Skip to comments.BREAKING: White House Files Lawsuit Against Politico, Accuses Schiff of Leaking False Information
Posted on 11/18/2019 3:55:57 PM PST by MtnClimber
Senior Counterterrorism White House official Kash Patel has filed a $25 million defamation lawsuit in Virginia court, accusing Rep. Adam Schiff of acting "in concert" with Politico by illegally leaking false information relating to the ongoing impeachment inquiry.
The lawsuit was filed against Politico reporter Natasha Bertrand and publisher/executive chairman Robert Allbritton and accuses them of defaming Patel.
(Excerpt) Read more at trendingpolitics.com ...
First real counter punch.
Discovery is going to be a b*tch for Adam Schiff. I can imagine one of the first questions the reporter will be asked is “Who gave you the information” from the closed-door hearing? If it’s part of Schifty’s staff, I can see the lawsuit being expanded to include him personally.
This could be a Merry Christmas after all.
Now this starts to get interesting.
If Schiff was an asst DA, he probable did some unconstitutional bs and tainted evidence to whack some innocent person.
Hopefully defense attorneys in his area will check for possible tainted evidence by Schiff and his personal thugs.
The Development of the Exclusionary Rule
For the more than 100 years after its ratification, the Fourth Amendment was of little value to criminal defendants because evidence seized by law enforcement in violation of the warrant or reasonableness requirements was still admissible during the defendant’s prosecution.
The U.S. Supreme Court dramatically changed Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in 1914, however, when it handed down its decision in Weeks v. United States. This case involved the appeal of a defendant who had been convicted based on evidence that had been seized by a federal agent without a warrant or other constitutional justification. In reversing the conviction, the Supreme Court effectively created the exclusionary rule. Then, in 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court made the exclusionary rule applicable to the states with its decision in Mapp v. Ohio.
Why Do We Have the Exclusionary Rule?
Designed to deter police misconduct, the exclusionary rule enables courts to exclude incriminating evidence from being introduced at trial upon proof that the evidence was procured in violation of a constitutional provision. The rule allows defendants to challenge the admissibility of evidence by bringing a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence.
If the court allows the evidence to be introduced at trial and the jury votes to convict, the defendant can challenge the propriety of the trial court’s decision denying the motion to suppress on appeal.
If the defendant succeeds on appeal, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that double jeopardy principles do not bar retrial of the defendant because the trial court’s error wasn’t addressing the question of guilt or innocence. Nonetheless, obtaining a conviction in the second trial would be significantly more difficult if the evidence suppressed by the exclusionary rule is important to the prosecution.
Companion to the Exclusionary Rule: Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
A legal concept that’s related to the exclusionary rule is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. Under this doctrine, a court may exclude from trial not only evidence that itself was seized in violation of the U.S. Constitution, but also any other evidence that is derived from an illegal search.
For example, suppose a defendant is arrested for kidnapping and later confesses to the crime. If a court subsequently declares that the arrest was unconstitutional, the confession will also be deemed tainted and ruled inadmissible at any prosecution of the defendant on the kidnapping charge.
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. 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.
We have been screaming about when are we going to see some offense. Maybe just maybe this is the beginning.
THAT explanation should get the Joe DiGenova award for clarity of exposition.
Oh yeah... Here we go. This is what REAL Trump supporters need to do. Stick their necks out and get this stuff in court with legal standing. And those who do like this deserve thousands of dollars in support from EVERYONE to make it succeed. Any excuse. any reason, Get it in court ASAP and stand behind it.
Oh wait... I forgot, have a hunting trip planned next week to get ready for so I don’t have time. Hunting fun is much more important...
In the meantime Ca, NY, and Washington state citizens are dumping millions into the current Colorado issues. This is why they win one important target at a time and we lose...
It may not be in all cases, but it appears that the attorney’s for the “witnesses” are leaking the opening statements and possibly more,(Yovanovitch’s attorney would not let her answer the question concerning the leaking of her opening statement during the deposition claiming attorney client privilege and attorney work product privilege.
Maybe I’m missing something. How would that be covered by attorney client privilege unless the attorney was the one who leaked it?
May very well be, but I would bet it’s being done in concert with Schiff’s staff. I can see the prepared statement being leaked by witness counsel, but testimony is probably coming from staff.
drag this out and make pencil neck go broke in legal fees
That is the way I interpreted the lawyers responses to the questions concerning who leaked the opening statement. The lawyer seemed to admit, though vaguely worded, that “if” he had leaked it it was attorney work product.
Yep. If Yovanovitch leaked it it wouldn’t involve attorney-client privilege for her to answer the question.
schiff was assistant us attorney his big case was against richard miller fbi agent convicted of passing secret documents to ussr convicted on third try..
Starting on page 87 of her deposition is where this subject comes up. Here is a link to the deposition; https://www.scribd.com/document/433409580/Read-Yovanovitch-deposition-transcript#from_embed
Amen - it’s pathetic how pathetic our side is when it comes to taking actual action and investing of themselves.
We tend to wait until it finally hits closer to home before we care. Sometimes this is too late and now precedent is already set elsewhere. Like gun rights, every single legal battle in Ca concerning firearms needs concerted crowd funding from across this whole nation to nip it in the bud there before it can spread.
Pick one target at a time and go all in on that one target at a time. This is exactly how the Dems are winning with all this. This “I will worry about it if/when it comes to my state” is just not working, too late, the unconstitutional example has already been set and allowed elsewhere which makes your local battle now twice as hard...
Even if it is just funding donations, we need to concentrate on one target at a time as a whole nation and actually get it done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.