Omarosa may have secretly taped White House conversations: report

I agree. Perhaps you'll learn what the actual law is one day, regardless of the challenge you're having today.

 

There is no "intellectual disconnect" in being able to count to one.

 

So far, you are literally the only source I can find interpreting the law this way. I've offered more links. The offer still stands.

 

Yes; it's a wiretap law.

 

If counting to one were the point, I would agree. It isn't, so the intellectual disconnect remains a mystery to me.

 

It's to prevent wiretaps/bugs. In DC, Omarosa would have been able to record any conversation she was a part of. In MD, you need the OTHER person's consent as well.

 

Your argument literally rests in claiming that the word "one" in "one party" doesn't matter. Not a great position to be in.

 

Not if she was directly involved in the conversations. In DC, only ONE person involved in a conversation needs to consent, You are allowed to record your own conversations without the consent of other parties involved. So, any meetings she took part in are open for her to release.

Also, if the meetings involve discussions of illegal activities, even if she didn't take part in them, she would be protected by whistleblower laws. They given exemptions to anyone who releases recordings which provide evidence of illegal acitvities.

So, for example, if she recorded a Trump Staffer talking about working with Russia, or plans to illegally undermine the investigation, she could release that to the Justice Department without worrying about breaking the law. However, she wouldn't being allowed to release it to the news or anyone, only to law enforcement.

 

Dude.

You may have read what you posted, but if so, you didn't understand it.

DC Code allows someone in Omarosa's position to record any conversation of which she is a part.

It SPECIFICALLY says that it's NOT illegal to record if you're part of the conversation.

 

Depends on where you live. In DC, you can. In MD next door, you can't.

 

No, it's not just a wiretap law.

https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/23-542.html

§ 23–542. Interception, disclosure, and use of wire or oral communications prohibited.

(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subchapter, any person who in the District of Columbia —

(1) willfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire or oral communication;

(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; or

(3) willfully uses or endeavors to use 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;​

According to this law, if this woman releases any recordings, without consent of the people she recorded, she has broken the law.

There is just no other interpretation.

​

 

But the law doesn't allow her to release the recordings, which is what this thread is all about.

 

The point is, you and the other arm chair lawyers are skirting the law when it is far more complex when do in a "PRIVATE" setting! Just research a bit and stop being so misinformed on the subject! You simply cant record private meeting without consequences in any case you had better be prepared to defend yourself in a court of law, at least!

 

Each state, and DC, has its own law. In DC, what was done by Omarosa was perfectly legal.

 

Show me the law that states this woman can release recordings of conversations she taped, where the other parties have not given consent to be recorded.

 

Spectacular.

 

Wow.

 

Show me the portion of the law that states a person can secretly record another, without consent, and without a warrant, etc., in order to release that recording to legal authorities.

 

Lol, the "arm chair lawyers" have quoted actual sources. Meanwhile, I can't find a single legal source that interprets one-party consent the way you and ocean are interpreting it. I've already quoted your own source agreeing with the "arm chair lawyers" in the thread. If you don't believe your own source, you probably shouldn't use it.

 

True, but everyone is provided a modicum of "PRIVACY" and the courts will rule critically in a Private setting as apposed to a public or phone conversation.. Simply research it, it's hardly as cut and dry as some are claiming, law is never this simple

 

Only one party's consent is required. No other party's consent is required except that one. That's what one-party consent means. Do you understand that fact?

 

Wiretaps, bugs.

You can record your conversation with your pal in DC without telling him, but a 3rd party not involved in the conversation cannot.

 

Not if she releases the recording without first obtaining consent when she recorded the conversation. The law in D.C. is the same as in California.

The only way to secretly record a conversation and then release it to the public or authorities is to have legal consent of the people being recorded, or to have a court authorization to do so.

 

Magnificent.

 

Epic.