TrumPutinGate

#14,601
#14,601
hog88 said:
LG you are hearing that from a reporter who was eavesdropping on a conversation. He was so close that he could hear all the details but failed to pull outb his phone to record the conversation? So be accurate, you're hearing that from an unsubstantiated source and not Cobb.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be illegal?
 
#14,603
#14,603
hog88 said:
LG you are hearing that from a reporter who was eavesdropping on a conversation. He was so close that he could hear all the details but failed to pull outb his phone to record the conversation? So be accurate, you're hearing that from an unsubstantiated source and not Cobb.
Click to expand...

Really?

Your answer is that the reporter is lying? Just made it up?

Where's the denial from Cobb or the WH?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14,604
#14,604
luthervol said:
We will never agree. We look at exactly the same thing and see completely different images. I've come to terms with that fact; however, I still find it fascinating.
Click to expand...

Anyone remember that time Luther admitted that he rejects possibilities based on how much a possibility hurts his feelings? Anyone surprised he looks at the same data as others and comes to completely different concussions?

Anyone?
 
#14,605
#14,605
lawgator1 said:
Really?

Your answer is that the reporter is lying? Just made it up?

Where's the denial from Cobb or the WH?
Click to expand...

Nobody with sense would justify the allegation with a response. The guy is out on a limb by himself without anyway to verify his claims. He took the time to take a picture from a couple but didn't think to hit record? Come on!
 
#14,606
#14,606
hog88 said:
In a public place?
Click to expand...

The District of Columbia's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. DC makes it a crime to record a phone call or conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. See D.C. Code § 23-542.
 
#14,607
#14,607
Mick said:
The District of Columbia's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. DC makes it a crime to record a phone call or conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. See D.C. Code § 23-542.
Click to expand...

You probably need to read up on that. It would be a real hard charge to bring regarding a situation in a public place and the recording party not being a part of the conversation.
 
#14,608
#14,608
hog88 said:
You probably need to read up on that. It would be a real hard charge to bring regarding a situation in a public place and the recording party not being a part of the conversation.
Click to expand...

You do just to try to justify your whole narrative that there should be an "illegal" recording.
 
#14,610
#14,610
hog88 said:
It's not illegal to record public places.
Click to expand...

You would be arguing my point if he had and the facts would then be on your side. Public places still don't give anyone the right to record someone else's conversation.

Done with you on this topic.
 
#14,611
#14,611
Mick said:
You would be arguing my point if he had and the facts would then be on your side. Public places still don't give anyone the right to record someone else's conversation.

Done with you on this topic.
Click to expand...

Of course you are because you know you are wrong.

You're telling me that if I lay my cell phone down on my table at a restaurant and just so happen to pick up a conversation between two guys planning a murder and reported it, I broke the law?
 
#14,612
#14,612
lawgator1 said:
Doesn't seem like they need Manafort's testimony to indict Manafort.

And now we are hearing from inside the WH, by Cobb, that other lawyers are blocking the investigation by hiding documents in a safe. Even he has not seen them.

Cobb is no dummy. He's protecting himself. When this all goes to crap and the music stops, he will have a chair. "I told them to hand it all over."

More obstruction by Trump and his administration.
Click to expand...

Nowhere does it say other lawyers are blocking the investigation.



The friction escalated in recent days after Mr. Cobb was overheard by a reporter for The New York Times discussing the dispute during a lunchtime conversation at a popular Washington steakhouse. Mr. Cobb was heard talking about a White House lawyer he deemed “a McGahn spy” and saying Mr. McGahn had “a couple documents locked in a safe” that he seemed to suggest he wanted access to. He also mentioned a colleague whom he blamed for “some of these earlier leaks,” and who he said “tried to push Jared out,” meaning Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, who has been a previous source of dispute for the legal team
Click to expand...
 
#14,613
#14,613
hog88 said:
Of course you are because you know you are wrong.

