TrumPutinGate

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?


Laws on making recordings vary greatly from state-to-state. I would not venture a guess as to what the laws are there.

But I reject the premise of the argument, anyway. It just seems like a very strange thing for a reputable reporter to flatly make up. And if he did, I would have expected some serious and strong denials, which have not occurred.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Laws on making recordings vary greatly from state-to-state. I would not venture a guess as to what the laws are there.

But I reject the premise of the argument, anyway. It just seems like a very strange thing for a reputable reporter to flatly make up. And if he did, I would have expected some serious and strong denials, which have not occurred.

Why would they need to refute a story from this guy, look at his past. Refuting it only lends the guy credence.
 
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.

You are way off base legally.

He was 2-3 feet away and he reports that they were loudly discussing this, a good reporter would have recorded what he could for verification. No I don't believe this guy because of his sketchy past.
 
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.

1. I'm not commenting on the truthfulness of the reporter at all. Not sure where you got that from. I was simply questioning your interpretation of the law.

2. I'm saying you are wrong on the law and had the reporter wanted to record the conversation he could have legally.
 
Laws on making recordings vary greatly from state-to-state. I would not venture a guess as to what the laws are there.

But I reject the premise of the argument, anyway. It just seems like a very strange thing for a reputable reporter to flatly make up. And if he did, I would have expected some serious and strong denials, which have not occurred.

I don't think he made it up. However, you made up the part about Trump's lawyers "blocking the investigation" No where in the reporters report is this found or even suggested.

It is a dispute between lawyers where one wants to be proactive and make everything public and another who wants to be selective in what is made public. There is nothing suggesting the investigation requested said documents and they are being withheld.
 
1. I'm not commenting on the truthfulness of the reporter at all. Not sure where you got that from. I was simply questioning your interpretation of the law.

2. I'm saying you are wrong on the law and had the reporter wanted to record the conversation he could have legally.

When are you going to show the law that says anyone can record anyone within ear shout?

That's right you can't. It is both against the law and morally wrong to do so. If you would do such that is on you. You cannot say that is so and so behind me so I'm going to record just in case he says something and think the law is going to protect you in DC. Absurd to compare an intentional hypothetical act to a happenstance act.

2012 District of Columbia Code
Section 23-542
Interception, disclosure, and use of wire or oral communications prohibited
(a) any person who in the District of Columbia --
(1) willfully intercepts , endeavors to intercept, any wire or oral communication;
 
Last edited:
When are you going to show the law that says anyone can record anyone within ear shout?

That's right you can't. It is both against the law and morally wrong to do so. If you would do such that is on you. You cannot say that is so and so behind me so I'm going to record just in case he says something and think the law is going to protect you in DC. Absurd to compare an intentional hypothetical act to a happenstance act.

When did morales become a concern for you? But that's beside the point, recording them wouldn't have been illegal.
 
When are you going to show the law that says anyone can record anyone within ear shout?

That's right you can't. It is both against the law and morally wrong to do so. If you would do such that is on you. You cannot say that is so and so behind me so I'm going to record just in case he says something and think the law is going to protect you in DC. Absurd to compare an intentional hypothetical act to a happenstance act.

You haven't shown it is illegal. The single consent is for parties of the conversation. Overhearing is something different (sometimes called eavesdropping).

What I posted shows it is okay to do so. I looked up the DC laws and it says nothing specifically about eavesdropping though it has some specific rules about hidden cameras (in private places or bathrooms, etc.).

So you are interpreting a statute, ignoring counter evidence and telling everyone they're wrong even though you admit you need a lawyer to explain if you are getting it right.

How about this example - you are a reporter covering a protest, you have your recorder on and hear an argument between two protesters. Are you telling me you have to get permission from one to air what you heard? This happens all the time. No consent is required - it is observation; the reporter is not part of the conversation.
 
You haven't shown it is illegal. The single consent is for parties of the conversation. Overhearing is something different (sometimes called eavesdropping).

What I posted shows it is okay to do so. I looked up the DC laws and it says nothing specifically about eavesdropping though it has some specific rules about hidden cameras (in private places or bathrooms, etc.).

So you are interpreting a statute, ignoring counter evidence and telling everyone they're wrong even though you admit you need a lawyer to explain if you are getting it right.

How about this example - you are a reporter covering a protest, you have your recorder on and hear an argument between two protesters. Are you telling me you have to get permission from one to air what you heard? This happens all the time. No consent is required - it is observation; the reporter is not part of the conversation.

Is this all about the conversation that was overhead by a reporter???
 
