![]()
There's an issue with comey's case. In earlier testimony under oath, he stated Patrick Fitzgerald, his attorney helped leak the former FBI director’s memos to the media in 2017. OOPS!
”Based on publicly disclosed information, the defendant used current lead defense counsel to improperly disclose classified information,” read court documents. The prosecution then cited the Department of Justice’s inspector general report as evidence to support its claim.
That's at the very least, a conflict of interest. AND fitzgerald may be facing the same charges as jimmy as a co-conspirator.
Comey was indicted by a grand jury in Sept. 2025 on two charges: one count of making false statements and one count of obstruction of justice during his remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020 about the FBI’s role in the investigation of President Donald Trump and Russian collusion.
The issue is about not only leaks, but also about using the Steele Dossier which has been openly debunked as fictious and "fruit of the poisonous tree" by DOJ, FBI, and the FISA courts.
For those who still believe in their heart of hearts the Steele Dossier is valid, here's the legal reading on it. This is Polisci 101.
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. 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.
Like the exclusionary rule itself, this doctrine is subject to three important exceptions. The evidence will not be excluded:
if it was discovered from a source independent of the illegal activity;
its discovery was inevitable;
or for evidence found as a result of excludable, voluntary testimony from the defendant.
(0.0) 
(0.0 from 0 votes)
