[Alberta's Child]

I should have been more clear in my post. When I say "public domain" what I'm really talking about is a legitimate source that can be supported in a public venue such as a criminal trial. Basically, it has to come from a source that will stand up to legal challenges over its admissibility in a legal proceeding.

If someone in a prosecutorial or oversight role has access to information that wasn't obtained through legitimate means, he really can't act on it until he later gets it from a legitimate source. Otherwise, if there is a legal proceeding involving that information then any criminal charges may be thrown out on the basis of tainted evidence.

[JoSixChip]

I should have been more clear in my post. When I say "public domain" what I'm really talking about is a legitimate source that can be supported in a public venue such as a criminal trial. Basically, it has to come from a source that will stand up to legal challenges over its admissibility in a legal proceeding. If someone in a prosecutorial or oversight role has access to information that wasn't obtained through legitimate means, he really can't act on it until he later gets it from a legitimate source. Otherwise, if there is a legal proceeding involving that information then any criminal charges may be thrown out on the basis of tainted evidence.

And what you are missing in all of that is that it has nothing to do with public perception. Nor is an impeachment a legal preceding, it's political. It will not matter weather the evidence is admissible or not. It does no good to challenge the admissibility of the evidence once it is out there. You can not call for a mistrial in an impeachment proceeding. In other words, what has been seen can not be unseen.