Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The tape was taken in the hallway by Progrss Kentucky, probably through a vent in the door or underneath the gap at the bottom. Regardless, there was a presumption of privacy that was violated by the liberal nutjobs.
Maybe you need to get up to speed on current events.
They were in a hallway open to the public when they recorded it. I don't know how this is going to turn out, but if you can be heard through walls and doors in public spaces, the courts have ruled that there's no expectation of privacy, based on the individual circumstances of each case. They also heard a discussion about potentially illegal activities (the kind where you go to jail) concerning using federal staff and resources to do opposition research on another potential candidate. Like I said, this will be an interesting one.
"By contrast, one court held that a private investigator who recorded a conversation while standing on a sidewalk outside a first-story apartment did not record any "private communication" because the conversation could be heard clearly from the public sidewalk through an open window. Another court held that a television station did not violate state law when it secretly recorded a conversation between an actor and a producer at an outdoor restaurant. The expectation of privacy analysis is very fact-specific."
They were in a hallway open to the public when they recorded it. I don't know how this is going to turn out, but if you can be heard through walls and doors in public spaces, the courts have ruled that there's no expectation of privacy, based on the individual circumstances of each case. They also heard a discussion about potentially illegal activities (the kind where you go to jail) concerning using federal staff and resources to do opposition research on another potential candidate. Like I said, this will be an interesting one.
"By contrast, one court held that a private investigator who recorded a conversation while standing on a sidewalk outside a first-story apartment did not record any "private communication" because the conversation could be heard clearly from the public sidewalk through an open window. Another court held that a television station did not violate state law when it secretly recorded a conversation between an actor and a producer at an outdoor restaurant. The expectation of privacy analysis is very fact-specific."
They were doing a study on the DB level of elevators in gov offices and that conversation just happened to be in the background. How were they to know . . . .
They were in a hallway open to the public when they recorded it. I don't know how this is going to turn out, but if you can be heard through walls and doors in public spaces, the courts have ruled that there's no expectation of privacy, based on the individual circumstances of each case. They also heard a discussion about potentially illegal activities (the kind where you go to jail) concerning using federal staff and resources to do opposition research on another potential candidate. Like I said, this will be an interesting one.
"By contrast, one court held that a private investigator who recorded a conversation while standing on a sidewalk outside a first-story apartment did not record any "private communication" because the conversation could be heard clearly from the public sidewalk through an open window. Another court held that a television station did not violate state law when it secretly recorded a conversation between an actor and a producer at an outdoor restaurant. The expectation of privacy analysis is very fact-specific."
Maybe there was a discussion about this (in bold), but I've heard nothing about it. There has been discussions about whether there were ethics violations, but to my knowledge your claim that there was a "discussion about potentially illegal acitivities" is news to me.
Maybe there was a discussion about this (in bold), but I've heard nothing about it. There has been discussions about whether there were ethics violations, but to my knowledge your claim that there was a "discussion about potentially illegal acitivities" is news to me.
Sounds more like a "wish" than a fact.
You seem to be the one engaging in "wishful" thinking.
It's very clear from the recorded conversations that federal employees--legislative assistants--compiled the opposition research against Ashley Judd. If they did that on work time, or used federal resources (federal office, phone, copy machine) that's a felony.
There's a reason why most campaigns are very careful to use only campaign resources in campaigns. Federal staff DO help with campaigns, but they take a leave of absence or vacation to do it, and they work outside of the federal office. It may be that their involvement was perfectly legal, but the McConnell campaign is going to have to show the documentation to prove that now. Like I said, this could be interesting.
Ok--this makes things clearer. The taping took place from a hallway outside of the McConnell campaign office, so he wasn't using his federal office for campaign activities--that hasn't been explained before. During the conversation, it refers to legislative aides doing opposition research on Ashley Judd. The campaign needs to make sure that they have clearly documented records of federal employees doing that work OFF TIME, and away from the federal building, using no federal resources (even the phone) or there's a big problem. The conversation is really tacky, but it's not illegal to call someone crazy in a meeting. The courts have also ruled that if you talk loudly enough to be heard through a wall, there's no expectation of privacy. It never occurred to me that you would have a loud conversation on a subject like that during the open house for your campaign office--who would do that?
And Clinton had "The War Room" to find dirt on anyone against him.
John Tower, "Where do I go to get MY reputation back" after the dems destroyed him.
The list is very long on the dems digging for dirt on their opponents.
Ah, the fake outrage of the left.
Given the circumstances, that's a "pot calling the kettle black" kind of comment.
The democrats were digging up dirt about a republican campaign digging up dirt, potentially using federal resources while they did it. The question is who did something illegal, and who didn't. EVERY campaign does opposition research--that's part of the process. It's not illegal to record a conversation you can hear from a public hallway, or to dig up dirt on Ashley Judd. If they used any kind of public resources (staff time, an office, or federal equipment of any kind) to research that information, that's when it becomes a big problem.
You seem to be the one engaging in "wishful" thinking.
It's very clear from the recorded conversations that federal employees--legislative assistants--compiled the opposition research against Ashley Judd. If they did that on work time, or used federal resources (federal office, phone, copy machine) that's a felony.
There's a reason why most campaigns are very careful to use only campaign resources in campaigns. Federal staff DO help with campaigns, but they take a leave of absence or vacation to do it, and they work outside of the federal office. It may be that their involvement was perfectly legal, but the McConnell campaign is going to have to show the documentation to prove that now. Like I said, this could be interesting.
All this krap doesn't matter. Was it legal, was it illegal, was it a wee tiny bit illegal, were they in the hall, were they in the elevator, were they standing on their heads, the Supreme Court says this, Federal regulations say that, do they pee to the left or the right. Like Hillary said, it doesn't matter.
You folks can split as many hairs as you want, the electorate sees this bs for what it is. The Democrats got caught pulling a Nixon. And they know it, that's why Kentucky Democrats are running away as fast as they can from Progress Kentucky.
Conway said Shawn Reilly and Curtis Morrison told him they snuck into McConnell’s freshly-opened campaign office February 2, not long after McConnell held an open house for GOP activists and media members. They heard the meeting going on through a closed door and recorded it.
No law is out of bounds for the Left. They will do whatever they feel like it for whatever they want, regardless of the laws.
Are the results of the FBI investigation complete? Was there a conviction? Was the Left found guilty?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
