Was Romney taped illegally? Was the publication in Mother Jones Illegal?

reply to post by detachedindividual


Wow! The constitutionality of this, protection from, is rooted in the 5th amendment. It also could amount to unresonable search and seizure. Also in the Miranda rights.

You calling this real journalism is subject to a good deal of clarification......which I will wait for before calling you something.

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
I can not say for certain, but I do not believe the law is applicable in this case. It's all in the wording of the law.

consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people.

What was recorded was neither a phone call nor a conversation; rather, it was a speech. Furthermore, it wasn't "private"; anyone who was willing and able to cough up $50K was welcome to attend.

I understand what you are saying, but in the respect of how this was done, as is displayed in the tape, it was in fact, more of a conversation than a speech.

This is why I bolded this part in the OP:

consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people. In some of these states, it might be enough if all parties to the call or conversation know that you are recording and proceed with the communication anyway, even if they do not voice explicit consent.

Obviously, if he were in a town hall type of setting, one would have a reasonable expectation of being recorded, but again, from the way the tape was made, it is evident that it was surreptitiously made. No one, except, perhaps a person next to her, knew she was recording.

I still stand by it being private, as it was stated to be a small table and an intimate setting. This is not something you would even say to 25 people, as well as being in someones' private home.

Originally posted by Libertygal

I don't think his response can be the guage to determine it's legality. His challenging the legality of it may not look good for him, hence why he called for the entire recording to be released.

Here's the problem: You can't state if it's a public or private event. That is what the court would have to decide. It's likely they would consider it public as it was donation dinner. They would consider his comments a speech, as for the whole tape, it has been released.
www.cbsnews.com...

it's 49 minutes, have fun watching.

www.politico.com...

Others are asking the same question you are, but my point does stand. The GOP foams at the mouth to get at liberal publications. Trust me, if they thought they could shut down Mother Jones for good they would do it in a second.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Mitt is just butt-hurt that this came out instead of all the "approved" lines he feeds the lazy journalists who don't have the right to call themselves that.

This is really what it is all about. They would rather shift the conversation away from the content of the video and instead talk about the legality of the video. Too bad, Mitts words are now available for the world to hear. At this point, contesting the legality of the video is about as useful as trying to put the pin back in the grenade.

Originally posted by Logarock
The problem of criminal eavesdropping is so far off the hook, that its downright unbelievable. Go to the yellow pages for private investigators in any majior city and you will see that many offer "bug sweeping' services. That should tell you something. Criminal eavesdropping in this country is a very large underground industry for gaining info for any number of reasons. I am talking about placing listening devices in homes. The fact that there is no outrage over the way this Mitt vid was gained should also be a word to the wise.

This is exactly what I am talking about. I am glad you see the point that I am trying to make. It not only stands for placing bugs, but a cellphone, for all intents and pruposes, during this private gathering, was used in exactly the same way. I do see this as an egregious violation of privacy, not just his, but of every person in that room.

Not only could he sue, if he wanted, but the owner of the home, and every individual there could, as well.

That people stand for it, at all, boggles the mind. Your warning should be heeded, but instead, people will take the political stance on this, which is what I wish to avoid on this topic. It isn't about politics, it is about violation of individual rights.

Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by LeatherNLace

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Mitt is just butt-hurt that this came out instead of all the "approved" lines he feeds the lazy journalists who don't have the right to call themselves that.

This is really what it is all about. They would rather shift the conversation away from the content of the video and instead talk about the legality of the video. Too bad, Mitts words are now available for the world to hear. At this point, contesting the legality of the video is about as useful as trying to put the pin back in the grenade.

No it isn't realy what it is about I clearly stated it was about the legalities.

I am sorry some people seem to have a one track mind and politics is all you can think about, but while people go around poiting fingers over non-existant ghoulies, rights and freedoms are eroding.

Read the OP, I asked to leave politics out of it.

If you want to talk about the GOP, make your own thread, please.

reply to post by detachedindividual

Originally posted by detachedindividual
...This is what your MSM is SUPPOSED to do...

Well, not quite.

I can think of nothing worse or unmanageable than as standard of 'media investigation' that enables someone to violate my privacy rights in the name of 'news'.

Where would it end?

Do bloggers count as media?

