Politics: Should "intercept evidence" be used against politicians ?

Answers:
No.
Used by who? And Why?
Doing such a thing would harm democracy.

---

Why the never commit to anything, so wheres the evidence

---

Short answer: Only sometimes.
Long answer: It's not that simple. "Intercept evidence" isn't always 100% verifiable. Also, it could be something as not-our-business as a politician having a sex talk with his girlfriend (the famous Prince Charles/CPB "tampon" intercept), which shouldn't be used, or something as important to national security as recovering documents reported as "accidentally deleted" by representatives who are legally responsible for keeping such documents.

---

no, because its not always reliable, my political enemies the european forces of occupation, as i call them, recorded me remenising about some old movie whilst talking to myself, many months later they called up the doctors and played this to the receptionist to try and make me look like i was chatting here up, a pest on the phone so to speak, to make the doctors suspitious of me. this is because i am a non european not an anti european and that does worry them.
people are being fitted up by the dozens these days you cant trust anybody.

---

Yes, but only in their legal cases which are to do with their work.

---

Yes Politicians are Not God`s
Just as are not You or I,
If There was intercept evidence
concerning criminal activity.
Yes, it not only should be used,
It Must be Used:
The Main Proviso being that it should be
a Legal Intercept:
Unlike The Evidence accepted by The Starr Tribunal:
which was clearly an Illegal Intercept:
Such "evidence" should be treated with The Contempt it deserves:
There was a Crime Committed but it was Not Committed by
Bill Clinton:
Such "evidence" is Legally classed as of a Poisoned Tree.
Which could be:
The Apt description of The Starr Debacle