![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/07\/eye-roll.jpg?ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The whole case started when President Trump, along with millions of other Americans, saw what, to their eyes, was blatant election theft and voter fraud. President Trump called the Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger. This call was recorded by one Jordan Fuchs, who hates President Trump. (A local Liz Cheney) The problem here, besides the mischaracterization of the call, was that it was illegally recorded. Here are the details from RedState<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n Can an illegally recorded phone call be used to form the basis of a prosecution? That’s a question that is about to become very relevant following a bombshell revelation regarding the infamous phone call between Donald Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.\u00a0 <\/b><\/p>\n On the call, Trump can be heard telling Raffensperger, “I just want to find 11,780 votes.” That statement was one of the centerpieces of the former president’s second impeachment. Was it definitive, though? In context, Trump had also asked Raffensperger to “find the fraud,” indicating that he thought there were legitimate votes left to be uncovered.\u00a0 <\/b><\/p>\n I won\u2019t bother going into all the questionable actions on election day. It\u2019s looking more and more that there was systemic election and voter fraud against President Trump in 2020. This is obviously what President Trump believed, and he thought there had to be other votes that hadn\u2019t been counted yet.<\/p>\n Regardless, Fulton County DA Fani Willis<\/a> used the phone call as the foundation for her RICO prosecution against Trump and his associates. According to a new book published by Michael Isikoff (who was an original pusher of the Russian collusion hoax), that call was illegally recorded by Jordan Fuchs.<\/b><\/p>\n Who is Fuchs? She is Raffensperger’s Chief of Staff and has a <\/b>very\u00a0<\/b><\/em>checkered history of political activism. Her hatred of Trump can be described as obsessive, and she was in Florida when she recorded the call in question. Why is that a problem? Because Florida is a two-party consent state.\u00a0 <\/b><\/p>\n Now to explain what that means. A two-party consent means that both people on the call have to agree to the recording. If both sides do not agree, then any recordings underway have to be stopped. If you have called into a support line, you will hear that the calls are being recorded for \u201cQuality Control Purposes.\u201d What actually happens is that the recordings are also used as a CYA tool by the support people. (I have personal information on how this was used by someone I work with in my real world job. I won\u2019t go into details, but it went to the C level and everyone laughed at how the person totally disarmed the idiot that called in)<\/p>\n Here’s the quote<\/a> from Isikoff’s book, which Fuchs was a primary source for. <\/b><\/p>\n Oh this should be good.<\/p>\n Fuchs has never talked publicly about her taping of the phone call; she learned, after the fact, that Florida where she was at the time is one of fifteen states that requires two-party consent for the taping of phone calls. A lawyer for Raffensperger\u2019s office asked the January 6 committee not to call her as a witness for reasons the committee\u2019s 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.<\/b><\/p>\n I\u2019m not sure, but I don\u2019t think that granting Fuchs immunity in Fulton County will protect her from prosecution in Florida. It was Florida law she broke, not Georgia law. However, that is beside the point. It doesn\u2019t look like that President Trump was aware that the call was being recorded.<\/p>\n In other words, she broke the law because Trump did not give his consent to be recorded. In fact, according to Isikoff and his co-author, she didn’t have Raffensperger’s permission to record the call either. After the conversation concluded, Fuchs immediately leaked a copy of it to the <\/b>Washington Post<\/b><\/em>, and the rest is history, including Willis’ use of it in her case. <\/b><\/p>\n Now I am not a lawyer, but this seems wrong to me. I think the term used in court is \u201cFruit of the poisonous tree<\/a>.\u201d Apparently, even Liz Cheney understood just how bad this could be.<\/p>\n To put a finer point on how corrupt this was, Fuchs was supposed to be a star witness for the January 6th committee, but Liz Cheney and others agreed to not call her to publicly testify to shield her from possible legal exposure. Raffensperger himself also played a big role in protecting her because it had become obvious Fuchs had committed a crime. <\/b><\/p>\n Raffensperger is also not a Trump supporter. I can\u2019t say for certain, but I have a suspicion that his trying to obfuscate the provenance of the recording being used against President Trump might not be entirely lawful or ethical. In any case, Mollie Hemingway wrote that<\/a> this could blow the entire case, such as it is, against President Trump and the others right out of the water.<\/p>\n \u201cFruit 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,\u201d according to Cornell Law School\u2019s Legal Information Institute<\/a>. \u201cAs the metaphor suggests, if the evidential \u2018tree\u2019 is tainted, so is its \u2018fruit.\u2019 The doctrine was established in 1920 by the decision in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, and the phrase \u2018fruit of the poisonous tree\u2019 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.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n 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\u2019s the latest challenge for Willis, even if the political ally judge reviewing whether she can continue prosecuting Georgia Republicans rules in her favor.<\/b><\/p>\n In short, if the investigation stemmed from illegally obtained evidence, not only could that evidence be inadmissible, but everything built from it could also be disqualified.\u00a0 <\/b><\/p>\n Now the question is, will the Trump defense team use this to have case dismissed? The judge handling this I sent Noted Legal Rumbler<\/a> and YouTuber Viva Frei<\/a> a direct message<\/a> asking if he was aware of this story. He replied back that he hadn’t heard about it and thanked me for the tip. He has been following the Fani Willis case in detail.<\/p>\n Thatisall<\/p>\n ~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Good day all. The hearing into Fat Ass Fani Willis\u2019s misconduct in her persecution of President Trump and others is now in the hands of the Judge. However one of the things that is now coming out is the \u201cEvidence\u201d … Continue reading <\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\nfiasco<\/em><\/del> trial is currently trying to decide if Willis and Wade should be removed from the case. I don\u2019t believe anyone knew about the circumstances regarding how the recording was made, however I won\u2019t be at all surprised if this isn\u2019t brought up once the court is back in session. As for Fuchs? She needs to be charged and I hope that this can be brought in Florida. Stay tuned!<\/p>\n***UPDATE***<\/em><\/h2>\n
(3<\/strong> votes, average: 5.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n