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

reply to post by Libertygal


That's what you think, but if it does go to the court than it is up to the court to make that call. It can be argued both ways and you are being intellectually dishonest if you can't admit the other side has a point here.

Originally posted by olaru12



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.

I would feel the same way, and I despise the man.

Illegal is illegal, and once we start making it okay to do it under one circumstance, it becomes okay under others.

If you are not a party to a conversation, then it is none of your business, and it happens every day, all around you. Your family, friends, boss, co-workers, they all talk about you, whether you like it or not, and guess what? You never know unless someone tells you. Does that make it alright for you to illegally wiretap them or "innocently" leave a cell phone on the desk to record then while you go to lunch?

Hot mics happen, ask Obama. That is embarrassing enough. Ask Blago what happens when people listen to phone calls, and those people, the FBI had rights to do it!

Now, would you want someone to do it to you? Journalist or not, it doesn't make it right.

reply to post by Libertygal


Don't get me wrong, i kind of agree with the point you are making. However, i do see this as having being some very useful information, however it was obtained.

If wrongdoing has been done here, someone needs punishing. That said, a huge part of me also applauds whoever is responsible for showing the voting public of America what he is really like. This is one of those strange issues (for me) in that i am torn between both sides of the argument, so feel rather conflicted with it!

Like i said initially, by far the biggest US political story for me is how Romney has blown this election (because lets face it, only a miracle will win him the election now).

Originally posted by Libertygal
I would feel the same way, and I despise the man.

Illegal is illegal, and once we start making it okay to do it under one circumstance, it becomes okay under others.

If you are not a party to a conversation, then it is none of your business, and it happens every day, all around you. Your family, friends, boss, co-workers, they all talk about you, whether you like it or not, and guess what? You never know unless someone tells you. Does that make it alright for you to illegally wiretap them or "innocently" leave a cell phone on the desk to record then while you go to lunch?

Hot mics happen, ask Obama. That is embarrassing enough. Ask Blago what happens when people listen to phone calls, and those people, the FBI had rights to do it!

Now, would you want someone to do it to you? Journalist or not, it doesn't make it right.

Transparency, Transparency, Transparency

I am responsible for every word that comes out of my mouth. If I am caught saying something by any means it doesnt mean I didnt say it. If someone were to record me in my house talking about something and it was relevant to other people and ended up on the news. I wouldnt be fighting over my privacy. I would be fighting to back up what I said because I must have had my reasons.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Libertygal

 

That's what you think, but if it does go to the court than it is up to the court to make that call. It can be argued both ways and you are being intellectually dishonest if you can't admit the other side has a point here.

You are 100% correct, it is what I think. I am not being intellectually dishonest, I am being opinionated, and, last time I checked, I was allowed to have one.

Its kind of amusing in a way that in an age of satellites, cameras on every street corner, warrantless wiretapping and DARPA drone insects hovering around the beds of private citizens in their own homes that those same heavily surveilled people think its proper and decent to demand privacy and secrecy for men who want to rule them and the world.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Like i said initially, by far the biggest US political story for me is how Romney has blown this election (because lets face it, only a miracle will win him the election now).

Don't be so sure of that. Obama is only up by 2 points in most aggregates. We could very well see a 2000 redux. I seriously doubt the GOP wants that however.

Anyway, back to the OP, we'll see if anything happens concerning this. I don't think there is much that can be done as the SCOTUS has already ruled in the affirmative regarding publishing video obtained in this manner. If the state of Florida chooses to go after them then perhaps there is something to this. I doubt they will though and considering the GOP isn't moving on this, I doubt anything will come of this conversation.

Originally posted by underduck

Originally posted by Libertygal
I would feel the same way, and I despise the man.

Illegal is illegal, and once we start making it okay to do it under one circumstance, it becomes okay under others.

If you are not a party to a conversation, then it is none of your business, and it happens every day, all around you. Your family, friends, boss, co-workers, they all talk about you, whether you like it or not, and guess what? You never know unless someone tells you. Does that make it alright for you to illegally wiretap them or "innocently" leave a cell phone on the desk to record then while you go to lunch?

Hot mics happen, ask Obama. That is embarrassing enough. Ask Blago what happens when people listen to phone calls, and those people, the FBI had rights to do it!

Now, would you want someone to do it to you? Journalist or not, it doesn't make it right.

Transparency, Transparency, Transparency

I am responsible for every word that comes out of my mouth. If I am caught saying something by any means it doesnt mean I didnt say it. If someone were to record me in my house talking about something and it was relevant to other people and ended up on the news. I wouldnt be fighting over my privacy. I would be fighting to back up what I said because I must have had my reasons.

Which is exactly what he did, but you would still feel that whoever did that to you, it was okay? My privacy is one of my top priorities.

I have to admit, I am flumoxed by that.

Usually when you have a private conversation, you expect it to stay that way. Being outted, whether it is damaging or not, isn't the point. Perhaps you were not prepared to approach that person on that subject, or perhaps you never intended to. Much harm could come from that, just in your personal life, let alone in a public life.

