Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Activist Admits To Bugging US Senate Minority Leader

Posted by timothy on from the figured-it-was-cool-with-mitch dept.

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."

40 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. It is truly sad... by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is truly sad to see the direction things have been heading in the United States.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:It is truly sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes when assholes commit felonies against an opposing party it should end with the president resigning. That won't happen in this case since his imperial highness has some distance from the perpetrator.

      At least Nixon resigned.

    2. Re:It is truly sad... by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "'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
    3. Re:It is truly sad... by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:It is truly sad... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:It is truly sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:It is truly sad... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    7. Re:It is truly sad... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Back in those days politicians got away with far more than they do today.

      I got four dead guys in Benghazi who'd probably argue with you, if they could.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    8. Re:It is truly sad... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2, Informative

      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/

      And also, there is at least some anecdotal evidence that progressives do indeed support IRS bullying of political speech so long as it isn't their speech.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wzuEOr2D8wo

      (Slightly unrelated - I think the word "progressive" in the political sense is horribly used. It gives a self righteous implication that your own view is whats best for progress, without consideration that it might be wrong. For example, groups that have labeled themselves progressive include the prohibition movement as well as the Nazi party.)

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    9. Re:It is truly sad... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. Is that what we tell ourselves, or are the actions of the Left simply put down the garbage disposal of the Memory Hole? Cambodia was a revolutionary Marxist paradise. Private property, religion and money were abolished. Here's a contemporary account of the Leftist view of Cambodia. You'll recognize the tropes, eh?

      "For years western imperialism raped an Asiatic land, killing nearly a million people, transforming a beautiful cultured Cambodian city into a ghetto, a brothel. But the people rose, freed themselves, threw out the intruders, found that their fine towns needed restoration. So they emptied the houses and began to clear up the mess. They began to scrub floors and walls, because people were never meant to live in degradation here, but in peace and with dignity. Then crocodile tears poured forth in the West. The brothel has been emptied and the clean-up is in progress. Only pimps can regret what is happening."

      Link

      "When Gunnar Bergstrom was a guest in Khmer Rouge Cambodia of Pol Pot in August 1978, the Swede enjoyed a rare meeting and dinner of oysters hosted by Pol Pot.

      The meal followed a rare interview he and three politcal comrades from Sweden were given by the innaccesible and secretive Pol Pot who was then presiding over the death of more than a million and a half people that was actually escalating and under full rage at the time of that August 1978 feast. he returned to Europe and labeled talk about genocide under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge rule as a Western lie.

      The young Swedish leftists shared Pol Pot's view, seeing the Khmer Rouge takeover as a revolution to transform Cambodia into a fairer society benefiting the poor."

      Link

      Edgar Snow lied like a dog about Mao Zedong, and Walter Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for covering up Stalin's genocide in the Ukraine. The Pulitzer Prize committee flat-out refused to revoke his award.

      Go visit our universities and do some research - people were not cast out for these views. Most of them (or their proteges) are still teaching students.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:It is truly sad... by rockout · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    11. Re:It is truly sad... by rockout · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or maybe it's because it's not "one of Obama's close advisers", but one of his debate coaches that served as White House communications director for 7 months. Oh, and also because she was ironically quoting GOP strategist Lee Atwater, but you missed that while you were watching the Glenn Beck show - probably because his out-of-context attack didn't mention that key tidbit.

      Unlike you, I'm willing to enlighten a dim-witted mind. Here, you should try reading this:

      http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/16/beck.dunn/index.html

      Are there any birth certificates we should be looking for, as long as you're dispensing political advice based on nonsense?

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    12. Re:It is truly sad... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 3, Informative

      So when she said this:

      "The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is 'you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before."

      she wasn't saying that Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers?

      She claims she got the quote from a conservative, Lee Atwater, who quoted Mao to make a point but never implied he was a "favorite political philosopher".

      According to http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Lee_Atwater_quote_Mao

      Atwater jokingly quoted Mao but never called him 'one of my favorite philosophers'. Lee just used a quote from Mao to provide an ironic point, much in the same way others use quotes from historic figures, both egregious & beneficent.

      For further analysis of the situation, here is another site
      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/10/17/anita-dunn-blames-lee-atwater-quoting-mao

      And what about Dunn's description of Mao as one of her "favorite political philosophers?" Not to worry, Dunn comes up with yet another comedy line to explain it away via CNN:

      As for Beck's criticism: "The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat -- at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing.

      So you see. You peons just don't have the mental ability to see that Anita Dunn was merely being ironic despite the fact that was absolutely nothing in her facial expression, vocal tone, nor in what she said that displayed the slightest sense of irony. In fact, she was dead serious as you can plainly see in the video of her speech.

      So, taken in context she is saying exactly what it appears she is saying. Letting her later say is was "irony" is just lefties covering up for her.

      Sorry, your attempt at saving your political side's image failed.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    13. Re:It is truly sad... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, they have a clue. You can't even use the 'B' word without being labelled a 'hack', irrespective of any reality.
      Benghazi!
      Benghazi!
      Benghazi!
      Benghazi!
      Benghazi!
      Just a little recreation there. It's relatively clear, given the first 3.5 years of #OccupyResoluteDesk, that no amount of perfidy his part could begin to make Harry "the Cadaver" Reid begin to consider doing his job.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    14. Re: It is truly sad... by rockout · · Score: 2

      I think you missed that poster's point; in earlier decades nobody in the white house would have tolerated a chairman Mao ornament on the Christmas tree. This administration not only tolerated it but it was consistent with the comments of one of their communications people... Anita Dunn was caught on tape singing the praises of chairman Mao.

