Where's your ETHICS, kiddies?

A simple question;
If innuendo and illegally attained 'evidence' (ex; wikileaks) is inadmissible in a court of law, why do you all accept it so readily?
Have you no ethics?
You condemn on evidence tainted, and obviously biased.
Is it all about emotion and validation of our biases?
All 'pathology'?
Is there no ethics left?
A jury won't be allowed to even hear, much less to take tainted, illegal 'evidence' into account.
It is assumed that they have no ethics, and they are protected.
Not so us.
How many of you are ready to hang Hillary (for example) on such illegal and unethical (immoral?), 'leakage'?
Or Trump on the mere assertions of his narci$$istic sexual deviancy sans legal proof/evidence?

a reply to: namelesss

The evidence exists or it doesn't. If it does, there is a crime. This is not a complex issue but the mental gymnastics your proposing are intriguing to watch.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: namelesss

The evidence exists or it doesn't. If it does, there is a crime. This is not a complex issue but the mental gymnastics your proposing are intriguing to watch.

Nice try.
It appears that you avoid the question.
Why? This isn't a personal attack...
Everything exists. So what.
Perhaps if you re-read the question?
I am talking about LEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE.
The same evidence that you would be shrieking murder about if it was illegally obtained and used against YOU!
That's pretty simple, not that I'm not enjoying "the mental gymnastics" of your avoidance of the question.
Denial?
Thanks for playing, anyway! *__-

a reply to: namelesss

Your still jumping through hoops to get to your goal. Problem is that none of the evidence was supposed to exist in the first place.

Um. The emails are only inadmissible if the government did the hacking/leaking/stealing. If a private citizen is responsible, the government can use that evidence.

Regardless, anything found on Huma and Wieners devices is fair game. Given the volume of emails found, I don't think they will need much else.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: namelesss

Your still jumping through hoops to get to your goal. Problem is that none of the evidence was supposed to exist in the first place.

No, the 'problem' is that the 'evidence' is illegally obtained, and therefore an Honest person wouldn't pay them any attention in the first place.
Unless you have some emotional agenda to support...
And it appears that you are in denial about something.
It's okay, you don't have to answer the question.
But your attempts at diversion are fruitless.
Just let it go...
peace

a reply to: namelesss

Ah, I've proven you wrong and you would like me to leave your discussion. Fair enough. I'll let someone else take over.

a reply to: namelesss

I want the truth and since the people we elect are professional liars we need to get it by any means available. If I were YOU I would be more concerned with the nature of the evidence than where it was obtained. The entire deck is stacked against "We the People" and I am glad we have some means of taking down the corrupt a-holes that think they own us.

Evidence can also be planted and taken as truth, when it is not actual truth. Lots of people have been falsely convicted OR are able to escape conviction for this reason.

Another example is whistleblowing. There is lots and lots of complexity regarding whistleblowing and what is legal or not. My understanding of this issue is that even politicians (and possibly courts) are very divided on whistleblowing and what is legal or not. Regarding your reference to Wikileaks, I believe a lot of these issues fall into this category. If you are legally bound by a contract NOT to whistleblow about an illegal activity...which law(s) supercede which? The illegal activities MUST be reported? The contract MUST be adhered to? Issues like these come up in court at least occasionally - I think the most recent one I saw was (from Reddit a few days ago).

Anyway, I think ever-changing laws, unchallenged laws, and the general concern for the safety of the public is why these type of political situations tend to cause more of a stir compared to the suggestion that we wouldn't want illegally obtained evidence used against us in a case. Of course we wouldn't. And we shouldn't. On the flip side, there are many of us who are not elected or appointed to positions which can adversely affect a disproportionate amount of people compared to "us regular folks". There's no hard and fast distinction, of course. I guess, the point here is that these type of situations are *not* as well defined as they should be, and IMHO they require clear definitions (and in some cases regulations) as well as court challenges to determine what is too far and what is appropriate.

