• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

So what changed between then,.. and now?

Steve

Well-known member
So what changed between then,.. and now?

back then a president resigned and several folk went to jail..

"It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception."

And surreptitious recording also violates Kentucky law, where this meeting took place:

526.030 Installing eavesdropping device.

(1) A person is guilty of installing an eavesdropping device when he intentionally installs or places such a device in any place with the knowledge that it is to be used for eavesdropping.

(2) Installing an eavesdropping device is a Class D felony.

back then..

Indictment by the state of Maryland

Tripp was a resident of Columbia, Maryland, at the time she made her surreptitious recordings of the conversations with Lewinsky, and 49 Democrats in the Maryland Legislature signed a letter to the state prosecutor demanding that Tripp be prosecuted under Maryland’s wiretap law

further back..

Watergate scandal

Wiretapping of the Democratic Party's headquarters

On September 15, a grand jury indicted them, as well as Hunt and Liddy,[9] for conspiracy, burglary, and violation of federal wiretapping laws.

today...

well to date so far Romney's campaign was doomed by an unauthorized recording..

and now..

Top Senate Republican Asks Feds to Investigate Possible Illegal Wiretap

The top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, is asking the feds to investigate whether a closed campaign meeting was illegally wiretapped by his political opponents. The issue arises after the liberal outlet Mother Jones published "A recording of a private meeting between the Senate GOP leader and campaign aides."

is the law only good against conservatives?

and worse.. is the president involved?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Do you think Oldtimer will say what happen to McConnell was wrong and the Dems had no right to do that to a Republican? No I didn't think so either, I'm betting he will just post another Andy joke and ignore this thread all together. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception."

Right there is the little section that makes recording conversations you sit in legal- in most states and in Canada....
If the person doing the recording was part of the conversation- and involved in the communication in any way- there probably was no crime committed....
But it does vary from state to state..

There are 12 States in the U.S. That requires ALL parties involved in the conversation (All Party Consent) to be made aware that the conversation is being recorded. These States are:

California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington


The following 38 States require that at least ONE person (One Party Consent) involved in the conversation has given permission for the conversation to be recorded including the person doing the recording:


Alaska
Arkansas
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming


This falls under the United States Code: Title 18.2511. As long as you actually take part in the conversation and are doing so in a State that allows "One Party Consent", it is quite legal to record the conversation without another paty in the conversation giving permission or even being told that they are being recorded.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
monogram.jpg
 

Steve

Well-known member
If the person doing the recording was part of the conversation- and involved in the communication in any way- there probably was no crime committed....

in Romney's case it was a liberal in the other adjoining room. and probably posing as staff or service personnel.. at a closed door fundraiser..

how are they "part of the conversation" ?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
If the person doing the recording was part of the conversation- and involved in the communication in any way- there probably was no crime committed....

in Romney's case it was a liberal in the other adjoining room. and probably posing as staff or service personnel.. at a closed door fundraiser..

how are they "part of the conversation" ?


Did Secret Recording Of Romney Fundraiser Break Florida Wiretap Law?

By Guest Blogger on Sep 18, 2012 at 4:25 pm


Our guest blogger is Peter Swire, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and a professor of law at the Ohio State University.

The secret tape recording – was it illegal? Maybe yes (if they find who did it). But there are some intriguing defenses for the person who made the tape of Mitt Romney saying that 47 percent of Americans are “dependent upon government” and see themselves as “victims.”

At first read, the Florida wiretap law looks like it applies. Florida prohibits “interception” of oral communications, including a tape recording in person. Florida also requires consent from all parties before an oral communication can be recorded. Mitt Romney didn’t consent to the taping. So the person who made the tape could face criminal charges, likely a misdemeanor for a first offense.

But the unknown person who made the tape has at least three defenses. The first two defenses depend on interpreting Florida’s Section 934.02:


“Oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.

The first defense would argue that Romney was making a “public oral communication” at a “public meeting.” The tape was made at an official campaign fundraising event, so perhaps that is a big enough venue to count as “public.” On the other hand, the campaign appears to have tried hard to exclude all reporters and other members of the general public, so this defense seems fairly weak.

The second defense is more interesting. Did Romney have a justified “expectation” that no one would tape his speech before the packed room? In some earlier decade, the chances of a hidden recording device might have seemed remote. Today is different, though. Lots of people now carry video/audio recording devices. We call them “smartphones” and “laptops.” With changing technology, there is a strong argument that Romney assumed the risk that a staffer, guest, or server was recording his speech.