Last edited:
When are you going to show the law that says anyone can record anyone within ear shout?

That's right you can't. It is both against the law and morally wrong to do so. If you would do such that is on you. You cannot say that is so and so behind me so I'm going to record just in case he says something and think the law is going to protect you in DC. Absurd to compare an intentional hypothetical act to a happenstance act.

2012 District of Columbia Code
Section 23-542
Interception, disclosure, and use of wire or oral communications prohibited
(a) any person who in the District of Columbia --
(1) willfully intercepts , endeavors to intercept, any wire or oral communication;

From the definitions

(2) the term “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying the expectation;

Where I believe you are wrong is the "Expectations". Legal thought on "expectation of privacy"

In general, one cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in things held out to the public. A well-known example is that there are no privacy rights in garbage left for collection in a public place.[2] Other examples include: pen registers that record the numbers dialed from particular telephones;[4] conversations with others, though there could be a Sixth Amendment violation if the police send an individual to question a defendant who has already been formally charged;[5] a person's physical characteristics, such as voice and handwriting;[6] what is observed pursuant to aerial surveillance that is conducted in public navigable airspace not using equipment that unreasonably enhances the surveying government official's vision;[7][8] anything in open fields (e.g., a barn);[9] smells that can be detected by the use of a drug-sniffing dog during a routine traffic stop, even if the government official did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to suspect that drugs were present in the defendant's vehicle;[10] and paint scrapings on the outside of a vehicle.[11]

What about the wiretapping law? Arizona is a one party consent state where only one party to the conversation needs to consent to it being recorded. This prevents third parties from intercepting your phone calls or planting a bug near you to record your conversations. This law will protect you against someone spying on you, but if you’re speaking loudly enough for third parties to hear you, you have no expectation of privacy in your conversation.

http://carterlawaz.com/2013/06/no-expectation-of-privacy-in-public/
 
Thats it? He wrote an article critical of Hillary Clinton and once said Clarence Thomas has a porn affinity?

Seems like he's on top of things.

Worked for Soros and actually had one of his articles approved by the Clinton campaign.

Look, the guy may be telling the truth, I have my doubts but even if he is you took some serious liberties with it.
 
You haven't shown it is illegal. The single consent is for parties of the conversation. Overhearing is something different (sometimes called eavesdropping).

What I posted shows it is okay to do so. I looked up the DC laws and it says nothing specifically about eavesdropping though it has some specific rules about hidden cameras (in private places or bathrooms, etc.).

So you are interpreting a statute, ignoring counter evidence and telling everyone they're wrong even though you admit you need a lawyer to explain if you are getting it right.

How about this example - you are a reporter covering a protest, you have your recorder on and hear an argument between two protesters. Are you telling me you have to get permission from one to air what you heard? This happens all the time. No consent is required - it is observation; the reporter is not part of the conversation.

Overhearing and recording not the same. There is no counter evidence, Just more hypotheticals.

I asked the question if it was illegal for Hogs hypothetical and the law back that it is illegal. You two are the one's that are trying to legitimize a completely different hypothetical. How bout this Hypothetical: Mueller wouldn't need a warrant to record the conversations with Trump and associates. Just a mole wearing a wire to lurk in the background like lets say a Secret Service member or 500.
 
Overhearing and recording not the same. There is no counter evidence, Just more hypotheticals.

I asked the question if it was illegal for Hogs hypothetical and the law back that it is illegal. You two are the one's that are trying to legitimize a completely different hypothetical. How bout this Hypothetical: Mueller wouldn't need a warrant to record the conversations with Trump and associates. Just a mole wearing a wire to lurk in the background like lets say a Secret Service member or 500.

Just stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Overhearing and recording not the same. There is no counter evidence, Just more hypotheticals.

I asked the question if it was illegal for Hogs hypothetical and the law back that it is illegal. You two are the one's that are trying to legitimize a completely different hypothetical. How bout this Hypothetical: Mueller wouldn't need a warrant to record the conversations with Trump and associates. Just a mole wearing a wire to lurk in the background like lets say a Secret Service member or 500.

public vs private - what's so hard to understand. The law you quoted uses the notion of "expectations".

your hypothetical appears to be in a private setting - if Trump and his associates are yapping loudly in a public restaurant then they are fair game - this actually happened.

Using your interpretation of the law no reporter could using any footage of interactions between people in public without getting some party to consent. We know they do use such footage regularly. It's ludicrous to think they are both breaking the law and acting immorally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

VN Store



Back
Top