There's so much "common sense" stuff being thrown around, but everyone's common sense stems from their own unique experiences. The ethics of these things should concern all of us. The problem that I think we don't all agree on - where the boundary conditions of these ethics is crossed - in this case specifically, when is legally obtained evidence invalid and when is illegally obtained evidence valid. Surely, we can make up valid situations for both...

a reply to: namelesss

I want Clinton prosecuted on the evidence that the FBI has legally obtained.

2nd

a reply to: namelesss
The evidence that was illegally obtained, merely led to investigations which found legal evidence....which invites a grand jury ....simple

Maybe it is one huge scam where the hidden hand has manipulated US citizens.

What needs to be watched here is what is the end result of all of these leaks.

Is it...
A) All world leaders are painted as corrupt allowing Mr perfect UN antiChrist to take control.

B) Trump is the best hope America has to clean up the filth and make the tainted White House white again.

a reply to: namelesss

No, the 'problem' is that the 'evidence' is illegally obtained, and therefore an Honest person wouldn't pay them any attention in the first place.

wow...interesting.

An honest person would be interested in the TRUTH.

a reply to: namelesss

Ok...

Fact: Edward Snowden removed and shared with the press, data that proved a mass surveillance network had been established that IS destroying the privacy and liberty of American citizens, as well as that of citizens of the entire damned Internet. The act of removing that data and sharing it with the press, was illegal.

Fact: It was NOT unethical for him to do so.

Conclusion: That which is illegal is not always unethical.

Opinion: When a persons ability to make an informed choice, depends on factors of which they are unaware, those who have the ability to give them the information they need to make good choices, have an obligation to ensure that such information as is required is distributed as broadly as possible, REGARDLESS of what the law says, precisely because the laws pertaining to that action are written to prevent or dissuade the ethical person from acting.

a reply to: namelesss

I am so sorry nameless, you must have invested a lot into this Campaign.

One could argue, that it is the Clinton supporters who have been betrayed the most. In the end nameless, we are going to have to unite regardless of our ideology against this level of corruption.

Anyways, I'll answer your question with my own. (People love that right? lol)


If the people sworn to uphold your laws are corrupt, what other choice do you have?

a reply to: namelesss

But it wasn't illegally obtained by the FBI. It was made public by a 3rd party.

If the FBI had hacked the email that would have been illegal.

Your thread is baseless and uninformed.

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: namelesss

Your still jumping through hoops to get to your goal. Problem is that none of the evidence was supposed to exist in the first place.

No, the 'problem' is that the 'evidence' is illegally obtained, and therefore an Honest person wouldn't pay them any attention in the first place.
Unless you have some emotional agenda to support...
And it appears that you are in denial about something.
It's okay, you don't have to answer the question.
But your attempts at diversion are fruitless.
Just let it go...
peace

An honest person wouldn't have committed crimes that evidence of which could be collected legally or otherwise.

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: namelesss

The evidence exists or it doesn't. If it does, there is a crime. This is not a complex issue but the mental gymnastics your proposing are intriguing to watch.

Nice try.
It appears that you avoid the question.
Why? This isn't a personal attack...
Everything exists. So what.
Perhaps if you re-read the question?
I am talking about LEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE.
The same evidence that you would be shrieking murder about if it was illegally obtained and used against YOU!
That's pretty simple, not that I'm not enjoying "the mental gymnastics" of your avoidance of the question.
Denial?
Thanks for playing, anyway! *__-

hey nameless: I'll offer this: a lot of us are perhaps waiting for official arrests and legal charges. Not that this makes anything more true, either, but it does lend some credence, obviously....

a reply to: namelesss

i burried my ethics in a lead lined flask - it made life simpler

a reply to: namelesss

And it appears that you are in denial about something.

And you can say that with a straight face? How about we worry about the truth, instead of trying to find a way to hide it.

Ethics are like laws, put in place by those that don't abide by them to control the rest.