And of course, when I am talking to you as a private citizen, I don't mean it would end up on the news, but certainly you could see how someone divulging a private conversation perhaps before you are ready to could be damaging to your personal or work relationships.

I am no lawyer so I have to lead off by stating I really don't know the state code applicable to this.

My feelings really are not important legally since I am not in court but am in a public discussion forum.

With that said, Romney is seeking public office and was speaking at a fund raising function for his campaign. Anyone that ponied up the 50K a plate could have attended. That is where I feel the argument that he was having a private conversation falls flat, even if a question and answer session was held.

I did notice that the faces of the attendees were blurred out up unto the moment Romney called for the whole recording to be released. Once he did that, it didn't matter and the faces became clear.

As others have stated I applaud the media bringing this to the forefront. Politicians should take notice that if you are holding or running for public office then you really shouldn't have an expectation of privacy when you are conducting functions pertaining to gaining funds for your campaign or platform.

Argue all you want (I am thankful for this) but you are just arguing for more privacy of public office holders and campaigners and are giving them an excuse to be even more secretive. I don't care where you lie on the political spectrum. You should not have secretive back room dealings or functions when seeking or holding public office.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Like i said initially, by far the biggest US political story for me is how Romney has blown this election (because lets face it, only a miracle will win him the election now).

Don't be so sure of that. Obama is only up by 2 points in most aggregates. We could very well see a 2000 redux. I seriously doubt the GOP wants that however.

Anyway, back to the OP, we'll see if anything happens concerning this. I don't think there is much that can be done as the SCOTUS has already ruled in the affirmative regarding publishing video obtained in this manner. If the state of Florida chooses to go after them then perhaps there is something to this. I doubt they will though and considering the GOP isn't moving on this, I doubt anything will come of this conversation.

Again with the GOP?

Who cares what the GOP thinks?

The conversation was about probable violation of privacy and the handing off of possible illegal audio/video to the media, who then used it in a "gotcha" type of attack. However, as was later introduced into the conversation, when this was done by James O'Keefe within LEGAL limits with ACORN, and outing Obama's connections with ACORN, the media was all over him about how illegal it was (even though it wasn't until the Congresswomans office incident).

See, this is what happens when you insist on brining politics into it. It's a two way street.

And, O'Keefe is a journalist, the person that made this recording most likely was *not*. Believe it or not, that makes a *huge* difference.

Originally posted by Libertygal
Which is exactly what he did, but you would still feel that whoever did that to you, it was okay? My privacy is one of my top priorities.

I have to admit, I am flumoxed by that.

Usually when you have a private conversation, you expect it to stay that way. Being outted, whether it is damaging or not, isn't the point. Perhaps you were not prepared to approach that person on that subject, or perhaps you never intended to. Much harm could come from that, just in your personal life, let alone in a public life.

And of course, when I am talking to you as a private citizen, I don't mean it would end up on the news, but certainly you could see how someone divulging a private conversation perhaps before you are ready to could be damaging to your personal or work relationships.

Correct! And he approached it that way because he isnt stupid. He knew that if he attacks the legality of it that it would be preceived like he was trying to hide it.

I understand what you are saying but if you and I are talking, lets say, at a party in a mutal friends house. I am complaining about someone I work with when someone else at the party overhears our "private" conversation and relays that message to the person I was talking about. That is something that could damage my professional relationship but shame on me for talking about it. Not shame on the person for overhearing it and going to the person I was talking about.

Originally posted by frazzle
Its kind of amusing in a way that in an age of satellites, cameras on every street corner, warrantless wiretapping and DARPA drone insects hovering around the beds of private citizens in their own homes that those same heavily surveilled people think its proper and decent to demand privacy and secrecy for men who want to rule them and the world.

Don't those same people insist that Obama's records are private? The same ones I see in this thread screaming about transparency?

So it's a double standard then?

reply to post by Terminal1


Believe it or not, I actually agree with everything you said.

Except the fact I feel this was a private event in a private home with a known list of individuals to attend. They knew there were to be no journalists there. In that case, I think he had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

To the rest of your post, however, I agree 100%, I think there should not be secrets, I believe in transparency.

How can this issue be settled? By not having private events like this in peoples homes, for one. Romney is by far not the first person to do it. This is not the first time an audio/video recording has come out like this. This is, however, the first time the circumstances, in my opinion, are questionable on a legal basis.

It wouldn't matter who this was, I would be questioning the varacity of the legality of obtaining this recording.

Excellent post, thank you.

Originally posted by Libertygal


The conversation was about probable violation of privacy and the handing off of possible illegal audio/video to the media, who then used it in a "gotcha" type of attack. However, as was later introduced into the conversation, when this was done by James O'Keefe within LEGAL limits with ACORN, and outing Obama's connections with ACORN, the media was all over him about how illegal it was (even though it wasn't until the Congresswomans office incident).

Your sentence doesn't make much sense. O'Keefe was not prosecuted for the ACORN recording so why are you bringing it up? The only thing he was prosecuted for was the incident you mentioned in parentheses. He was prosecuted for attempting to hack into her phone system to record conversations. This in unquestionably illegal. You are comparing apples and oranges. There is no legal argument that for phone hacking. There is a legal argument that the conversation Romney engaged in was a public one.