Third, the person who made the tape could argue that he or she was exercising First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and the press. Romney was making important remarks about the election – the core protected area of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment case law provides excellent protection for Mother Jones, who released the video. In the 2000 Bartnicki case, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects the disclosure of illegally intercepted communications by a radio station and newspapers who did not participate in the illegal interception.

We don’t know whether the Bartnicki protection will extend to the person who taped and reported about Romney’s remarks. Linda Tripp was prosecute under Maryland’s all-party consent law for taping a call with Monica Lewinsky. Will Romney’s taper be far behind?

Here is an excellent take on Romneys alternatives...

I guess Romney could sue- or file a criminal complaint thru the Florida Dept of Justice... But I think in the long run- with the First Amendment argument- he would be committing political suicide....
The bartender did it.

Scott Prouty came forward to say he secretly taped the video last year in which GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney told donors that 47% of Americans are "dependent on the government" and "believe they are victims."
Prouty, who worked for a catering company hired for the fundraising event, told MSNBC he wanted people to hear the candidate and make their own judgments about his motivation.

I think Romney would have a hard time convincing a jury that at a major fundraiser that was "catered" by various catering agencies with everyone packing a cell phone/recording device- that he had an expectation of privacy...
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
If the person doing the recording was part of the conversation- and involved in the communication in any way- there probably was no crime committed....

in Romney's case it was a liberal in the other adjoining room. and probably posing as staff or service personnel.. at a closed door fundraiser..

how are they "part of the conversation" ?


Did Secret Recording Of Romney Fundraiser Break Florida Wiretap Law?

By Guest Blogger on Sep 18, 2012 at 4:25 pm


Our guest blogger is Peter Swire, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and a professor of law at the Ohio State University.

The secret tape recording – was it illegal? Maybe yes (if they find who did it). But there are some intriguing defenses for the person who made the tape of Mitt Romney saying that 47 percent of Americans are “dependent upon government” and see themselves as “victims.”

At first read, the Florida wiretap law looks like it applies. Florida prohibits “interception” of oral communications, including a tape recording in person. Florida also requires consent from all parties before an oral communication can be recorded. Mitt Romney didn’t consent to the taping. So the person who made the tape could face criminal charges, likely a misdemeanor for a first offense.

But the unknown person who made the tape has at least three defenses. The first two defenses depend on interpreting Florida’s Section 934.02:


“Oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.

The first defense would argue that Romney was making a “public oral communication” at a “public meeting.” The tape was made at an official campaign fundraising event, so perhaps that is a big enough venue to count as “public.” On the other hand, the campaign appears to have tried hard to exclude all reporters and other members of the general public, so this defense seems fairly weak.

The second defense is more interesting. Did Romney have a justified “expectation” that no one would tape his speech before the packed room? In some earlier decade, the chances of a hidden recording device might have seemed remote. Today is different, though. Lots of people now carry video/audio recording devices. We call them “smartphones” and “laptops.” With changing technology, there is a strong argument that Romney assumed the risk that a staffer, guest, or server was recording his speech.

Third, the person who made the tape could argue that he or she was exercising First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and the press. Romney was making important remarks about the election – the core protected area of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment case law provides excellent protection for Mother Jones, who released the video. In the 2000 Bartnicki case, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects the disclosure of illegally intercepted communications by a radio station and newspapers who did not participate in the illegal interception.

We don’t know whether the Bartnicki protection will extend to the person who taped and reported about Romney’s remarks. Linda Tripp was prosecute under Maryland’s all-party consent law for taping a call with Monica Lewinsky. Will Romney’s taper be far behind?

Here is an excellent take on Romneys alternatives...

I guess Romney could sue- or file a criminal complaint thru the Florida Dept of Justice... But I think in the long run- with the First Amendment argument- he would be committing political suicide....
The bartender did it.

Scott Prouty came forward to say he secretly taped the video last year in which GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney told donors that 47% of Americans are "dependent on the government" and "believe they are victims."
Prouty, who worked for a catering company hired for the fundraising event, told MSNBC he wanted people to hear the candidate and make their own judgments about his motivation.

I think Romney would have a hard time convincing a jury that at a major fundraiser that was "catered" by various catering agencies with everyone packing a cell phone/recording device- that he had an expectation of privacy...

