Is It Morally Ethical to Read Illegally-obtained Private Emails?

The latest WikiLeaks dump included emails from a U.S. citizen's private email account. John David Podesta, Chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and previous Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton, was hacked and private correspondence released to the media which allegedly revealed inflammatory information.

In response, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued a statement:

I will not discuss any issue that has become public solely on the basis of WikiLeaks. As our intelligence agencies have said, these leaks are an effort by a foreign government to interfere with our electoral process, and I will not indulge it. Further, I want to warn my fellow Republicans who might want to capitalize politically on these leaks. Today it's the Democrats. Tomorrow, it could be us.

RELATED: Protect You and Your Family From Online Predators: Save Now!

It was an interesting position to take and one that launched an introspective conversation on Glenn's radio program Wednesday.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these questions:

• What if these private emails had been stolen from you?

• Don't we have a right to be secure in our private papers ?

• Will everything be transparent in the future?

• Is this akin to stealing documents form Apple or IBM?

• Is it morally wrong to look at stolen documents?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Let's talk a little bit about Marco Rubio and what he said about WikiLeaks.

STU: Statement to NBC.

He says, "I will not discuss any issue that has become public solely on the basis of WikiLeaks. As our intelligence agencies have said, these leaks are an effort by a foreign government to interfere with our electoral process, and I will not indulge it. Further, I want to warn my fellow Republicans who might want to capitalize politically on these leaks. Today it's the Democrats. Tomorrow, it could be us."

Now, of course, the Bush administration -- I mean, that was the WikiLeaks, the first thing they did, was attack the Bush administration. So it already has been the Republicans at some level.

And I think that part of the statement -- you know, look, today it's Democrats, tomorrow it could be us, appeals to probably most people. But I think it appeals least to me. That's certainly true.

I got to say though, I mean, it is an interesting point, in that, we know that -- or at least we think we know that this is coming from a foreign government. But even that part of it is less of the impact of that statement. To me, I think it's a good point in that it's probably just the wrong thing to do. Discussing these things -- and I understand this is not going to be popular. But discussing stolen documents, things that were stolen from private conversations, and discussing them as election issues, is probably just wrong to do. And I will admit this, that I -- it may just be I'm able to see this because I don't like either of the candidates. You know, like maybe if Ted Cruz was the guy and, you know, Ted Cruz was in a tight election battle, maybe I'd be all over this. I admit that I'm a weak enough idiot that I probably would -- you know, be down that road. I hope I would not. But, I mean --

GLENN: I don't think you would be.

STU: I hope not.

GLENN: Let me ask you this.

STU: It doesn't feel like -- and I think there's a distinction between this and, let's say, Edward Snowden, who is trying to be a whistle-blower on his government. And you can argue, whether he's as bad as well. And we've had that argument many times.

I think there's a difference there. This is just stolen from a foreign government and leaked -- and, again, none of this stuff -- it's like leaked internal questioning of issues. And I don't know, I mean, it feels like --

GLENN: Here's where I have a problem with the WikiLeaks things. We are discussing them, and we don't know what's true or not. We do know that one of the WikiLeaks emails that came out was changed by the government. Right? Remember you talked to us about that last week, that there was one email that was quoting an article that actually had an article in the original.

STU: Right. And they blamed the Democrats. In reality, they were quoting an article that was favorable to Republicans.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: They were basically saying -- I don't remember the exact issue. I think it was Benghazi-related. But it was basically like -- it was acting as if the Democrats behind closed doors knew Hillary was responsible for Benghazi, when in reality, they had sent an article that mentioned something about that --

GLENN: Right.

STU: -- internally to like discuss it.

GLENN: So we know at least one of them has been doctored. How do we know that, Stu? I don't remember the story. How do we know this?

STU: Oh, it was the author of the column saw the email exchange. And said, "Wait a minute. That's not their words. Those are my words. I wrote that."

GLENN: Okay.

STU: And, by the way, the author was critical of Republicans about their handling of Benghazi. It wasn't even a pro-Republican article that was -- it just had one paragraph that said, "Look, this is a fair issue to bring up," essentially, if I remember --

GLENN: So we know that one thing has been changed, out of how many thousands of documents. We don't know what's true and what's not coming from them.

