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
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Wikileaks "evidence" would not be allowed in a court of law. [View all]Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
63 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
'Any illegally obtained evidence is considered poisoned fruit.' - That's not true.
PoliticAverse
Oct 2016
#2
An exception. The issue of concern was identified prior to obtaining documents. .
FarPoint
Oct 2016
#9
It's never been confirmed it was the Russians. I'm still waiting for confirmation.
JRLeft
Oct 2016
#27
Wikileaks doesn't have anything on Trump that is more controversial than the balls-out crazy shit
AtheistCrusader
Oct 2016
#62
Hey man, keep that shit to a dull roar. We're trying to kill the messenger here.
AtheistCrusader
Oct 2016
#65