HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Wikileaks "evidence" woul...

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 05:02 AM

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

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.

65 replies, 3192 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 63 replies Author Time Post
Reply Wikileaks "evidence" would not be allowed in a court of law. (Original post)
Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 OP
DetlefK Oct 2016 #1
PoliticAverse Oct 2016 #2
Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 #3
PoliticAverse Oct 2016 #6
LeftInTX Oct 2016 #63
NCTraveler Oct 2016 #4
FarPoint Oct 2016 #5
PoliticAverse Oct 2016 #7
FarPoint Oct 2016 #9
Goblinmonger Oct 2016 #43
Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 #8
NCTraveler Oct 2016 #29
JRLeft Oct 2016 #10
Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 #13
JRLeft Oct 2016 #14
JRLeft Oct 2016 #27
treestar Oct 2016 #15
JRLeft Oct 2016 #19
FarPoint Oct 2016 #24
JRLeft Oct 2016 #25
FarPoint Oct 2016 #26
treestar Oct 2016 #41
citood Oct 2016 #28
IndyV0te Oct 2016 #33
Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 #37
B2G Oct 2016 #39
AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #62
Dem2 Oct 2016 #40
Panich52 Oct 2016 #38
yodermon Oct 2016 #59
End Of The Road Oct 2016 #64
AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #65
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #

Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 05:06 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 05:14 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 05:27 AM

3. So, if something is stolen

It can still be used?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 05:41 AM

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


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #6)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 10:06 AM

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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 05:30 AM

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

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #4)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 05:38 AM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 05:42 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #7)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 06:59 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 09:50 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 06:55 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 08:53 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 07:09 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JRLeft (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 07:24 AM

13. I guess it depends on the source.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 07:33 AM

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

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 08:40 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 07:33 AM

15. I will pay no attention to it

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 07:55 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JRLeft (Reply #19)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 08:19 AM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #24)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 08:28 AM

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

 

Trump's tax returns too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JRLeft (Reply #25)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 08:34 AM

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

End of story...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JRLeft (Reply #19)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 09:43 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 08:52 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 09:20 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IndyV0te (Reply #33)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 09:33 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Reply #37)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 09:35 AM

39. Evidently those with crap security on their servers

 

and email accounts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Reply #37)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 10:00 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IndyV0te (Reply #33)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 09:37 AM

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

Define "poor". Provide evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 09:33 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Funtatlaguy (Original post)

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 01:23 PM

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", 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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yodermon (Reply #59)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 11:22 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yodermon (Reply #59)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 12:31 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread