Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
This is not about judicial influence. The goal is political influence. DetlefK Oct 2016 #1
'Any illegally obtained evidence is considered poisoned fruit.' - That's not true. PoliticAverse Oct 2016 #2
So, if something is stolen Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 #3
Yes. Suppose a burglar breaks into someone's house... PoliticAverse Oct 2016 #6
I once turned over some evidence on my son LeftInTX Oct 2016 #63
I would hope the media would not apply that standard. NCTraveler Oct 2016 #4
I can't understand why they don't have ANY standard. FarPoint Oct 2016 #5
The "Pentagon Papers" were quite relevant... PoliticAverse Oct 2016 #7
An exception. The issue of concern was identified prior to obtaining documents. . FarPoint Oct 2016 #9
That seems like a "I don't like this stuff" standard. Goblinmonger Oct 2016 #43
Especially stolen by a hostile foreign government Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 #8
Not irrelevant in any way. NCTraveler Oct 2016 #29
Did you feel that way when Wikileaks leaked info on the Bush administration? JRLeft Oct 2016 #10
I guess it depends on the source. Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 #13
I'm still waiting for verification that it was Russian hackers. JRLeft Oct 2016 #14
It's never been confirmed it was the Russians. I'm still waiting for confirmation. JRLeft Oct 2016 #27
I will pay no attention to it treestar Oct 2016 #15
It doesn't hack anyone and I support information on the RNC, but JRLeft Oct 2016 #19
Yes, I never acknowledged Wilkileaks...ever. FarPoint Oct 2016 #24
You ignored the 2006 dump? Really? Did you ignore JRLeft Oct 2016 #25
Wikileaks has never passed the smell test for me... FarPoint Oct 2016 #26
They have to be equivalent treestar Oct 2016 #41
Podesta was using a GMail account citood Oct 2016 #28
I agree... IndyV0te Oct 2016 #33
So who gets exposed and who doesnt? Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 #37
Evidently those with crap security on their servers B2G Oct 2016 #39
Wikileaks doesn't have anything on Trump that is more controversial than the balls-out crazy shit AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #62
" Have you ever seen a poor politician (D or R)? No and you never will." Dem2 Oct 2016 #40
Refusal to give coverage to fact hacks were done by Russia Panich52 Oct 2016 #38
The Podesta emails are authentic. You can verify this yourself in 10 minutes. yodermon Oct 2016 #59
^^Exactly^^ End Of The Road Oct 2016 #64
Hey man, keep that shit to a dull roar. We're trying to kill the messenger here. AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #65
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Dec 1969 #
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Wikileaks "evidence" woul...»Reply #7