What Edward Snowden did -- I'm really torn. Because every time I talk to anybody in the intelligence community that I respect, they say, "There's no way that he tried to go through the system. There's no way." And what I keep going back to is, if you try to go through the system, if you tried to stop it and nobody would listen, then I agree.

Now, I give him the benefit of the doubt because we know four whistle-blowers who tried to go through the system. I know three or five whistle-blowers -- I don't know them on a first-name basis that tried to show us the corruption in the Department of Homeland Security. And they are afraid for their jobs right now. Okay?

And that was involving a lawsuit that I was in. Those three or five whistle-blowers that provided us with information tried to do it the right way. They could not get any movement. And then the -- the top of the State Department started looking for them, and they were on a weasel hunt. Okay?

So I give Edward Snowden the benefit of the doubt that this was important, constitutional stuff, that our own government was violating. That's not the same as WikiLeaks. This is just a document dump. And you'll notice that they haven't documented -- they haven't document dumped anything on Russia. Nothing on enemies of ours. Only our allies and us. And trying to hurt us with our allies. I don't trust Julian Assange or WikiLeaks at all.

And for us to give them credibility is bad. Is really, really bad. Now, do I believe most of the stuff that has come through? Yeah, I do. I do. The latest is the thing on, you know, what Hillary is saying behind the scenes about how she wants to scrap Obamacare and start over. I believe that. Bill Clinton has said that. That it doesn't work. Obamacare doesn't work. Hillary would rather do her own Hillarycare and be the one who is the savior that fixed it. He got it. He did the hard work. He had it. Now let her fix it. I absolutely believe that. And that was one of the things that came out in WikiLeaks.

But that's not a national secret. That is not something that is constitutional. You know what I mean? It is just behind the scenes. And I don't like the fact that somebody that we can't check the -- the credibility on, we don't know what they're putting -- and they're putting thousands of documents out, I don't -- I'm not comfortable with this. It's not right.

STU: Yeah, I mean -- I just -- it's -- because my initial instinct -- I mean, we've talked about the WikiLeaks emails. I mean, I have a story I put in the prep today about -- which I think is interesting -- their -- the short list for the VPs for Hillary Clinton. And they have every single name on there. And they've broken it into categories.

And it's interesting, to look at this. I mean, the books that will be written about this election will be more detailed probably than any book about any previous election. Because there's so much information about what these guys were thinking at the times these decisions were made. But, I mean -- so my instinct was -- and plus, it's in the media. Everybody is talking about it. They're not hiding it --

GLENN: So what did you learn about it from that list?

STU: Am I not just violating -- it's interesting because they -- they played identity politics, without going into all the details. But like, they thought the same way you think Democrats would think about their VP choice. Here's a bunch of black people. Here's a bunch of women. Here's a bunch of people who -- you know, Hispanics. Here's a bunch of people who were in the military -- you know, like, they broke it into categories like that. It's not crazy.

PAT: And they ignored all that, with a white guy. What a bunch of racists. What a bunch of racists.

STU: Yeah, exactly. And they had a white guy category. Which, I mean, look --

PAT: Who else was on the white guy category?

STU: I can look at it.

PAT: Who was on the black guy category?

STU: Is it not -- am I not violating?

GLENN: Yes, I think you are.

STU: This is new information for me. I will say, I have not processed the Rubio thing. The Rubio thing -- and this goes back to the conversation we had with Steven Crowder.

The Rubio thing challenged what I thought. Honestly, I had not really considered it because we're in the heat of the election. And these things are out there. And I want to know the information. And it was there. And that was basically the amount of thought I put into it. And while I agree, they should -- the Russians should not be trying to influence our election process, I hadn't given it a thought of like, "Maybe we shouldn't even reporting on this stuff. I don't know." You could probably talk me into the opposite.

What's made me --

PAT: Worry about that tomorrow. What's in this one today?

STU: Right. Right. What's made me think today is that it just feels kind of morally wrong. I mean, like, these were stolen from these people. Like -- and while I don't like the people they were stolen from, they were stolen from these people. And, you know, I -- I don't know. I mean, while I don't want to stick my head in the sand and --

GLENN: You have a right to be secure in your papers and your person.

STU: Right? I mean, if this had happened to a candidate that I liked, I would be furious about it. And, you know, just because it's a candidate I don't like, you know, I'm supposed to embrace it? I don't know. It doesn't --

JEFFY: You can worry about it tomorrow and tell us about it today.

