Menu
Cart 0

Cleanse the 7th floor of the FBI headquarters

Posted by John T. Reed on

The 6/23/18 Wall Street Journal article “Mueller’s Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” is the best executive summary explaining why the conclusion sentence of the IG report on the Clinton email investigation belied the other 568 pages of the report. Google the title to read the article.
.
"We found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations; rather, we determined that they were based on the prosecutors' assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice."
.
In fact, the report found MASSIVE evidence of bias and hatred by FBI executives and vows to throw the election to Hillary and to undermine Trump’s presidency if he won. Furthermore, all decisions made in the investigation were CONGRUENT with that bias, hatred, and those vows. Only the RESULT of the election differs from the bias, hatred, and vow to throw the election. But that is merely analogous to the difference between attempted murder and murder. Both are crimes.
.
The authors of the article are a law professor and a lawyer who worked for Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. The article is chock full of Supreme Court decision citations. 
.
One citation disapproves of an investigation that was started because of similar bias. Others disapprove of bias DURING investigations that is pertinent to investigative decisions being made. Often, the offending FBI executives were talking about the Mueller Russia investigation, not the Horowitz Clinton email investigation, but there was no indication in the texts and other evidence that the bias was not applicable to BOTH investigations.
.
The key phrase in the article is 
.
“All special counsel [Mueller] activities—investigations, plea deals, subpoenas, reports, indictments, and convictions—are fruit of a poisonous tree, byproducts of a violation of due process.”
.
The phrase “fruit of the poisonous tree” is a famous American legal principle. Here are the first two paragraphs from the Wikipedia article on the phrase:
.
“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.

“History
“The doctrine underlying the name was first described in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920). The term's first use was by Justice Felix Frankfurter in Nardone v. United States (1939).”
.
The consequence of evidence being declared “fruit of the poisonous tree” is that it is inadmissible in court. With a massive amount of poisonous fruit as in this case, the effect is to destroy the entire investigation. If a case is prosecuted against Trump or his aides, the defense counsel will pound away at all the bias, not to mention all the leaks, in front of the jury. If the court allowed “poison” into evidence, it would be cited as grounds for overturning any conviction on appeal.
.
In other words, the Mueller investigation is dead, destroyed by the bumbling, and likely biased himself, Mueller, filling his team with the most anti-Trump persons possible. Mueller was, and maybe still is, a close personal friend of Comey. Accordingly, it should be shut down.
.
I do not believe the article contains the phrase “circumstantial evidence.” But Horowitz seemed to hang his “end with a wimper not a bang” conclusion on the lack of a notarized, written confession or a video or audio recording of a confession or an eyewitness of a confession.
.
First, even I was in the bureaucracy for a while—the Army. I refused to sign a false motor vehicle report in Vietnam. I was instantly fired and sent to a more dangerous unit as I had been threatened with. So was there evidence of that? 
.
The threats came from my peers who heard them from the brass musing in front of them that Lieutenant Reed “might find himself in an assignment less to his liking than this one” if he did not start playing the game. I did not hear that. I interpolated it. 
.
Who fired me? The battalion commander. Who ordered me to sign a false document? No one. The motor sergeant handed me the document, admitted it was 180 degrees off from truthful, but said I had to sign it. 
.
His tone was that the young lieutenant did not understand how the game was played by career officers. “This goes all the way to the Pentagon, sir,” he said explaining that you can’t tell the Pentagon that 85% of the trucks in our battalion cannot be driven. I told I understood exactly how the game was played. The problem was that the Army refused to understand that I was not going to sign false documents regardless of whether that was routine in the Army officer corps.
.
In other words, the battalion commander and the other field-grade officers all got the message to me, while each reflexively maintained “deniability.”
.
Horowitz is pretending to believe that “blot out the sun smoke” is not evidence of a fire anywhere. He is maintaining his OWN deniability. He is the equivalent of my battalion commander.
.
Back to circumstantial evidence. The public believes that circumstantial evidence is INADMISSIBLE evidence. The hell it is. Even the proverbial “smoking gun” is circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence would be an eyewitness who saw the gun fired at the victim.
.
Here are the first three paragraphs of the Wikipedia article on circumstantial evidence:
.
“Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

“On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.

“Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact [jury] to infer that a fact exists. In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).“
.
Exactly. The IG report is devastating to everything the FBI and Mueller (former director of the FBI) have done regarding the two sides of the 2016 Presidential election. The 7th floor of the FBI should all be fired. Mueller should be fired and not replaced.
.
The FBI has a long history of this crap staring with Director for Life J.Edgar Hoover, continuing through master leaker “Deep Throat” FBI Associate Director Mark Felt and Comey and the current Director Wray who is acting as if his job was to protect the FBI executives, not the American people.
.
Throw the FBI rascals out.


Share this post



← Older Post Newer Post →