Wikileaks "evidence" would not be allowed in a court of law.

[Funtatlaguy]

Any illegally obtained evidence is considered poisoned fruit.
So, why is what Assuange is putting out there to influence our election allowed in the public domain.
Why doesn't our mainstream media have a policy that they will not use anything that came to them via nefarious means.
And, on top of that, 17 federal agencies have confirmed that a foreign government was the initial source.
I just don't understand why there is no media outcry that this material is off limits.

[DetlefK]

1. This is not about judicial influence. The goal is political influence.

Influence the people and the people will change the politics. This has nothing to do with legal courts.

[PoliticAverse]

2. 'Any illegally obtained evidence is considered poisoned fruit.' - That's not true.

You are confusing evidence obtained illegally by the police with that obtained by a private party.

See: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/465/case.html

[Funtatlaguy]

3. So, if something is stolen

It can still be used?

[PoliticAverse]

6. Yes. Suppose a burglar breaks into someone's house...

and finds a stash of child pornography in the house. The burglar is shocked and turns
it all over to the police. The resulting find can be used at the trial of the person who possessed
the pornography even though it was obtained illegally by a private party.

The Supreme Court case I cited specifically references evidence that was stolen from the
defendant by a private party and the court found such evidence was admissible.

1. The United States may retain for use as evidence in the criminal prosecution of their owner incriminating documents which are turned over to it by private individuals who procured them, without the participation or knowledge of any government official, through a wrongful search of the owner's private desk and papers in an office. P. 256 U. S. 474.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/465/case.html

For more on the "exclusionary rule" see the wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

[LeftInTX]

63. I once turned over some evidence on my son

I was told it couldn't be used because it could have been planted. No charges were filed.

I think if I would have told the police about it and they searched him, then the evidence could have possibly been used, but even then, my son could have evoked a legal defense about his mom planting evidence.

(I was the mad mom who was upset that the school was not properly supervising my son. I went to the school, I checked his backpack and found all sorts of stuff. I brought it to the school's attention, they called the police etc. However, the school did start doing their job after that. My son had a tendency to get involved with the wrong kids and needed more supervision. I didn't want him to turn into a criminal)

[NCTraveler]

4. I would hope the media would not apply that standard.

[FarPoint]

5. I can't understand why they don't have ANY standard.

Illegally obtained information, stolen documents are completely subject to alteration. Thus irrelevant.

[PoliticAverse]

7. The "Pentagon Papers" were quite relevant...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

[FarPoint]

9. An exception. The issue of concern was identified prior to obtaining documents. .

Pentagon Papers were obtained with the intention of whistleblower thinking. It was also a decision that had forethought for the greater good...a heavy burden style choice...

When massive theft of documents are collected illegally for the soul purpose of targeting, destroying a political party/ candidate to win an election....the goal is not exposure at all.... intent is harm and completely subject to alteration.

[Goblinmonger]

43. That seems like a "I don't like this stuff" standard.

Many would argue that WikiLeaks is about whistleblower thinking. They are trying to expose what goes on behind closed doors that isn't cool. Certainly they are releasing a specific slant at this time, but that is a whole different discussion.

[Funtatlaguy]

8. Especially stolen by a hostile foreign government

This now says that everything is fair game.
Even Marci Rubio warned his own party about using these materials.

[NCTraveler]

29. Not irrelevant in any way.

I don't see how it would be irrelevant.

Documents that are gotten thru legal means can be altered. Anything can be altered. I don't get the "subject to alteration" argument. Governments can and do put out altered documents. People can and do put out altered documents. There is simply no altered document argument to make the case you are trying to.

[JRLeft]

10. Did you feel that way when Wikileaks leaked info on the Bush administration?

I want as much info leaked on our politicians as possible.

[Funtatlaguy]

13. I guess it depends on the source.

Politics aside, The Russians getting into our leaders documents is very concerning.

[JRLeft]

14. I'm still waiting for verification that it was Russian hackers.

There's an email where Podesta states he lost his phone.

[JRLeft]

27. It's never been confirmed it was the Russians. I'm still waiting for confirmation.

When there is actual confirmation I will believe it was the Russians until then, I will believe Russia is being used as a way to deflect from the content in the emails.

[treestar]

15. I will pay no attention to it

unless they hack Trump and the RNC. They should have zero influence.

