It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: gariac
if it's illegal, he should be arrested. If not, he should just be relentlessly ridiculed.
For Cohen, no target was too big. Former Fox News host Megyn Kelly put tough questions to Trump at a Republican presidential debate. Cohen later retweeted someone who had written, "we can gut her."
New York's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. New York makes it a crime torecord to record or eavesdrop on an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: gariac
if it's illegal, he should be arrested. If not, he should just be relentlessly ridiculed.
In NY it is illegal to record a conversation without consent, so Cohen might be walking a dangerous line....
2. “Mechanical overhearing of a conversation” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat, by means of any instrument, device or equipment.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude
It's,one party consent. As long as one person knows it's legal.
New York's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. New York makes it a crime torecord to record or eavesdrop on an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05
originally posted by: Liquesence
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: gariac
if it's illegal, he should be arrested. If not, he should just be relentlessly ridiculed.
In NY it is illegal to record a conversation without consent, so Cohen might be walking a dangerous line....
Wrong. NY is one party consent, as long as he was party to the conversation.
N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05.
2. “Mechanical overhearing of a conversation” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat, by means of any instrument, device or equipment.
Link
As far as the telemarketing requirements passed in 2017 concerning sales calls, that's a little different.
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: Liquesence
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: gariac
if it's illegal, he should be arrested. If not, he should just be relentlessly ridiculed.
In NY it is illegal to record a conversation without consent, so Cohen might be walking a dangerous line....
Wrong. NY is one party consent, as long as he was party to the conversation.
N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05.
2. “Mechanical overhearing of a conversation” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat, by means of any instrument, device or equipment.
Link
As far as the telemarketing requirements passed in 2017 concerning sales calls, that's a little different.
How TF do you get consent when you didn't ask for it? I am attacking the wording of the law, not the concept of it. See where I am going? How would this kind of consent work in a rape case?
Our lawmakers and their wording of laws are criminal! PERIOD!
As outraged as I was at the UK for arresting TR, our tyrannical government isn't much better.
originally posted by: CB328
So he's a nasty dirtbag like Trump and his supporters. This could be the final straw that turns all centrists away from the GOP and hopefully we get a bloodbath at the ballotbox.
originally posted by: Liquesence
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: Liquesence
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: gariac
if it's illegal, he should be arrested. If not, he should just be relentlessly ridiculed.
In NY it is illegal to record a conversation without consent, so Cohen might be walking a dangerous line....
Wrong. NY is one party consent, as long as he was party to the conversation.
N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05.
2. “Mechanical overhearing of a conversation” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat, by means of any instrument, device or equipment.
Link
As far as the telemarketing requirements passed in 2017 concerning sales calls, that's a little different.
How TF do you get consent when you didn't ask for it? I am attacking the wording of the law, not the concept of it. See where I am going? How would this kind of consent work in a rape case?
Our lawmakers and their wording of laws are criminal! PERIOD!
As outraged as I was at the UK for arresting TR, our tyrannical government isn't much better.
So you change the narrative and attack the law itself, got it.
So very Trumpian.
The law, in this case, is pretty clear. If I talk to you I have the right to record it.
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: Liquesence
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: Liquesence
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: gariac
if it's illegal, he should be arrested. If not, he should just be relentlessly ridiculed.
In NY it is illegal to record a conversation without consent, so Cohen might be walking a dangerous line....
Wrong. NY is one party consent, as long as he was party to the conversation.
N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05.
2. “Mechanical overhearing of a conversation” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat, by means of any instrument, device or equipment.
Link
As far as the telemarketing requirements passed in 2017 concerning sales calls, that's a little different.
How TF do you get consent when you didn't ask for it? I am attacking the wording of the law, not the concept of it. See where I am going? How would this kind of consent work in a rape case?
Our lawmakers and their wording of laws are criminal! PERIOD!
As outraged as I was at the UK for arresting TR, our tyrannical government isn't much better.
So you change the narrative and attack the law itself, got it.
So very Trumpian.
The law, in this case, is pretty clear. If I talk to you I have the right to record it.
What is consent?
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: Liquesence
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: gariac
if it's illegal, he should be arrested. If not, he should just be relentlessly ridiculed.
In NY it is illegal to record a conversation without consent, so Cohen might be walking a dangerous line....
Wrong. NY is one party consent, as long as he was party to the conversation.
N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05.
2. “Mechanical overhearing of a conversation” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat, by means of any instrument, device or equipment.
Link
As far as the telemarketing requirements passed in 2017 concerning sales calls, that's a little different.
How TF do you get consent when you didn't ask for it? I am attacking the wording of the law, not the concept of it. See where I am going? How would this kind of consent work in a rape case?
Our lawmakers and their wording of laws are criminal! PERIOD!
As outraged as I was at the UK for arresting TR, our tyrannical government isn't much better.
"You're talking about Donald Trump, you're talking about the frontrunner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as private individual, who never raped anybody and of course understand that by the very definition you can't rape your spouse," Cohen said in one audio recording.
Spousal rape has been illegal in the state of New York, where Donald and Ivana Trump resided during their marriage, since 1984. The incident to which Ivana Trump's claim refers took place in 1989.