Can a private citizen violate my privacy rights to 'investigate' any potential issue of interest to the spying individual(s), if they think it might be newsworthy?

I would dare say that if you were the target of such interest, you'd change your tune very quickly.

We live in an imperfect society... That will ALWAYS be the case. But your vision would make things much, much worse, imo.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Welcome to true investigative journalism. This is what your MSM is SUPPOSED to do, and actually used to do, before they became lazy and started taking their "news" from the mouths of politicians.

I don't give a damn if it is deemed to be illegal, this is what real journalism looks like, and it's about time people started remembering what news is supposed to be.

Stop swallowing what you're told and reading what "journalists" are told to tell you.

Real journalism comes with risk, Mitt is just butt-hurt that this came out instead of all the "approved" lines he feeds the lazy journalists who don't have the right to call themselves that.

edit on 19-9-2012 by detachedindividual because: (no reason given)

THIS!

I agree 100% and I find it a little sad that we are discussing if this is legal or not. Granted OP might just be bringing it up for conversation sake but this is the sort of media we need. If this were to be deemed illegal and if some sort of punishment were to come down we might as well weep because its over. I really hope we see more stuff like this from all sides. Politians have become to comfortable and need to understand that what they say will be used against them.

Originally posted by Libertygal

I understand what you are saying, but in the respect of how this was done, as is displayed in the tape, it was in fact, more of a conversation than a speech.

This is why I bolded this part in the OP:

consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people. In some of these states, it might be enough if all parties to the call or conversation know that you are recording and proceed with the communication anyway, even if they do not voice explicit consent.

I see your point of view; however, it still doesn't meet the definition of conversation. I underlined it above. Do you see it? The part that says a conversation that involves more than two people. The only voice I heard throughout the entire video was that of Mitt. There was no back and forth banter, which is what would be needed for a conversation to occur. Otherwise, it's a speech, a lecture, a rant, etc....but a two way conversation it is not.

reply to post by LeatherNLace


Well there is nothing wrong with his words. 1/2 of americans agree to one degree or another and he has broken no laws here my dear misguilded friend. Libs will fail to gain ground on this based on the woopty doo of some sort of sting op. It will falt blow up on them.


As well on the issues..........it was in a privet home. The homeowner is the party that can claim abuse here under the law. The issue of legal or not has little to do with Mitt.

Originally posted by LeatherNLace

Originally posted by Libertygal

I understand what you are saying, but in the respect of how this was done, as is displayed in the tape, it was in fact, more of a conversation than a speech.

This is why I bolded this part in the OP:

consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people. In some of these states, it might be enough if all parties to the call or conversation know that you are recording and proceed with the communication anyway, even if they do not voice explicit consent.

I see your point of view; however, it still doesn't meet the definition of conversation. I underlined it above. Do you see it? The part that says a conversation that involves more than two people. The only voice I heard throughout the entire video was that of Mitt. There was no back and forth banter, which is what would be needed for a conversation to occur. Otherwise, it's a speech, a lecture, a rant, etc....but a two way conversation it is not.

That's untrue. In the OP I have the links to the transcripts on Mother Jones, and there are clearly other people talking, and quoted, in the transcripts. They are labeled as Crowd Member. I am not going to post the transcript, as I cited legal issues over it, but you can follow the link and see for yourself.

www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by underduck

Originally posted by underduck
...I find it a little sad that we are discussing if this is legal or not. ...this is the sort of media we need.

...I really hope we see more stuff like this from all sides.

:shk:

Read my post above.

It never ceases to amaze me how people draw these conclusions simply because an outcome in a specific example happens to meat with their approval. Screw the 'means', huh?

So short sighted....

Honestly, most people frighten me by their view of how justice and equity should function in this country.

Think about what you people are saying for a moment, will you?

reply to post by antonia

Here's the problem: You can't state if it's a public or private event. That is what the court would have to decide. It's likely they would consider it public as it was donation dinner. They would consider his comments a speech, as for the whole tape, it has been released.

No, I can put forth the argument that it is a private event in a private home, with a known list of individuals that had to pay a *lot* of money to attend a private event. A donation dinner still does not make it a public event in my opinion, but again, that is why I proffered it for conversation.