GLENN: This is espionage on not a government entity. This is a private corporation.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: The DNC and the RNC, they're private institutions. It's not a government institution. So nobody has a right -- that's like breaking into IBM and Apple and just releasing all their documents. You don't have a right to do that. You don't have a right.

STU: Right? I'm trying to challenge myself on this.

GLENN: And the only reason why, if you were pitted against -- if you were Microsoft versus Apple and somebody who hated Apple and was in favor of Microsoft broke in to Apple and you thought Steve Jobs was a great guy, and they released all the stuff that Steve Jobs was doing with the government, which they are -- the government, where he is -- he is -- he started his -- you know, his lobbying firm. He is wickedly involved in politics and deeply -- or was deeply involved in -- in making sure the laws worked to Apple's favor. He was putting himself in -- ahead of a line about getting a kidney transplant. That's not right. You can't do that.

But if we would have just -- if somebody would have gone in that was pro Microsoft and then dumped everything bad about Steve Jobs and Apple, would we be okay with that?

We might be because we would be like, "Eh, Steve Jobs, and that leftist, he finally gets his." Does that make it better? It doesn't.

STU: Right. Again, and this is your fault, Glenn, because you've been talking about principles all day.

But, I mean, you think about that, from a principled perspective, probably shouldn't -- probably shouldn't be. Now, look, it's going to be out there anyway. If you want it, you can get it, right?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: But the question is, do we play into that? And I don't know. Maybe the answer to that is no. I don't know.

GLENN: Well, here's the problem of playing into it --

PAT: Or maybe the answer is yes.

GLENN: It could be. What do you think? What do you think?

PAT: I don't know. Honestly, until this moment, I haven't even considered it.

STU: Right. Right.

GLENN: Isn't that amazing that we haven't? That nobody has brought this up? This is a pretty big principle: You have a right to be secure in your papers, and it's a private institution.

PAT: These aren't papers. These are digital --

GLENN: Yeah, you have a right to your private thoughts and correspondence. You have a right to that.

PAT: Yeah, but they couldn't foresee email.

GLENN: Yeah, I know. I know.

JEFFY: Thank you.

GLENN: So how we are just going ahead and being fine with it -- we're only fine with it because we're on teams.

PAT: Yeah, I don't know.

GLENN: And we think they're all so support. Transparency won't hurt.

STU: There's really no one to call this out.

PAT: It's like stealing from a rich person. They're so rich, it won't matter. Well, just because we don't like them, doesn't mean that their privacy doesn't matter. That's still constitutional, and it's still a moral issue, and we should still abide by principles and values that we preach about all the time.

JEFFY: What if they have billions?

PAT: Well, if they have billions, you can probably take thousands --

GLENN: See, my feeling on this -- this is where I draw the line on Edward Snowden.

What Edward Snowden showed us was, they were violating the Constitution of the United States. They are breaking the law.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: So it's a whistle-blower to me.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Now, I'm torn on whether or not he did it the right way. I don't think he did. But the information is important because it broke the law.

PAT: Definitely.

GLENN: None of this is law-breaking.

STU: So there's stuff in there that could potentially --

GLENN: And release the law-breaking stuff, possibly. Possibly.

STU: Right.

GLENN: You would have a better chance of being on the moral right side, if it was law-breaking stuff. But just to release people's private emails is absolutely morally reprehensible.

STU: And the issue is. And, you know, I give Rubio credit because he's in a tough spot there. And I think he will tell you --

GLENN: That's not going to help him.

STU: Right. That's not going to help him. He is a guy who takes the world foreign affairs very seriously. So I think his motivation, I think, centrally, probably is that he just -- wait a minute. We're not going to let the Russians invade our election process. And that's a good reason.

GLENN: I got good news for you. It would be an act of war at any other time in our --

STU: Any other time. And I think right now, you have an issue of really neither side has -- has the ability to come out and call this out. One, Trump supporters and Republicans are -- want this information. I mean, there was a Republican congressman -- a Republican congressman, who came out and said, "Thank God for WikiLeaks."

I mean, think about this. This is the Russians hacking our election process, and a Republican congressman said, "Thank God for WikiLeaks."

On the other side, the Democrats have been doing the same thing forever. They used all of this information the same way when it benefited them. So they have no standing. Not to mention, the Clinton campaign has no incentive to draw attention to this. Right? The last thing they want to do is -- I mean, because it's a losing argument for them. Them coming out and saying, "Look, they shouldn't have those private emails."

