. . . . our elected officials must solemnly swear (or affirm) that they will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and that they will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
Hacking, cyber terrorism, or infiltrating one's work product and private communications, ain't a trivial matter. As you know, U.S. corporations invest tremendous resources to guard against hacking.
So, the question is whether the "fruits of the poisonous tree" should be bandied about by the media or political campaigns to cast dispersions against another candidate, amidst an election.
I get the counter argument that a voter is entitled to consider any and all information (regardless of the source) re a candidate and give it whatever weight the voter deems appropriate. But, should all evidence be admissible in an election?
Let's assume the hacker is not Russia, but the Phillipines or some computer nerd in his basement in Nebraska. Let's assume the e-mail is doctored, or worse, fabricated completely with egregious "game changer" assertions. One could argue that the media vets the source and content, so no biggie.
But, why should anyone, and especially a political candidate, be forced to defend illegally obtained evidence, whether true or untrue?
Suppose your candidate wins. Any problem if your candidate, now mayor, or congressman, or senator, or President, is subjected to defend private communications, hacked by a foreign entity, or a domestic perpetrator??
Why should rules change if the subject is a candidate?