So you probably don't have a problem with GW's expansion of the Patriot Act to expand wire taps because with new technology terrorist should be expecting to be tapped. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
in Romney's case it was a liberal in the other adjoining room. and probably posing as staff or service personnel.. at a closed door fundraiser..

how are they "part of the conversation" ?


Did Secret Recording Of Romney Fundraiser Break Florida Wiretap Law?

By Guest Blogger on Sep 18, 2012 at 4:25 pm


Our guest blogger is Peter Swire, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and a professor of law at the Ohio State University.

The secret tape recording – was it illegal? Maybe yes (if they find who did it). But there are some intriguing defenses for the person who made the tape of Mitt Romney saying that 47 percent of Americans are “dependent upon government” and see themselves as “victims.”

At first read, the Florida wiretap law looks like it applies. Florida prohibits “interception” of oral communications, including a tape recording in person. Florida also requires consent from all parties before an oral communication can be recorded. Mitt Romney didn’t consent to the taping. So the person who made the tape could face criminal charges, likely a misdemeanor for a first offense.

But the unknown person who made the tape has at least three defenses. The first two defenses depend on interpreting Florida’s Section 934.02:


“Oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.

The first defense would argue that Romney was making a “public oral communication” at a “public meeting.” The tape was made at an official campaign fundraising event, so perhaps that is a big enough venue to count as “public.” On the other hand, the campaign appears to have tried hard to exclude all reporters and other members of the general public, so this defense seems fairly weak.

The second defense is more interesting. Did Romney have a justified “expectation” that no one would tape his speech before the packed room? In some earlier decade, the chances of a hidden recording device might have seemed remote. Today is different, though. Lots of people now carry video/audio recording devices. We call them “smartphones” and “laptops.” With changing technology, there is a strong argument that Romney assumed the risk that a staffer, guest, or server was recording his speech.

Third, the person who made the tape could argue that he or she was exercising First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and the press. Romney was making important remarks about the election – the core protected area of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment case law provides excellent protection for Mother Jones, who released the video. In the 2000 Bartnicki case, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects the disclosure of illegally intercepted communications by a radio station and newspapers who did not participate in the illegal interception.

We don’t know whether the Bartnicki protection will extend to the person who taped and reported about Romney’s remarks. Linda Tripp was prosecute under Maryland’s all-party consent law for taping a call with Monica Lewinsky. Will Romney’s taper be far behind?

Here is an excellent take on Romneys alternatives...

I guess Romney could sue- or file a criminal complaint thru the Florida Dept of Justice... But I think in the long run- with the First Amendment argument- he would be committing political suicide....
The bartender did it.

Scott Prouty came forward to say he secretly taped the video last year in which GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney told donors that 47% of Americans are "dependent on the government" and "believe they are victims."
Prouty, who worked for a catering company hired for the fundraising event, told MSNBC he wanted people to hear the candidate and make their own judgments about his motivation.

I think Romney would have a hard time convincing a jury that at a major fundraiser that was "catered" by various catering agencies with everyone packing a cell phone/recording device- that he had an expectation of privacy...

So you probably don't have a problem with GW's expansion of the Patriot Act to expand wire taps because with new technology terrorist should be expecting to be tapped. :roll:


So you don't have an expectation of privacy when talking to your girlfriend on the phone? Most folks have that expectation when talking on the phone...
In Montana you have to have a search warrant signed by the Judge in order for an undercover officer or CI to wear a body wire and record a conversation with a suspect... I know because I've issued several over the years...
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:
Here is an excellent take on Romneys alternatives...

I guess Romney could sue- or file a criminal complaint thru the Florida Dept of Justice... But I think in the long run- with the First Amendment argument- he would be committing political suicide....


I think Romney would have a hard time convincing a jury that at a major fundraiser that was "catered" by various catering agencies with everyone packing a cell phone/recording device- that he had an expectation of privacy...

So you probably don't have a problem with GW's expansion of the Patriot Act to expand wire taps because with new technology terrorist should be expecting to be tapped. :roll:


So you don't have an expectation of privacy when talking to your girlfriend on the phone? Most folks have that expectation when talking on the phone...
In Montana you have to have a search warrant signed by the Judge in order for an undercover officer or CI to wear a body wire and record a conversation with a suspect... I know because I've issued several over the years...

Not with all this new technology, you know cell phones and laptops can do some amazing things.
 
Top