Stratfor Calls WikiLeaks E-mail Release 'Deplorable'


Supreme [H]ardness
Oct 2, 2004
Please re-read the thread.

The minute the servers were broken into and the data was removed by a group actively trying to "bring them down," everything about those documents was tainted and prevents it from being used as evidence...anywhere.

I might take your word for it if you are saying you stole the documents and can guarantee they have not been altered in any way.

Until then, you can kill all the eyerolling.
This is not true. This only applies to police searches. It doesn't even apply to all government searches...probation officers, parole officers, federal agents acting upon "good faith" (when they believe they're acting legally even though they aren't), and the grandaddy of them all (since it basically encompasses anything that the other scenarios don't cover) is introduction for the purposes of impeachment.

But none of that matters because the exclusionary rule does not apply to private parties...regardless of the legality of their behavior.

But that doesn't even matter because the exclusionary rule isn't going to be invoked during a search warrant proceeding...because one's defense attorney is not going to be present.

But let's give you the best case scenario and say that the warrant is granted, the accused are brought before the court, their attorneys move for a motion in limine, and the court actually starts to think that the evidence is inadmissible.

None of that matters because the prosecution will immediately move to introduce the evidence not for the purposes of evidentiary value but for the purposes of impeachment, and start to question any defendants about the evidence. The attorneys will tell their clients to plead the fifth and the prosecutor will immediately indicate to the judge that the person on the stand is being granted limited immunity. The person testifying will no longer be allowed to plead protection from self-incrimination and be forced to answer the questions or go to jail for contempt. Then all the evidence is brought in on a raft before the jury when they come back in the courtroom.

Now the legal beagles reading this might get a little pumped because this is high drama but as you can see it's not really conducive to a 40 minute Law & Order time slot epi.


Apr 11, 2007
Don't be facetious. The people who don't know about Stratfor or follow its sort of "analysis" probably won't get too worked about this but the people who do will likely shun Stratfor from here on out. Those implicated in the back room insider trading deals will also probably not work with Stratfor again too since they've been shown to be at the very least incapable of holding a secret.

Considering that Stratfor likely wasn't being investigated for anything prior to this what is your point exactly? What DA or whatever was suspecting of wrong doing and attempting to bring charges?

That just proves how corrupt our government is right now. If Watergate were to happen today its likely it'd just be swept under the proverbial rug.
IF it was just the government heads would roll. But private industry and corporations are too powerful, they can't really be touched. The real criminals are in the private sector.