I'm not saying that since the hackers have tainted the evidence, that it now is inadmissible.

If Yahoo has the files, by all mean, they are completely valid as evidence - absolutely.

I'm saying that the screenshots posted on the internet aren't going to be admitted.

1) because they were obtained illegally, it doesn't matter who illegally obtained them.

It doesn't matter who hacked her e-mail, Anonymous or an official investigator, it's still illegal. You can't obtain evidence in this manner. If you could just obtain evidence through criminal acts, then why bother with legal mechanisms at all?

What Hubble was talking about earlier pertained to evidence siezed with illegal warrants due to processing errors, etc. But hacking and stealing information is a crime. It wouldn't matter if Anonymous is related to the investigation or not. This isn't a legal way to acquire evidence. If it was, then investigators would just hire people to steal evidence that they couldn't get fast enough through legal means.

2) There is no way for those screen shots to be authenticated. There's no way in Hell that these would ever allowed as evidence.

About your example:

Let's say someone broke into your office and took screen shots of open files that implicated you in a crime, local law enforcement might use the screen shots as probable cause to search your office and PC for evidence, but the screen shots themselves wouldn't be evidence.

Now let's say that someone sent the screen shots to the police, who didn't even bother searching your PC for evidence, they just arrested and prosecuted you using the screen shots.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

OK then, working from the previous example, lets say someone sent screen shots to the police that WEREN'T from files on your PC, and then the police arrested and prosecuted you using only the screen shots.

They need Palin's authenticated e-mail account straight from Yahoo, these screen shots might anger the public, but they won't be used as evidence in court.

And, again, I'm not saying that the account itself is tainted because it was hacked. I'm saying that these screen shots don't mean dick in court.

And now, because the account was hacked, she deleted both accounts, meaning that she CAN'T provide them with the accounts, and that's part of the obstruction claim. That's a bit of a load off.

None of this matters anyway, the investigation seems like it has been effectively stonewalled.

The obstruction investigation is getting some coverage now, so this might have put some pressure on Alaskan Republicans to continue. But as it stands, it's stalled until at least after the election.

I don't really care so much about Palin or her investigation. Stonewalling investigations is a fact of life for Republicans. I'm neither shocked nor outraged.

I just posted my take on the hacking issue, and apparently that opened a can-o-beans that I didn't expect.

i think what the hacking story and screen shots will do is to create more buzz about the investigation.
I think that it's an embarrassment to her and that it could cause the investigation move forward.

 It's a smoking gun for the public, but it won't make it to court.