Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, excellent point. In addition there is a chain of custody issue. Since the person holding the evidence (Assange) is not a neutral party, he is not a trusted custodian of evidence. What proof is there that he is not forging e-mails or altering them to frame Clinton? He has the motive and the ability to do so.
There is no chance, zero chance, that Clinton will ever be indicted no matter what's in the next batch of e-mails. The only fallout will be political damage.
This "hack" is really no different than the Watergate scandal from the seventies and should be treated as such.
Did he give a reason why he is waiting? What are the theories on why he is waiting?
My theory is that he is a little preoccupied since the Ecuadorian government agreed that Sweden officials could question Assange at their embassy regarding his sexual assault charges.
Wondering if the Ecuadorians hope that the charges will be dropped and they can dump his sorry ass out on the street.
This "hack" is really no different than the Watergate scandal from the seventies and should be treated as such.
There is no similarity whatsoever. In Watergate, the burglars were taken into police custody at the scene, and everything that developed from that point on was part of an active police investigation by law enforcement agencies. There was never a chain of custody issue.
In this instance, a private citizen committed several crimes and obtained information that could have been incriminating if it had been obtained as part of a lawful criminal investigation, but is now contaminated, and can never be introduced as evidence. Completely different circumstances.
My theory is that he is a little preoccupied since the Ecuadorian government agreed that Sweden officials could question Assange at their embassy regarding his sexual assault charges.
Wondering if the Ecuadorians hope that the charges will be dropped and they can dump his sorry ass out on the street.
There is an interesting legal point that some have danced about herein.
First, it is rather settled law that evidence illegally obtained evidence cannot subsequently be used against the defendant involved.
In other words, if the police broke into your house, with no warrant or even a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was happening inside, and they found, say, drugs, the court would rule that such illegally obtained evidence cannot be used against the charged defendant.
Now, take the situation where the police decide that they have no basis to break into the house and search for contraband. Would the police be able to 'dodge' the Constitutional requirements of search and seizure by retaining a third party to break into your house, and seize the contraband? I would suggest "No". Said evidence is still not admissible in court.
Now, we have a party (unknown) whom has 'hacked' (a criminal act) into the computer servers of the Democratic National Party, and stole (another criminal act) emails found on said servers. Wikileaks (rather like the New York Times and Washington Post, which published the Pentagon Papers stolen by Daniel Ellsberg) then published said emails for public consumption.
So, the question is for our legal scholars herein: under what legal theory could the Executive Branch of the Federal Government take these illegally obtained emails and prosecute Hillary Rodham Clinton (or any other person).
As long as the investigators obtain the evidence legally, it would be admissible.
The NSA has Hillary's emails, and the FBI has access to what the NSA has, so yes, they could get the emails legally, and use them against Hillary.
Just wondering... if asange releases something, how can they prove the text wasn't altered? And, what it the FBI already had those particular emails and already examined them? There is no evidence 'chain of custody' to prove that the emails are not altered in some way, so I bet the FBI would say, thanks, dude, but we can't use whatever it is.
So, the court of public opinion will take over - those who believe they are something new will scream that "clinton MUST be indicted NOW!" "The FBI is part of the clinton crime family!" And everyone else will say...(gawd, forgive me for this one, but it is really funny!) "What difference does it make at this point?"
Just wondering... if asange releases something, how can they prove the text wasn't altered? And, what it the FBI already had those particular emails and already examined them? There is no evidence 'chain of custody' to prove that the emails are not altered in some way, so I bet the FBI would say, thanks, dude, but we can't use whatever it is.
So, the court of public opinion will take over - those who believe they are something new will scream that "clinton MUST be indicted NOW!" "The FBI is part of the clinton crime family!" And everyone else will say...(gawd, forgive me for this one, but it is really funny!) "What difference does it make at this point?"
Interesting thought process, how do they prove it is all unaltered?
I do believe that they are unaltered because Wikileaks has forced people to make changes, if they were altered than the accuse should try to counter wikileaks.
Just wondering... if asange releases something, how can they prove the text wasn't altered? And, what it the FBI already had those particular emails and already examined them? There is no evidence 'chain of custody' to prove that the emails are not altered in some way, so I bet the FBI would say, thanks, dude, but we can't use whatever it is.
So, the court of public opinion will take over - those who believe they are something new will scream that "clinton MUST be indicted NOW!" "The FBI is part of the clinton crime family!" And everyone else will say...(gawd, forgive me for this one, but it is really funny!) "What difference does it make at this point?"
Actually, proving texts arent altered is a fairly simple process.. But I doubt that process was followed..
And if the FBI does have them, and examined them, but they are so damning that they would have to indict following a release to the public, than it would really show more corruption than just Clinton and emphasis how some people are indeed above the law, especially if they are connected to those in power.
That should scare anyone, even those on the left..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