It doesn't matter. It's a losing argument for them. They can say that, and it's probably true. But it's a losing argument.

So there's really no one with an incentive to come out and say this. And I hope that's -- again, this is why you come to this show, I hope. You come to this show because you want someone who -- you know, a show that's going to not care about those lines.

GLENN: So here's the real answer: The real answer should be that we make our own decision whether or not, and then we consistently apply it. Because everything is going to be transparent. In the years ahead, there's not going to be any secrets.

So do you look into people's private secrets or not? The answer is no, you don't.

JEFFY: You know, but that's the hope of government, right? That fishbowl mentality.

GLENN: No, I think the hope of the government is that you'll react at some point and say, "I want you to clamp down on this," and so they will. And then they have control, and they are the only ones that can look into people's secrets.

Featured Image: John Podesta, Clinton Campaign Chairman, walks to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's Washington DC home October 5, 2016 in Washington, District of Columbia. (Photo Credit: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)

What do clay pots have to do with to preserving American history?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Why should we preserve our nation’s history? If you listen to my radio program and podcast, or read my columns and books, you know I’ve dedicated a large part of my life and finances to sourcing and preserving priceless artifacts that tell America’s story. I’ve tried to make these artifacts as available as possible through the American Journey Experience Museum, just across from the studios where I do my daily radio broadcast. Thousands of you have come through the museum and have been able to see and experience these artifacts that are a part of your legacy as an American.

The destruction of American texts has already begun.

But why should people like you and me be concerned about preserving these things from our nation's history? Isn’t that what the “big guys” like the National Archives are for?

I first felt a prompting to preserve our nation's history back in 2008, and it all started with clay pots and the Dead Sea Scrolls. In 1946, a Bedouin shepherd in what is now the West Bank threw a rock into a cave nestled into the side of a cliff near the Dead Sea. Instead of hearing an echo, he heard the curious sound of a clay pot shattering. He discovered more than 15,000 Masoretic texts from the third century B.C. to the first century A.D.

These texts weren’t just a priceless historical discovery. They were virtually perfect copies of the same Jewish texts that continue to be translated today. Consider the significance of that discovery. Since the third century B.C. when these texts were first written, the Jewish people have endured a continued onslaught of diasporas, persecutions, pressures to conform to their occupying power, the destruction of their temple, and so much more. They had to fight for their identity as a people for centuries, and finally, a year after the end of the Holocaust and a year before the founding of the nation of Israel, these texts were discovered, confirming the preservation and endurance of their heritage since ancient times — all due to someone putting these clay pots in a desert cave more than 2,000 years ago.

I first felt a prompting to preserve our nation's history back in 2008, and it all started with clay pots and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So, what do these clay pots have to do with the calling to preserve American history? I didn’t understand that prompting myself until the horrible thought dawned on me that the people we are fighting against may very well take our sacred American scriptures, our Declaration of Independence, and our Bill of Rights. What if they are successful, and 1,000 years from now, we have no texts preserved to confirm our national identity? What kind of new history would be written over the truth?

The destruction of American texts has already begun. The National Archives has labeled some of our critical documents, like our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, as “triggering” or “containing harmful language.” In a public statement, the National Archives said that the labels help prepare readers to view potentially distressing content:

The Catalog and web pages contain some content that may be harmful or difficult to view. NARA’s records span the history of the United States, and it is our charge to preserve and make available these historical records. As a result, some of the materials presented here may reflect outdated, biased, offensive, and possibly violent views and opinions. In addition, some of the materials may relate to violent or graphic events and are preserved for their historical significance.

According to this statement, our founding documents are either “outdated, biased, offensive,” “possibly violent,” or a combination of these scathing descriptions. I’m sorry, the Declaration of Independence is not “triggering.” Our Constitution is not “outdated and biased,” and our Bill of Rights certainly is not “offensive and possibly violent.” They are glorious documents. They should be celebrated, not qualified by such derogatory, absurd language. Shame on them.

These are only the beginning stages of rewriting our history. What if they start banning these “triggering” documents from public view because they might offend somebody? Haven’t we torn down “triggering” statues before? What if we are no longer able to see, read, and study the actual words of our nation's founding documents because they are “harmful” or “possibly violent”? A thousand years from now, will there be any remnant to piece together the true spirit behind the nation that our founders envisioned?

