Slashdot Mirror
Activist Admits To Bugging US Senate Minority Leader
cold fjord writes "Curtis Morrison, co-founder of the Progress Kentucky PAC, which had previous issued an apology over a racially charged tweet about Senator McConnell's wife (former Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao), has admitted to bugging Senator McConnell. Morrison admitted he was behind the recording and said a grand jury is investigating the situation. "[Assistant] U.S. attorney, Bryan Calhoun, telephoned my attorney yesterday, asking to meet with him next Friday as charges against me are being presented to a grand jury," Morrison wrote on Salon. Morrison writes that after releasing the recording, his personal life took a negative turn. 'I've never doubted that making the recording was ethical.' He also says that he doesn't believe his actions were illegal, but admits he could be prosecuted for them."' Morrison has said that one of his inspirations was Julian Assange. Given the current direction of government activity, he may simply have been trying to build a suitable resume for future federal employment."
First, there is an expectation of privacy inside one's office, and secondly Kentucky is a one party notify state when it comes to recording, so one party to the discussions taking place in the office needed to know that they were being recorded. Public records searches don't apply here.
Thirty four characters live here.
This story belongs to politico or any number of political blogs. Why in the fuck is this story on a site that is ostensibly news for nerds???
There is no nerd angle here whatsoever.
"'I've never doubted that making the recording was ethical.'"
The cornerstone of ethics is that is the idea they don't bend to suit your whims. If we all act "low class" and just do whatever we justify to ourselves, the world will be headed into the gutter (even faster than now).
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Back when President Nixon was in office this country still had journalists and in that day expected their elected leaders to be held to a higher standard. If Nixon was president today he wouldn't have to resign.
Back when President Nixon was in office this country still had journalists and in that day expected their elected leaders to be held to a higher standard.
Get a grip. Back in those days politicians got away with far more than they do today. In fact, it was Watergate that caused a major shift in journalism. It was no longer acceptable to "look the other way" when people like Richard Daley stole elections or had the cops beat up their opponents. Many journalists knew about JFK's affairs, and there was little coverage of LBJ's wholesale cheating in the 1960 election, as well as his earlier campaigns for the senate. The current IRS flap is a joke compared to the way the IRS (and the FBI) were used politically prior to Watergate. There was never a "golden age" of ethical politicians.
What he did was neither ethical, legal, or even a remotely good idea. Even if your opponent is a prick. I cannot imagine in what universe he is inhabiting that he thinks that this was not going to get him in serious trouble (as well it should.) And under what journalistic ethical code is bugging somebody's office allowed?
I'm no fan of Julian Assange (not because I think that wikileaks is illegal or immoral, rather because the way he handles it, and himself, is really poor...) but this isn't even remotely similar. The only inspiration he could have possibly drawn from Julian is a gigantic ego.
Stop watching TV and read a book. Nixon didn't resign because some random conservative operative did something bad forcing Dicky to bravely fall on the sword of honor, he resigned because he'd HIRED the person to do something bad, and then got caught. Drawing some idiotic, unsubstantiated parallel to the current administration just makes you look ignorant, and deceived.
But praise and fawning over Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
Wow. You genuinely believe that, don't you? Which probably explains this priceless line:
Obama uses the full force of government to stifle opposition.
Hint: under Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot, you wouldn't be saying that, with or without the thin gloss of anonymity that comes from posting under a screen name. If web forums had existed in their day, very bad things would have happened to anyone posting such a comment. You clearly have no idea what "the full force of government to stifle opposition" actually looks like, and for all our sakes, I sincerely hope you never find out.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I don't know about those other ones, but certainly Mao.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/white-house-christmas-decor-featuring-mao-zedong-comes/
Are you fucking kidding me? A close-up of a Christmas tree ornament, on the White House tree one year, that was painted by someone in a community organization (one of 60 that the 800 ornaments were sent to), and it includes a microscopic reproduction of Mao on it, among other pictures on that same ball - and that's your support for the argument that "the media is fawning over Mao"?
Get a grip, dude. You're living in an alternate reality where everyone that doesn't agree with you must be looking to install a Communist dictatorship, and you need psychiatric help.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.