And that really is why we should give what he says a wide berth. The more people fawn over his latest alleged document dump, the more credibility is given to him and the more it insulates him from seeing the kind of justice that needs to be served on him. At some point it runs the risk of turning him into a Martyr and he doesn't need that kind of status anymore than your local suicide bomber needs or deserves it.
In criminal law, there is this thing called the "exclusionary rule". Otherwise called "the fruit of a poisoned tree."
It is basically the premise that evidence must be excluded if it is not obtained legally. I have for years lamented the illogic of this premise because it achieves the absolute worst possible outcome.
Suppose you have a murderer regarding which irrefutable evidence is uncovered that he is a murderer. The man should be punished.
Suppose you have a cop that breaks the law in obtaining information which proves someone to be a murderer.
Should not the cop be punished for breaking the law?
As the current system stands, the murderer is freed, and the bad cop is ignored. No justice of any sort is achieved.
In a rational system, all information, no matter how obtained, should be used to shine the light of truth on the guilt or innocence of a man on trial.
If obtained illegally, the evidence shouldn't be thrown out, the person who committed the illegal act of obtaining it should be punished for having obtained it illegally.
Refusing to look at information because you don't like how it was acquired is foolish. Finding out what is the actual truth is always worthwhile, even if you don't like how it came into your hands.
