opposite directions – deep state point man James Clapper headed to prison for sedition,, along with deep state political hack John Brennan, both charged with helping to orchestrate a coup against a duly elected sitting President Donald J. Trump.

Sidney Powell, the attorney for Gen. Flynn has filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him based on indications that the FBI altered his 302s, essentially written reports based on witness interviews, to make him look guilty, and leaking information on Flynn’s calls to the Washington Post. As reported by RedState:

Powell alleges a set-up of Flynn including that the FBI 302s related to Flynn were edited. A 302 is the form the FBI uses to reflect what a witness says during an interview. Powell’s filing also suggests that Office of Net Assessment’s James Baker illegally leaked the transcripts of Flynn’s calls to David Ignatius of the Washington Post. And Powell is specifically looking for the phone records of James Clapper to see about his contacts with Ignatius, including that he essentially told Ignatius to “take the kill shot on Flynn.”

Powell, a former federal prosecutor and a veteran of 500 federal appeals, is the author of “LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice”, a biting tome exposing the prosecutorial misconduct of government lawyers such as Robert Mueller's "pitbull" Andrew Weissmann and other members of Obama's inner circle which have threatened the foundations of true justice in our democracy. Powell has sunk her legal teeth into the fraudulent case against Flynn that should result in his, with apologies to Robert Mueller, exoneration As noted by Powerline:

Powell’s most explosive charge is that the FBI falsified the Form 302 that recorded the content of its agents’ interview with Flynn in order to set him up for prosecution:

On February 10, 2017, the news broke—attributed to “senior intelligence officials”—that Mr. Flynn had discussed sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak, contrary to what Vice President Pence had said on television previously. Overnight, the most important substantive changes were made to the Flynn 302. Those changes added an unequivocal statement that “FLYNN stated he did not”—in response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote. This is a deceptive manipulation because, as the notes of the agents show, Mr. Flynn was not even sure he had spoken to Russia/Kislyak on this issue. He had talked to dozens of countries. Exs. 9, 10, 11.

Second, they added: “or if KISLYAK described any Russian response to a request by FLYNN.” That question and answer do not appear in the notes, yet it was made into a criminal offense. The typed version of the highly unusual “deliberative” 302 by that date already included an entire section from whole cloth that also serves as a criminal charge in the Information and purported factual basis regarding “Russia’s response” to any request by Flynn. The draft also shows that the agents moved a sentence to make it seem to be an answer to a question it was not.

As Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett notes on his website, it is Clapper who may have ordered the hit job on Flynn, calling for a Washington Post reporter to “take the kill shot” on Flynn by publishing leaked information:

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

I will bet money that you searched for this article before you posted it.

But, here’s what happens when an article title is typed in, instead of simply copying and pasting the title from the article.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3789883/posts

;-)

[southernindymom]

You know... if my last name was Clapper.... I think I would have had to change that. Embarrassing. Sounds like a STD

[Grampa Dave]

On February 10, 2017, the news broke—attributed to “senior intelligence officials”—that Mr. Flynn had discussed sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak, contrary to what Vice President Pence had said on television previously. Overnight, the most important substantive changes were made to the Flynn 302. Those changes added an unequivocal statement that “FLYNN stated he did not”—in response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote. This is a deceptive manipulation because, as the notes of the agents show, Mr. Flynn was not even sure he had spoken to Russia/Kislyak on this issue. He had talked to dozens of countries. Exs. 9, 10, 11.

Second, they added: “or if KISLYAK described any Russian response to a request by FLYNN.” That question and answer do not appear in the notes, yet it was made into a criminal offense. The typed version of the highly unusual “deliberative” 302 by that date already included an entire section from whole cloth that also serves as a criminal charge in the Information and purported factual basis regarding “Russia’s response” to any request by Flynn. The draft also shows that the agents moved a sentence to make it seem to be an answer to a question it was not.

There is a legal term called “fruit of the poisonous tree.” If the evidence, or tree, is tainted, then anything gained from the evidence — the fruit — is tainted as well.

Fruit of the poisonous tree
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.[1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the “tree”) of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the “fruit”) from it is tainted as well.

History
The doctrine underlying the name was first described in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920).[2][3][4] The term’s first use was by Justice Felix Frankfurter in Nardone v. United States (1939).[citation needed]

Such evidence is not generally admissible in court.[5] For example, if a police officer conducted an unconstitutional (Fourth Amendment) search of a home and obtained a key to a train station locker, and evidence of a crime came from the locker, that evidence would most likely be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree legal doctrine.

The testimony of a witness who is discovered through illegal means would not necessarily be excluded, however, due to the “attenuation doctrine”[6], which allows certain evidence or testimony to be admitted in court if the link between the illegal police conduct and the resulting evidence or testimony is sufficiently attenuated

For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent intervening factor to sufficiently “attenuate” the connection between the government’s illegal discovery of the witness and the witness’s voluntary testimony itself. (United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))

The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule, which, subject to some exceptions, prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being admitted in a criminal trial.[1] Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence.[2]

The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions.[citation needed] The tainted evidence is admissible if:

it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source; or
it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
the search warrant was not found to be valid based on probable cause, but was executed by government agents in good faith (called the good-faith exception).
This doctrine was also used by the European Court of Human Rights in Gäfgen v. Germany.[citation needed] In certain cases continental European countries have similar laws (e.g. in cases of torture), while the doctrine itself is generally not known.[citation needed] Illegally obtained evidence is used by the courts to ensure that the judgment is factually correct, however the person obtaining the illegal evidence typically faces independent consequences.

[Dick Bachert]

Mustn't forget THESE TREASONOUS MORONS!

[Seruzawa]

Never talk to the FBI or any police without a lawyer present. Just keep your mouth shut. No matter what they say or threaten. Demand a lawyer and STFU.