You're telling me that if I lay my cell phone down on my table at a restaurant and just so happen to pick up a conversation between two guys planning a murder and reported it, I broke the law?
Click to expand...

According to the law YES if the intent was to record their conversation. Should we get a lawyer to settle this? What say you LG?
 
#14,614
#14,614
Mick said:
According to the law YES if the intent was to record their conversation. Should we get a lawyer to settle this? What say you LG?
Click to expand...

Didn't you say it was one party consent? If so, the party recording is the consent. In two party consent both the recorder and recordee have to consent.
 
#14,616
#14,616
volinbham said:
Didn't you say it was one party consent? If so, the party recording is the consent. In two party consent both the recorder and recordee have to consent.
Click to expand...

The one recording was not in the conversation. I find hog's assertion morally lacking as well as against the law.
 
#14,617
#14,617
Mick said:
The one recording was not in the conversation. I find hog's assertion morally lacking as well as against the law.
Click to expand...

The one recording consented to record his conversation, what he picked up in the background isn't illegal. Now it may be illegal if he bugged their table but then that would be a totally different subject.

Morally lacking? I've got to ask you to explain this gem.
 
#14,619
#14,619
So, is the argument that anything overheard in public is illegal? Anything recorded in public is illegal? One should have the expectation of privacy when speaking in public?

Is this picture of a bag thief illegal? Immoral? Inadmissible? He should have the expectation of privacy in public?

Myers-Family.jpg
 
#14,620
#14,620
volinbham said:
my understanding is you have recorder and recordee - those are the two parties.
Click to expand...

If your understanding does not reflect this:"DC makes it a crime to record a phone call or conversation unless one party to the conversation consents.", you do not understand at all.
 
#14,621
#14,621
Mick said:
If your understanding does not reflect this:"DC makes it a crime to record a phone call or conversation unless one party to the conversation consents.", you do not understand at all.
Click to expand...

I believe it is you that does not understand. You want to believe soooooo bad that you will make any argument that a Trump detractor is telling the truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14,622
#14,622
Mick said:
If your understanding does not reflect this:"DC makes it a crime to record a phone call or conversation unless one party to the conversation consents.", you do not understand at all.
Click to expand...

https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/digital-journalists-legal-guide/legal-limits-recording-conduct-and-conver

The general rule is that people in public places must assume they might be photographed or recorded, particularly if they are officials carrying out their public duties. Therefore, you may photograph, film and record what you can easily see or hear in public places, even if the recorded people have not specifically consented to such, provided you do not harass, trespass or otherwise intrude.
Click to expand...
 
#14,624
#14,624
luthervol said:
I thought trump's implication was that Obama wire taped him. If trump had people living in TT that the intelligence community felt needed to be wire tapped, that's on trump. Maybe he should vet the people paying him to live next door and run his campaign. He's all about proper vetting and protecting borders.
Click to expand...

It was but the truth doesn't fit the narrative. All that matters are Hillary emails, bill Clinton sexual harassment blah blah blah
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14,625
#14,625
volinbham said:
https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/digital-journalists-legal-guide/legal-limits-recording-conduct-and-conver
Click to expand...

This is Hog's hypothetical and if he hit record on his phone with the intent to record their conversation that is a crime. D.C. Code § 23-542*states that it is legal for someone to record a conversation if “such person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent.” In that case he committed a crime. In the other case if he was recording his surroundings or recording his own conversation and picked it up that would be fine. What kind of phone do you all use anyway? The IPhone spymaster 2000. It's one thing to hear something than it is to record what you hear. I would imagine this place has music and other noises and crowed at the time.

If your arguments is that you don't believe him and it would require a recording, that is fine. I think it's a nothing burger unless they conduct a raid based on what he reported.

I present the law and you present a general rule that reporters follow. He followed the general rule and law. Such as easy out for people that hate the "MSM" and their "Fake news". Why didn't you all say that to begin with?

Keep on grazing.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top