. . . . 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?
there is nothing that we can do to stop it from happening. We do it to them and vice versa.
Usually we don't know about the results because they don't want anyone to know if they have been successful.
Goes for both sides. As for the people, it is fair game that anything can be used to decide election, etc.
We are not involved in the taking. Besides a look into the real world is often good for the people.
In this case it is pretty much ignored because people depend on the news media for this information.
Since they do not do a good job, it will go mostly unheeded.
If information comes out, the media shouldn't try to suppress it. That corporations try hard to maintain secrecy isn't relevant.
that's all it applies to--the rest is fair game. Also, you don't hear the democrats--Hillary or others deny.
Therefore we as citizens have to conclude that the emails are true fact.
Imagine that Russia or a cyber terrorist outfit had the capability to remotely hack voting machines across the country, with the ability to obliterate votes cast by Americans.
Fair game? An infringement upon our democracy?
That's not to say that the four biggest states can be had. NY, CA, Tex and FL is all one needs to change the outcome of the election.
And anyone from the outside or anyone from the inside can attempt to do it. We have to be diligent, trusting no one. All precautions have to be taken.
One of the reasons why I don't like pre-voting or multiple days to vote. it should be all done on the same day to illuminate as much fraud as possible.
All fraud can't be stopped.
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" policy is intended to curtail police abuse not provide a defense for those who are gullty. I'm not sure how this might apply to an impeachment process following Hillary's coronation. After all, a lot of what has been leaked probably should have been produced legally in the first place.
If the truth is put out there, it will be considered by the public. Whether one wants to try to say it is unfair (I don't think that it is though) doesn't matter. It's a reality.
The leaks that are most important are not of the type you describe - the DNC, Podesta, and Clinton are not denying that they are true. They bare the URL's of the people and they are indisputable. So there isn't any unfair portrayals - it's their own words.
The fact that they reveal that the DNC has been subverting the political system illegally and unethically puts them in violation of the first paragraph of your post here -It turns out that these politicians are posing a domestic threat to the constitution. We can certainly deal with Putin for his various actions, but I expected more from my own government.
Regarding my candidates: No, I have no problems with these politicians having to answer for any private email that would offend the American public, regardless of the source.
(no message)
Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-idUSKCN12L1ME
Are you OK with subversives firing bullets at political candidates?
No on bullets? Yes on cyber hacking?
public.
A Just Man has nothing to hide. I would hardly call the revelations of truth about the Clinton's cheating, manipulating, and committing crimes equates to bullets.
We conservatives have suspected and lamented the rigging of the system for a while (ACORN fiasco, etc.). These leaks haven't told us anything that conservatives didn't already know. but they provided proof to the liberal side that the conservatives were correct, and that is what bothers you.
You want a situation where your side can secretly rig the results (Bernie, no voter ID combined with opening up the borders, rigged voting districts in key battleground states, etc.), while the populace is kept in the dark that their vote doesn't really matter.
The Clintons, Obamas, and the DNC subscribe strongly to the philosophy of Joesph Stalin:
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything".
Call it a race for Governor.
Suppose one candidate wants to aggressively seek out natural gas or oil or whatever. Candidate #2 does not, in favor of protecting the state's beauty and environment.
Suppose strong environmental interest groups or an Arab country use hackers to infiltrate private e-mails of Candidate #1, and then disseminate the e-mails, some of which have been doctored to fabricate that the candidate is engaging in a same sex affair or hates blacks or does not believe in God or whatever.
Are you saying the dissemination of hacked info is fair game, so long as the content is true and accurate? Once disseminated, is it not too late to put the toothpaste back in the tube, if not true?
If an elected official swears an oath to defend against all enemies, foreign or domestic, . . . why not guard against such intrusions as a candidate as a matter of honor, even if the hacked content can be used against the opponent?
Maybe your position is that this all fair payback for ACORN and the like, notwithstanding clear GOP cheating in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. All irrelevant. We are not talking about voter fraud and voter suppression. The issue is whether the media and/or a candidate has a duty to not be an enabler (or an accomplice) by disseminating hacked information, particularly when perpetrated by a foreign entity with the intent to subvert or influence our democracy.
It would seem very small minded to answer that question based upon whether the content or "fruit of the poisonous tree" benefits one's candidate.
(no message)
(no message)
The problem is that this is merely surmise. The Clinton camp hasn't provided the originals, which should provide us with a comparison.
As for the 17 agencies in U.S. intelligence that are in agreeance with respect to Russian meddling, there are only 2
(and NO, the Coast Guard ain't one of them) that would actually investigate these matters (DNI - Director of National Intelligence and DHS - Dept. of Homeland Security) and all that they have stated is that Russia has the capability to do so. In fact what these agencies have jointly stated on 10/7/16, is that the hacks ..."are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts..."
This falls far short of stating that they have evidence that Russia IS responsible for the hacks.
That's not evidence.
But, once we open the gate, any and all hacked info is free game, whether altered or not.
More prudent to draw a bright line, refusing to put any acquired info into play.
(no message)
"...to cast dispersions against another candidate..."
OY!
(no message)
Aspersion | Define Aspersion at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/aspersion
a damaging or derogatory remark or criticism; slander: casting aspersions on a campaign rival. 2. the act of slandering; vilification; defamation; calumniation; derogation: Such vehement aspersions cannot be ignored.
Dispersion | Define Dispersion at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/dispersion
Dispersion definition,
1. Also, dispersal. an act, state, or instance of dispersing or of being dispersed.
2. Optics.
the variation of the index of refraction of a transparent substance, as glass, with the wavelength of light, with the index of refraction increasing as the wavelength decreases.the separation of white or compound light into its respective colors, as in the formation of a spectrum by a prism.
3. Statistics. the scattering of values of a variable around the mean or median of a distribution.
4. Military. a scattered pattern of hits of bombs dropped under identical conditions or of shots fired from the same gun with the same firing data.
5. Also called disperse system. Physical Chemistry. a system of dispersed particles suspended in a solid, liquid, or gas.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)