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]End Of The Road
(1,397 posts)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.
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