The Declaration of Independence is not “triggering.”

That is why in 2008, I was prompted to preserve what I could. Now, the American Journey Experience Museum includes more than 160,000 artifacts, from founding-era documents to the original Roe v. Wade court papers. We need to preserve the totality of our nation’s heritage, the good, the bad, and the ugly. We need to preserve our history in our own clay pots.

I ask you to join with me on this mission. Start buying books that are important to preserve. Buy some acid-free paper and start printing some of the founding documents, the reports that go against the mainstream narrative, the studies that prove what is true as we are continually being fed lies. Start preserving our daily history as well as our history because it is being rewritten and digitized.

Somebody must have a copy of what is happening now and what has happened in the past. I hope things don’t get really bad. But if they do, we need to preserve our heritage. Perhaps, someone 1,000 years from now will discover our clay pots and, Lord willing, be able to have a glimpse of America as it truly was.

Top 10 WORST items in the new $1.2 TRILLION spending bill

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

Biden just signed the newest spending bill into law, and Glenn is furious.

Under Speaker Johnson's leadership, the whopping $1.2 TRILLION package will use your taxpayer dollars to fund the government through September. Of course, the bill is loaded with earmarks and pork that diverts money to fund all sorts of absurd side projects.

Here is the list of the ten WORST uses of taxpayer money in the recently passed spending bill:

Funding venues to host drag shows, including ones that target children

David McNew / Contributor | Getty Images

Money for transgender underwear for kids

Funding for proms for 12 to 18 year old kids

Bethany Clarke / Stringer | Getty Images

Border security funding... for Jordan and Egypt

Another $300 million for Ukraine

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

$3.5 million for Detroit's annual Thanksgiving Day parade

Icon Sportswire / Contributor | Getty Images

$2.5 million for a new kayaking facility in Franklin, New Hampshire

Acey Harper / Contributor | Getty Images

$2.7 million for a bike park in White Sulfur Springs, West Virginia, a town with a population of less than 2,300 people

$5 million for a new trail at Coastal Carolina University

$4 million the "Alaska King Crab Enhancement Project" (whatever that means)

FRED TANNEAU / Stringer | Getty Images

There is no doubt about it—we are entering dark times.

The November presidential election is only a few months away, and following the chaos of the 2020 election, the American people are bracing for what is likely to be another tumultuous election year. The left's anti-Trump rhetoric is reaching an all-time high with the most recent "Bloodbath" debacle proving how far the media will go to smear the former president. That's not to mention the Democrats' nearly four-year-long authoritarian attempt to jail President Trump or stop his re-election by any means necessary, even if it flies in the face of the Constitution.

Meanwhile, Biden is doing worse than ever. He reportedly threw a tantrum recently after being informed that his polls have reached an all-time low. After Special Counsel Robert Hur's report expressed concerns over Biden's obviously failing mental agility, it's getting harder for the Democrats to defend him. Yet he is still the Democratic nominee for November, promising another 4 years of catastrophic policies, from the border to heavy-handed taxation, should he be reelected.

The rest of the world isn't doing much better. The war in Ukraine has no clear end in sight, drawing NATO and Russia closer and closer to conflict. The war in Gaza is showing no sign of slowing down, and as Glenn revealed recently, its continuation may be a sign that the end times are near.

One thing is clear: we are living in uncertain times. If you and your family haven't prepared for the worst, now is the time. You can start by downloading "Glenn's Ultimate Guide to Getting Prepared." Be sure to print off a copy or two. If the recent cell outage proved anything, it's that technology is unreliable in survival situations. You can check your list of supplies against our "Ultimate Prepper Checklist for Beginners," which you can find below:

Food

  • Canned food/non-perishable foods
  • Food preparation tools
  • Go to the next level: garden/livestock/food production

Water

  • Non-perishable water store
  • Water purification
  • Independent water source

Shelter

  • Fireplace with a wood supply
  • Tent
  • Generator with fuel supply
  • Go to the next level: fallout shelter

Money

  • Emergency cash savings
  • Precious metals

Medicine

  • Extra blankets
  • Basic first aid
  • Extra prescriptions
  • Extra glasses
  • Toiletries store
  • Trauma kit
  • Antibiotics
  • Basic surgery supplies
  • Potassium Iodate tablets

