Omarosa may have secretly taped White House conversations: report

This came up for me several years ago, when I wanted to place a recording device on my home phone line that would automatically record all phone calls.

When I checked, I discovered that, in my state of NC, I can legally record any phone call to which I am a party without notifying the other party(s). However, I cannot record the phone calls of others if I am not a party to the the call, without notifying and gaining the consent at least one of the participants in the call. To comply, I placed a sticker on every landline phone in my home that said "This phone is being recorded. Your use of this phone implies your consent."

 

That's because you refuse to see it any other way Have it your way, not like you or I will have the opportunity to sit in on a private meeting let alone secretly record it! You leftist always simplify things and it's comical that you would try so hard to do it with the law

 

Explain this portion of the D.C. law.

(2) willfully discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication;

shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in [§ 22-3571.01] or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; except that paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection shall not apply to the contents of any wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, that has become common knowledge or public information.​

 

Award winning.

 

By ONE party, yes.

 

Oh dude, you're just digging yourself in deeper.

 

Same problem with the birthers.. They can't read and understand the statutes.

 

Unless something has changed, you are right here and those other people are wrong. The way you are explaining it is the way I have understood this law my entire life and seem to recall even covering it in a law class I took in college.

If only the person doing the recording of the conversation, is "one party" then there would be no need for a law at all. Then if would be legal to record anyone you wanted to, without advising them you were recording them. So you would not need a law governing recorded conversations. This law is to protect the party who is being recorded without his consent or his knowledge of the recorded conversation. Of course intel is above this law. But even when the FBI record mob conversations, they have to get the ok to do that from a judge.

 

Same problem with the birthers.. They can't read and understand the statutes.

 

Remarkable indeed.

 

I'm not sure I've ever seen anything quite like this, and after YOU posted the DC Code!

 

1; Only law enforcement need a warrant. A private citizen doesn't need a warrant to make any recording.

2; 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.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/district-columbia-recording-law
Only one party needs to consent in DC. If SHE were one of the parties involved in a conversations, she doesn't need the other person's consent, and her recording the conversations automatically counts as her consent.

3; Any tapes she would release likely involve dicussions of criminal activities and she would have the right under the whistleblower laws to release those recordings to law enforcement, regardless of whether or not they were recorded illegally. Whistleblower laws allow recordings to be released which provide proof of criminal activities even if those recordings were made in a way which would violate privacy laws, and provides protections from charges or civil suits to the persion who made the recording.

 

Your own consent when recording another person seems weird, and there is not protection for the other person. If this law is true, then it is utter nonsense. Think about that. No protection for another person, from you? I just have a hard time believing that, unless our laws are now utterly incoherent with rights. Which of course is some cases that is indeed the case with these Patriot Acts and NSA

 

Really? Hell brah it took all of four weeks to recognize that

 

It is not illegal to record phone calls. It is illegal to release those conv

The person trying to do the secret recording?

Why would they need a law then?

 

All that is needed is to have the consent of one person who was directly involved in a conversation. Permissions from every single person invplved is not required in DC. If SHE were directly involved, she can give her consent and record any conversation at will.

 

WOAH.

Dude.

After repeatedly saying that Omarosa RECORDING conversations she was a part of was illegal, posting the DC Code in support of this claim, you're now saying that RELEASING the recordings is illegal.

You've moved the goalposts.

To another stadium, I might add.

 

It isn't useless because it precludes third parties. You can't just wiretap someone without the consent of at least on of the people involved in the conversation. If you first party, then yes, your own consent counts.

 

How many more times do you need to hear the answer to this question. It has been provided multiple times.

 

If I didn't make that clear, I apologize.

That's what this thread is all about isn't it? She has recordings, which means they could be made available?

Perhaps the disconnect is because I haven't made myself clear.

 

I see it the same way your source sees it. I quoted it saying the exact same thing I've stated over and over again. If you disagree with your own source, please stop using it. Also, not a leftist. But please, if you are able to find ANY LEGAL SOURCE that backs up what you and ocean are saying, provide it. Even one.

 

Oh dude.

After repeatedly saying that her RECORDING conversations to which she was a party was illegal in DC, you've now abandoned that claim - without admitting you were flat out wrong in making it - and changed to this new one.

Tsk.

 

It's not illegal to release anything if she was a party in the conversation. One party needs to consent in DC. She if were one of the parties involved, her consent is all she needs.

 

I haven't change anything DUDE.

I've simply clarified what appears to be a misunderstanding.

 

It's incredible, isn't it?