Same difference if your holding the recording device in your hand or slide it under a door. It is illegal. It would be different if he was out in public and not in a meeting room where only his staff was present.

Same difference

Actually no, this I know a bit about, it's not bugging.

 

Mitch is the one who is screaming that he was a victim, now that everyone knows how he really feels about certain groups of people.

 

So, if someone is in their house talking to someone about a large amount of drugs they just bought and going to re-sell, a robbery where they got a heck of a lot of money, or held up a bank or murder, and the person cutting the grass outside the window over heard this, and recorded it, he can't use any of it against the person and the law can't do anything?

He admitted that he could not hear what they were saying and didn't know until he played the recording back. That seems to make a difference to me, between being overheard and illegally recording. So I could use a piece of equipment and stand outside of republican or democrat headquarters and record their strategy sessions?

Actually no, this I know a bit about, it's not bugging.

 

Mitch is the one who is screaming that he was a victim, now that everyone knows how he really feels about certain groups of people.

 

So, if someone is in their house talking to someone about a large amount of drugs they just bought and going to re-sell, a robbery where they got a heck of a lot of money, or held up a bank or murder, and the person cutting the grass outside the window over heard this, and recorded it, he can't use any of it against the person and the law can't do anything?

 

Not sure where Right to Privacy begins and ends on this.

Not sure where Right to Privacy begins and ends on this.

 

Obviously to some on here it depends on your political views also. Must have IRS staff on BGP.

Actually no, this I know a bit about, it's not bugging.

 

Mitch is the one who is screaming that he was a victim, now that everyone knows how he really feels about certain groups of people.

 

So, if someone is in their house talking to someone about a large amount of drugs they just bought and going to re-sell, a robbery where they got a heck of a lot of money, or held up a bank or murder, and the person cutting the grass outside the window over heard this, and recorded it, he can't use any of it against the person and the law can't do anything?

 

 

Big difference...no crime was being committed by McConnell and staff.

 

If you're OK with this I would assume that you would be just as OK if someone without your knowledge or consent recorded and made public the vocalizations that occur when Mr. & Mrs . SportsGuy are alone in their bedroom?

My apologies, I misread your post as lefty, not lefties. Changes the meaning quite a bit. No more posting for me before I've had my caffeine quota.

 

No worries. I thought you must have misread.

Big difference...no crime was being committed by McConnell and staff.

So it's ok to record it if there isn't a crime, but not ok to record if isn't a crime?

Not sure where Right to Privacy begins and ends on this.

 

I agree! For the record, I never said I am ok with what he did, but espionage does happen. As I asked in my post above, when does the right to privacy begin and/or ends? Does it have to be serious crimes as in my quote you posted that people will look the other way on someone over hearing the conversation?

 

Again, I never said I am ok with how this guy came across the information, but that doesn't excuse Mitch for what he said. It just seems like many people, including Mitch, is crying that he is a victim and what he said should be thrown out.

 

There are three things here, one being what Mitch said and how he really feels about certain groups of people. Another being how the guy obtained the information. And three, where does the right to privacy for a politician begins and/or ends.

So it's ok to record it if there isn't a crime, but not ok to record if isn't a crime?

 

You're the one that implied it was OK to record someone if it involved or prevented the commission of a crime.

 

How about addressing the second paragraph of my post that you replied to. I included it below in case you have caught IRS director syndrome and don't recall it.

 

If you're OK with this I would assume that you would be just as OK if someone without your knowledge or consent recorded and made public the vocalizations that occur when Mr. & Mrs . SportsGuy are alone in their bedroom?

Edited June 2, 201313 yr by All Tell

I agree! For the record, I never said I am ok with what he did, but espionage does happen. As I asked in my post above, when does the right to privacy begin and/or ends? Does it have to be serious crimes as in my quote you posted that people will look the other way on someone over hearing the conversation?

 

Again, I never said I am ok with how this guy came across the information, but that doesn't excuse Mitch for what he said. It just seems like many people, including Mitch, is crying that he is a victim and what he said should be thrown out.

 

There are three things here, one being what Mitch said and how he really feels about certain groups of people. Another being how the guy obtained the information. And three, where does the right to privacy for a politician begins and/or ends.

 

Wow do you really, honestly believe that pols from the left don't have exactly these same meetings and strategies and discuss any way they can tear down opponents? Have you watched how Obama and his Chicago-style thugs have tried to denigrate anyone who would dare disagree with them?

 

Do you really believe that if the Republicans ran a candidate with a history of mental health issues that still relied on several service animals to do their job the Democrats wouldn't make it an issue?

 

If politicians have no right to privacy as you seem to imply in your final paragraph then certainly you're up in arms about the methods the current administration has used to skirt transparency rules such as extra e-mail accounts, meetings and "non-official" locations where logs and records of the meets aren't kept and so forth.

Here's the criminal's Salon article.LINK

 

And yes I believe he's playing the victim even though he insists he's not. He says he lost his home, his friend and his job as well as being publically chastised by his hero. Certainly sounds like a victim mentality to me.

 

And here he actually has the audacity to beg for legal defense funding. I don't know what's more disturbing, that he has no problem doing this or that there are people willing to give him money.

 

The criminal begs for money

You're the one that implied it was OK to record someone if it involved or prevented the commission of a crime.

Actually no I did not, you did. Show me where I said it was "OK to record someone if it involved or prevented the commission of a crime." You are the one that said "Big difference...no crime was being committed by McConnell and staff."

 

I simply asked when is recording someone like this is acceptable. And does the lack of a crime make what was heard in the conversation null and void?

Wow do you really, honestly believe that pols from the left don't have exactly these same meetings and strategies and discuss any way they can tear down opponents?

We are talking about Mitch here, he was the one who was caught, either legally or illegally, but he was caught on what he thought about some groups of people.

 

 

If politicians have no right to privacy as you seem to imply in your final paragraph then certainly you're up in arms about the methods the current administration has used to skirt transparency rules such as extra e-mail accounts, meetings and "non-official" locations where logs and records of the meets aren't kept and so forth.

I don't know how you could see that, I guess you are wanting to see that as my viewpoint? I was commenting, and agreeing with Jumper_Dad with his comment on not being sure where does the right to privacy for a politician begins and/or ends.

Actually no I did not, you did. Show me where I said it was "OK to record someone if it involved or prevented the commission of a crime." You are the one that said "Big difference...no crime was being committed by McConnell and staff."

 

I simply asked when is recording someone like this is acceptable. And does the lack of a crime make what was heard in the conversation null and void?

 

 

If you weren't implying that a secret recording that might prevent a crime was OK then why bring that example up? The way I read your post it certainly seemed to imply that you were just fine with a secret recording being made public as long a a potential crime was involved, or a politician that you don't agree with is discredited and in fact you were using it to justify what was done.