Transportation

  • Bicycle
  • Car
  • Extra fuel

Information

  • Birth certificates
  • Insurance cards
  • Marriage license
  • Immunization records
  • Mortgage paperwork
  • Car title and registration
  • House keys, car keys
  • Passports
  • Family emergency plan
  • Prepping/survival/repair manuals
  • Go to the next level: copy of the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, and other important books/sources

Skills

  • Cooking
  • Gardening
  • Sewing
  • First Aid
  • Basic maintenance skills
  • Go to the next level: farming/ranching
  • Self-defense training

Communication

  • Family contact information and addresses
  • HAM radio

Miscellaneous

  • Flashlights and batteries
  • Lamps and fuel
  • Hardware (tools, nails, lumber, etc)
  • Extra clothes
  • Extreme weather clothes and gear
  • Gas masks and filters
  • Spare parts for any machinery/equipment

Is Trump's prosecution NORMAL?  This COMPLETE list of ALL Western leaders who served jail time proves otherwise.

PhotoQuest / Contributor, The Washington Post / Contributor, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Mainstream media is on a crusade to normalize Donald Trump's indictments as if it's on par with the electoral course. Glenn asked his team to research every instance of a Western leader who was jailed during their political career over the past 200 years—except extreme political turmoil like the French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, Irish Revolution, etc.—and what we discovered was quite the opposite.

Imprisoning a leader or major political opponent is not normal, neither in the U.S. nor in the Western world. Within the last 200 years, there are only a handful of examples of leaders in the West serving jail time, and these men were not imprisoned under normal conditions. All of these men were jailed under extreme circumstances during times of great peril such as the Civil War, World War II, and the Cold War.

What does this mean for America? Are Trump's indictments evidence that we are re-entering times of great peril? Below is a list of Western leaders who were imprisoned within the last 200 years. Take a look and decide for yourself:

Late 1800s

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Jefferson Davis: The nearest occurrence to a U.S. President to serve jail time was in the case of Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederate States of America. Jefferson was captured in Georgia by Northern Soldiers in 1865 and locked up in Fort Monroe, Virginia for two years. He was offered a presidential pardon but refused out of his loyalty to the confederacy.

Early 1900s

PhotoQuest / Contributor | Getty Images

Eugene V. Debs: Debbs, a Midwestern socialist leader, became the first person to run for president in prison. He was locked up at a federal penitentiary in Atlanta having been convicted under the federal Sedition Act for giving an antiwar speech a few months before Armistice Day, the end of World War I. Many of his supporters believed his imprisonment to be unjust. Debs received 897,704 votes and was a distant third-part candidate behind Warren G. Harding, the Republican winner, and James M. Cox, the second-place Democrat. Harding ordered Debs’s release from prison toward the end of 1921.

Nazi sympathizers and collaborators: After the end of World War II in 1945, several European leaders who had "led" their countries during the Nazi occupation faced trial and imprisonment for treason. This list included Chief of the French State Philippe Pétain, French Prime Minister Pierre Laval, and Minister-President of Norway Vidkun Quisling. The latter two were also executed after their imprisonment. President of Finland Risto Ryti and Prime Minister of Finland Johan Wilhelm Rangell were also tried and jailed for collaborating with the Nazis against the Allied Powers.

Late 1900s

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The end of the Cold War: The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was one of the pivotal moments that brought the Cold War to a close and marked the end of Communist East Germany. With the fall of the wall and the collapse of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), the former leaders were brought to trial to answer for the crimes committed by the GDR. General Secretary Erich Honecker and General Secretary Egon Krenz were both put on trial for abuse of power and the deaths of those who were shot trying to flee into West Germany. Honecker was charged with jail time but was released from custody due to severe illness and lived out the rest of his life as an exile in Chile. Krenz served 4 years in jail before his release in 2001. He is one of the last surviving leaders of the Eastern Bloc.

Lyndon LaRouche: Larouche was a Trotsky evangelist, public antisemite, and founder of a nationwide Marxist political movement, became the second person in U.S. history to run for President in a prison cell. Granted, he ran in every election from 1976 to 2004 as a long-shot third-party candidate. When he tried to gain the Democratic presidential nomination, he received 5 percent of the total nationwide vote. Even though in 2000 he received enough primary votes to qualify for delegates in a few states, the Democratic National Committee refused to seat his delegates and barred LaRouche from attending the Democratic National Convention.