It could be called a speech, but judging by the transcripts of the tape, it was more a conversation, as the people that were there were a part of the conversation. Speeches tend to be one sided, this clearly wasn't.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Welcome to true investigative journalism. This is what your MSM is SUPPOSED to do, and actually used to do, before they became lazy and started taking their "news" from the mouths of politicians.

I don't give a damn if it is deemed to be illegal, this is what real journalism looks like, and it's about time people started remembering what news is supposed to be.

Stop swallowing what you're told and reading what "journalists" are told to tell you.

Real journalism comes with risk, Mitt is just butt-hurt that this came out instead of all the "approved" lines he feeds the lazy journalists who don't have the right to call themselves that.

edit on 19-9-2012 by detachedindividual because: (no reason given)

Oh really? The MSM is supposed to secretly tape people and then edit the tape and only release particular sound bytes to make the story slanted one direction? That's funny, I thought the MSM was supposed to be neutral and release the whole story.

reply to post by Libertygal


Sorry but it has to be said - who cares? It has gone way beyond whether or not it was legal or not to record him. He has exposed himself for what he truly is.

As a political story, what is far more interesting to me is how he is managing to spectacularly blow this election when only a few months ago only the bluest of Democrats would have believed Obama would win.

Sorry for going off your thread guidelines but it had to be said. In keeping with your thread premise though, yes i believe it is certainly possible (and looks probable) that this was recorded illegally. That said, i am sure many in the USA are happy they now know what he really thinks.

reply to post by loam


I couldn't agree with you more.

I had the same questions come up when the O'Keefe recordings came up, but they *were* obtained by an investigative journalist, and the places they were obtained were public places.

I think O'Keefe did get sentenced for the Congresswomans' office, for the illegal wiretapping, or something to that affect, but I do bgelieve his sentence was overturned or something to that effect. I could be mistaken, as I lost track of it.

Though it is a similar discussion to the O'Keefe issue, it is different on so many levels. Regardless of the outcome of the events, I feel this was clearly in invasion of privacy as well as a violation of both state and federal laws.

Do I think anything will come of it? No. As some have pointed out, it may actually be of some benefit to the Romney Camp, but again, regardless of the outcome, a violation is still a violation.

Will be interesting to see if every member that attended, or the homeowner themselves, agrees to not take it further.

Typically, a journalist cannot be made to divulge their source, *but* Jimmy Carters' grandson isn't a journalist. He doesn't get afforded that treatment.

How would you conservatives feel if Obama was having concealed and private discussions about the
direction of the country. Would you want some spy gathering information. Of course you would!

We need more transparency from all candidates, not less. By any means possible!!

No exceptions!

Secrets are tools of Nazi Fascists pigs.

reply to post by Flavian


I care.

And politics aside, I think it matters how both information is obtained and how our media is willing to handle it.

I have a history of having issues with media, sorry, but that's just me.

Especially when you have instances of two similar or like stories, but the media handles them in two completely diffeent ways. IE: James O'Keefe.

Personally, I couldn't care less about Romney, I don't like the man. I do, however, care about other things, like how our laws are handled and frankly set aside when it pleases people to do so. Again, I have personal reasons for this, as well.

reply to post by olaru12

Originally posted by olaru12
Secrets are tools of Nazi Fascists pigs.

So was surveillance of its citizens.

Honestly, you people make no sense to me.

Originally posted by loam
:shk:

Read my post above.

It never ceases to amaze me how people draw these conclusions simply because an outcome in a specific example happens to meat with their approval. Screw the 'means', huh?

So short sighted....

Honestly, most people frighten me by their view of how justice and equity should function in this country.

Think about what you people are saying for a moment, will you?

edit on 19-9-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)

My view on this isnt because I approve the outcome. Like I said we need to see this on both sides. This isnt about privacy. This is about being accountable for what you say. Politicians have become so insulated from the real world that they can hide behind official statements or press briefings. This is what investigative journalism has to look like if you want educated masses.
Granted I think the media is a little too insane at times when it comes to politicians. Just a couple elections ago Howard Dean was taken down because of his "scream" during a celebration after the Iowa caucuses. But we have to understand how these people think. In my opinion this is the only way to do it right now. These guys hide behind so much double speak in their "public" appearences that it drives a sane person crazy.