It wouldn't matter who this was, I would be questioning the varacity of the legality of obtaining this recording.

I seriously doubt that, but that's another conversation.

reply to post by underduck

Originally posted by underduck
...we need to see this on both sides. This isnt about privacy.

Hopeless then.

If you can't see how it would be impossible to craft a reasonable standard for this type of investigative behavior, then you deserve the even bigger hell hole that would replace the current one we are in.

Originally posted by underduck
This is about being accountable for what you say.

That is why we have elections and term limits.

Yet even when we have politicians who "do" other than they "said" during their campaigns (even on the VERY BIG promises), the electorate keeps voting these yahoos back in.

So I utterly fail to see how 'accountability' is advanced by offering an investigative free for all that tramples individual privacy rights.

Originally posted by underduck
...But we have to understand how these people think.

A statement surely loved by every totalitarian throughout history.

But I somehow doubt you or others will agree. In fact, this kind of thinking is the very reason we have such a broken political system. Too bad you can't see the forest for the trees, imo.

reply to post by frazzle

Originally posted by frazzle
Its kind of amusing in a way that in an age of satellites, cameras on every street corner, warrantless wiretapping and DARPA drone insects hovering around the beds of private citizens in their own homes that those same heavily surveilled people think its proper and decent to demand privacy and secrecy for men who want to rule them and the world.

What a specious argument.

Do you think I or those who hold my view also favor those examples?

Likely not.

reply to post by underduck

Correct! And he approached it that way because he isnt stupid. He knew that if he attacks the legality of it that it would be preceived like he was trying to hide it.

I understand what you are saying but if you and I are talking, lets say, at a party in a mutal friends house. I am complaining about someone I work with when someone else at the party overhears our "private" conversation and relays that message to the person I was talking about. That is something that could damage my professional relationship but shame on me for talking about it. Not shame on the person for overhearing it and going to the person I was talking about.

I agree, he won't do anything, because it would not look good for him to. As I stated though, it will be interesting to see if anyone else wishes to take legal steps over it or not. Once again, considering this was obviously a private citizen and not a journalist. I keep making that point for a couple of reasons, but particularly because journalists are afforded certain rights citizens are not, certain liberties, if you will. As well, the person has no right to freedom of privacy as a protected source, because Jimmy Carters grandson knows who she is, and he is not a journalist. Therefore, neither he nor she can be protected in court.

Now, about your overheard private conversation. I think it is a bit different somehow, if someone were to simply overhear you talking, than to record you, and then go to, say, your boss. Most certainly, in a private conversation, you have the expectation of privacy, and eavesdropping is illegal.

It makes you no less responsible for what you said, but I find it bothersome somehow that the thought of somone doing this to you wouldn't bother you and incite you to press charges. Eavesdropping in most states is illegal, especially if it caused you to lose your job. This is why the expectation of privacy is so important. We should be able to discuss problems or issues with that expectation, perhaps for help with a problem, or to vent, or whatever reason, and not have someone record that and go turn you in.

I don't think it is just me that feels this way, so again, it bothers me that this isn't disturbing to you.

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

Well ... if it was illegal to tape him and to publish it, I highly doubt Obama's (IN)Justice Department would do anything about it. Holder is Obama's lil' buddy. And I'd think the DOJ would be the ones to check it out because Romney is POTUS Candidate and I'm thinking this would go to a federal level.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by underduck

 

Originally posted by underduck
...we need to see this on both sides. This isnt about privacy.

Hopeless then.

If you can't see how it would be impossible to craft a reasonable standard for this type of investigative behavior, then you deserve the even bigger hell hole this would replace the current one we are in.

Originally posted by underduck
This is about being accountable for what you say.

That is why we have elections and term limits.

Yet even when we have politicians who "do" other than they "said" during their campaigns, even on the VERY BIG promises, the electorate keeps voting these yahoos back in.

So I utterly fail to see how 'accountability' is advanced by offering an investigative free for all that tramples individual privacy rights.

Originally posted by underduck
...But we have to understand how these people think.

A statement surely loved by every totalitarian throughout history.

But I somehow doubt you or others will agree. In fact, this kind of thinking is the very reason we have such a broken political system. Too bad you can't see the forest for the trees, imo.

I must be hopeless then. Shame on me for understanding that politicians are different when they know they are being watched. Shame on me for thinking people should behave the same in public and in private. Shame on me for being happy that the public got a chance to see a glimpse at one of these 50K a plate dinner speeches. Shame on me for thinking transperancy might change the current political system.

Totalitarian? I think you misunderstood me. I wasnt claiming that our leaders need to understand how the people think. I was claiming that the people need to understand how our leaders think.

Elections and term limits mean nothing if we only accept what these people say infront of a teleprompter.

Do you think Mitt Romney will give a damn about the privacy of the American citizens.

If he is elected, My bet is that surveillance will skyrocket looking for malcontents and ATS will
be banned. Ironic eh?