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.
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.
For someone with the name "legalsea", you couldnt be more wrong..
As long as the LAW enforcement department obtains it legally, it can indeed be used against a defendant, even if the person who gave it to the law enforcement department, obtained it illegally.
Oh please. She's innocent, honest and deserves the presidency. With just 3 months to go, I have no doubt in my mind that she will WIN the election!
Even if she were to be indicted, it still won't disqualify her from winning the election and becoming president. And I will certainly still vote for her over TRUMP.
Innocent? Honest? Deserves the presidency? Do you write that with a straight face. You must work for Hilary.
I don't believe Hilary has been found guilty of any crime. But on the other hand that orange imbecile will surely be indicted for fraud.
Is your brain as non-functioning as your eyes are? You haven't even noticed he hasn't been orange since Rubio called him the "spray-tan man", lol! If anything.... he is Casper, now!
For someone with the name "legalsea", you couldnt be more wrong..
As long as the LAW enforcement department obtains it legally, it can indeed be used against a defendant, even if the person who gave it to the law enforcement department, obtained it illegally.
Hmm, oddly enough, your linked story has nothing to do with my question. It certainly does not support your statement that a Federal court will admit evidence that was clearly obtained via illegal means by a third party.
However, I will say that I am speaking of a sub-genre of the 'exclusionary rule', known as the 'derivative evidence' rule.
Now, although I am an attorney that works for the Federal government via the Social Security Administration, I am not an expert in the Federal rules of evidence in criminal cases. All I can do is point out some of the possible pitfalls the US Attorney General may face in asking a Federal district court to allow submission of electronic evidence illegally obtained by a third party.
There are exceptions to the exclusionary rule, of course, such as the doctrine that the prosecutor 'would have discovered the evidence anyway'. I doubt that this exception would apply in this case.
So! If anyone has any Federal case law on this question, I would be glad to read it.
I've spent a lot of time getting evidence into federal criminal courts. There are indeed exceptions by which illegally obtained evidence can get in, but they aren't terribly common.
The bigger problem is, who can testify as to the authenticity of the evidence? If a hacker gets some incriminating e-mails, who can the government get to testify that he really hacked the right account and that the presumed defendant is the one who typed the incriminating e-mail? One of the problems the Bureau faced in this case was there were instances when Huma Abedin answered e-mails on behalf of Hillary Clinton on Hillary's Blackberry (or other mobile device). So just because it was from her e-mail account on her server didn't necessarily mean she was the one who sent it.
The Problem is the Hilary Emails are not going away and there is building evidence every single day. The connection with Saudi Arabia is probably over American Oil production. Naturally they want to control the flow of oil in the world and are fearful America does not need them period.
Russia is a problem because have in testified their intention on southern Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Why do you think we are sending more resources in Troops and f-22 Raptors.
The Money that flows from the Middle East and George Soros (A Noted Socialist with ties to terrorism )
It before us and it the real question is ,will Lynch go forward with the case?
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.
If anything.... he is Casper, now!
Clinton Cartel
