Omarosa may have secretly taped White House conversations: report

You're not getting it either.

It's a wiretap/bug/electronic eavesdropping law.

 

Abandoning your original false claim I see.

 

I just do not see how that one person is the person who wants to record the other person, with no consent. Where is the protection for the other person? There is none, if the person who wants to record someone else, can just do it with no regard of the rights of the other. SO, it just looks so incoherent to me that your interpretation of this law is wrong. If you are right, this law is utter nonsense and affords no protection at all for the other person being recorded. See the logic in it? I can see none in your interpretation.

We need someone who actually knows and understands this law to set this straight. Like a real attorney who practices criminal law.

 

Read the thread; it's been explained about 15-20 times.

 

I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this; close, but this...

 

Which needs an ok from a judge to do that. We are talking about someone recording conversations, without the consent of those such a law should protect. In order for an authority to record conversations, they need consent from a judge, not just their own consent.

 

Yes, and if true, the law provides no protection for the person being recorded, if only the consent of the recorder is needed. This is nonsense. I think you guys are not interpreting this law correctly. And I hope I am not wrong, for otherwise there is no protection for the person being recorded. He has no rights, for you the recorder, took them away. And such a law would enable that. So, hard for me to accept as a person who tries to be rational and logical. I see nothing logical in this law if your interpretation is correct.

 

Zero critical thinking skills.. They make up their minds BEFORE they read the statutes.

 

Zero critical thinking skills.. They make up their minds BEFORE they read the statutes.

 

Read the statute.............

 

Well, from your first post onward - in which you cite and misunderstand the DC Code - you've repeatedly said that RECORDING was illegal, so you've made yourself EXTREMELY clear about that.

Are you now able to say you were wrong about this?

 

Nope.

You repeatedly said her RECORDING was illegal.

You were wrong, but won't own it.

 

I just went online to find the answer. The law provides no protection for the other party involved in a conversation, I was wrong on this. If I want to record your conversation with me, no matter who you are, I can legally do that and you have no right to privacy. Now, this is nonsense to me, and does not protect other people, but it is the law! According from what I can tell about reading about it online.

So why when talking to a buisness, like my bank, I am always told that my conversation will be recorded for quality control or such things? Why even tell me? And why did land line phones used to beep to let one party know the other party was recording them? Makes no sense at all now. Why would I need to know if someone was recording me? I was always told it was illegal to do this. And now, its legal? Wtf? lol

 

Actually, recording and releasing ARE different matters.

Recording conversations she was a part of in DC may be legal under DC Code, but releasing them could be trickier...

 

EDIT:

One Mind read up & gets it now as well.

 

EDIT: One Mind read up & understands now.

 

Actually, I just spent a few minutes reading through a number of different sites.

On the subject of secret recordings and consent in D.C., it appears I am wrong across the board.

For example:

https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/state-state-guide/district-columbia

In-person conversations: The consent of at least one participant to a conversation is required before any recording can take place under the District’s wiretapping law. D.C. Code § 23-542. This means a reporter’s tape-recorded conversation with a source would be permissible, since that reporter is a party to the conversation.
​

So, write down this date. I'm rarely wrong, but this is one of those times.

​

 

Depends on the state/district, but it IS a bit unnerving ain't it?

 

To cover two party consent in possible interstate calls.

 

Thank you!

It IS weird, but once you understand it's about 3rd party eavesdropping/bugging/tapping, it makes sense.

 

Not really. if a recording was legally made, the owner has the right to make it public.


And if the recordings have evidence of any illegal activities, she would be protected as a whistleblower anyway.

 

It's honestly more complicated, and she could be in huge legal trouble - particularly in civil areas - if she proceeds without good counsel.

And whistleblowers get slammed all the time; they need the best lawyers of all.

 

It IS weird. I was coming from the wrong side of the intent.

California has consent laws, but I mistakenly believed they were similar to D.C.'s. In Cali, it's two party consent, not one party.

Stepping back, I suppose in D.C., where uncovering nefarious goings on in the government is important, two party consent would put a serious roadblock to that objective.

Makes one wonder why anyone speaks to anyone in D.C..

Again, I was wrong.

Learned something new about D.C..

 

Now that we're all good on the whole one party thing, this is where it gets interesting.

Omarosa could find herself in a world of hurt if she isn't EXTREMELY careful...

 

'

Of course she will be attacked, but as long as she doesn't do something stupid, like release conversations she wasn't part of without permission, she will be fine. She does need a lawyer though. That way, she can file counter suits on anyone who goes after her .