[JRLeft]

19. It doesn't hack anyone and I support information on the RNC, but

don't act like it hasn't released information on republicans before because it has.

[FarPoint]

24. Yes, I never acknowledged Wilkileaks...ever.

I go higher with standard of authentication of influential information... Especially that which is illegally obtained.

[JRLeft]

25. You ignored the 2006 dump? Really? Did you ignore

Trump's tax returns too?

[FarPoint]

26. Wikileaks has never passed the smell test for me...

End of story...

[treestar]

41. They have to be equivalent

To this election. If they are doing Podesta's then I'm not looking at them unless they do Conway's.

There is probably more interesting information there.

Also I consider they could have altered them.

[citood]

28. Podesta was using a GMail account

Acting as a private citizen, managing a political campaign.

A few weeks ago, documents that Trump submitted to the federal government with an expectation of privacy (tax return) were leaked.

If you are 'for' one, you have to be 'for' both, and vice versa.

[IndyV0te]

33. I agree...

We need something, someone who will at least try to stand up to the blatant corruption in Washington.

We all know it is there, we can feel it. We expect it given the money and power concentrated in all politicians. That is the true, real reason they are there. Have you ever seen a poor politician (D or R)? No and you never will.

I support light being shined on the disgusting status of our political leaders. If Wikileaks shows the Clinton Foundation, Hillary etc. as psychopathically corrupt, and Trump etc. as psychopathically racist then so be it.

The American people deserve to see the hidden side of these individuals/institutions exposed and held to full accountability. The future of our Republic is most certainly at stake.

[Funtatlaguy]

37. So who gets exposed and who doesnt?

Julian decides?
So far, he's only gone after one campaign.
Why so?
And, what if he just starts picking out random people to hack?
his enemies. Is that ok?

[B2G]

39. Evidently those with crap security on their servers

and email accounts.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Wikileaks doesn't have anything on Trump that is more controversial than the balls-out crazy shit

that comes directly from Trump's mouth every time he gets in front of a camera.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293453-assange-wikileaks-trump-info-no-worse-than-him

And that's not exactly an endorsement of Trump. That's another point that shows he's just as fucking crazy as he sounds.

[Dem2]

40. " Have you ever seen a poor politician (D or R)? No and you never will."

Define "poor". Provide evidence.

[Panich52]

38. Refusal to give coverage to fact hacks were done by Russia

is the biggest journalistic failure in this. It gets mentioned, but usually only tangentially.

[yodermon]

59. The Podesta emails are authentic. You can verify this yourself in 10 minutes.

Here is a Podesta email:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2986
click the link, then click "view source".
There is a "DKIM-Signature:" block, here it is:

DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject
:message-id:date:to;
bh=3xk+ucjZjKcCA3cSeiTpIxC74wrsxi1P492BLhLv4ho=;
b=K2vd0C+dOFgE6R/zEEkj8xSpU4MzFwYwgc01WYTlnwolJQo9xxRkmnU9r0U8ajweqV
Q5KNIx75ORY+bNuGoDNWtxnkPq4lH6cDfANRSQKjlLFZUisk7P29F7XMbYeWHc0s95nj
dEn4a4vWB1Hs3yuk92EILDCArjF/XfoCRpoACxO03tsDOPDXVvLibDyPqwxfXLOpNtR4
0nv/aLVvRVHYeaRjvdllmBVcgoBPv5K+vAjmaEF1jn75CBsU61dqgnl9Sprdx9dEToib
HmVXdGxN9ZoaDN+t39TZNF3lJBVVSAm4neZR69SnXCnGm8/QaKCHxXv09iCqZbRbO5bJ
T1sw==

The email has been digitally signed by gmail.com and thus can be determined to be authentic. If you change the content of the email (e.g. by "Russians&quot , the key will no longer match.

Good writeup here:
http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/politifact-yes-we-can-fact-check-kaines.html#.WBDwh_orI2w

[End Of The Road]

64. ^^Exactly^^

And the person responsible for the leak of Podesta's emails appears to be Podesta himself. He fell for a phishing expedition and gave away his password. Even the MSM has reported on this. Who phished? Any amateur can do it, doesn't take an expert, doesn't take a Russian.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Hey man, keep that shit to a dull roar. We're trying to kill the messenger here.