      No, that might be your point. The original poster's point (read it) was to advance the idea that the "media" praises and fawns over Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, and that proof of that is provided by a tiny piece of one tree ornament, out of 800, with a picture of Mao on part of it - totally out of context; you have no idea if the ornament had a theme or what that theme might be, but your "everything Democrat is Communist" attitude doesn't allow for any kind of actual analytical thinking. Much like your Anita Dunn comment - you don't know that she was quoting GOP strategist Lee Atwater because whatever blog you picked up that smear from didn't bother to mention it either.

      You're all alike. Take whatever tidbit you can out of context, throw them all against the wall and claim that's proof of whatever wacky conspiracy theory you're advancing. Meanwhile, you lost the ability to have a logical thought long ago, because you only read that which supports your already-concrete view of how things are and should be. A shitload of people disagree with you, and quite of few of them view you as a nutcase. It's highly unlikely that you're smarter and more well-informed than ALL of them, isn't it?

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    15. Re: It is truly sad... by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

      You're no different, just coming from the other side. At least the other guy didn't act like a total prick.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  2. Unfortunately, this is illegal. by tysonedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Unfortunately, this is illegal. by fermion · · Score: 2
      This is the kind of expectation of privacy that naive kids have. They think if they post a terrorist plot on facebook, and their facebook is private, that they have an expectation of privacy. They don't. Your friends can see you facebook, it isn't private.

      Here is something to ponder. If you have sex, in front of an open window, in your home, is there an expectation of privacy? Are we going to arrest someone for filming the act? If you are talking so loud in a closed door meeting that everyone can here you, is there an expectation of privacy? I don't know. I have closed door meetings all the time, and we speak in tones that don't let others know what we are talking about. But I think legally it would be the equivalent to recording a private conversation in private club.

      Additionally, I do not see fraud. He did not edit the tape to make it sound like something criminal activity was going on in the office. He merely recorded and released what actually happened. The consensus is it did not harm to the senator.

      My main concern is that we have a senator that is not competent enough to keep conversations private and requires the taxpayer to clean up his garbage.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:Unfortunately, this is illegal. by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your post is a red herring. He wasn't engaged in official duties as a US Senator at the time. He was in his campaign headquarters discussing his reelection campaign with his campaign staff.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:Unfortunately, this is illegal. by spire3661 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An elected official, in his appointed office should have absolutely ZERO expectation of privacy while in it. That office belongs to the PEOPLE, not him.

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:Unfortunately, this is illegal. by Bartles · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really? So are you also calling for the release of the minutes of all meetings in the Oval Office, the IRS, the State Department, and the DOJ?

    5. Re:Unfortunately, this is illegal. by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Interesting

      An elected official working in his private campaign headquarters discussing this reelection campaign with his campaign staff does have an expectation of privacy while in it. That was the case here. Your post has nothing to do with this situation. I also doubt that your point even holds true in general as even public officials discuss confidential matters not for public release.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re:Unfortunately, this is illegal. by ATestR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Really? So are you also calling for the release of the minutes of all meetings in the Oval Office, the IRS, the State Department, and the DOJ?

      Yes.

      --
      âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
    7. Re: Unfortunately, this is illegal. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      As entertaining as it might be, their bathrooms and bedrooms should be off-limits.

      But ever dollar they receive in help, both direct and indirect, should be fully disclosed as to source. Any money spent for political ads or mailings of any kind should be directly attributable to whomever funded it. No anonymous donors or political action committees without donor lists. That's not to say there should not be anonymous political speech. But there should not be anonymous money. That would solve a large part of the problem.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. News For Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:News For Nerds by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Slashdot has become politicized well beyond any normal nerditis. Perhaps they're fishing to see how egregious a behavior will get defended, or attacked, depending on which "side" the offender is on?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  4. What a lie of a story and headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Bugging ?

    The voices were coming from the other side of a nearby door, which had a window. I pulled out my Flip camera and started to record.
    I don’t need to tell you what a weapon the pocket video camera has become."

  5. As a European, I'm confused... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2, Informative

    Recently, the group turned its attention to McConnell’s wife, former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, with a focus on her race. ... In a Feb. 14 Twitter message, Progress says: "This woman has the ear of (Sen. McConnell)—she's his wife. May explain why your job moved to China!"

    So "China" is a race now? Are there many 19th century reporters in Louisville?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:As a European, I'm confused... by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Informative

      Senator McConnell's wife is Chinese American. She was born in the Republic of China, commonly referred to as Taiwan, and came to the United States when she was eight years old. I guess you didn't read far enough into the story to pick up that Progressive Kentucky were drawing attention to the fact that she is Asian, specifically Chinese, and the implication that as US Secretary of Labor she had sent American jobs to China because she is Chinese by birth. Some might regard that as racist. I'm a little surprised you didn't catch on to that. Aren't Europeans generally held to be more sophisticated in such matters?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  6. What a moron... by sirwired · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:What a moron... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe you should read the details of what he did before accusing him of things. Hint, he didn't actually bug anything. He heard a conversation through a closed door.

      It's no different than walking by your neighbors, hearing them having an argument and recording it.

      Or turning on your laptop, seeing your neighbor's wifi signal and using it.

    2. Re:What a moron... by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2

      I suggest you check your local laws. Recording your neighbors having an argument without their knowledge and consent is almost certainly against the law.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  7. His campaign office doesn't belong to the PEOPLE by raymorris · · Score: 2

    While in his semester office, you mean? Assuming that were true, it elephant matter nectar this was a campaign meeting, at a private office, not his senate office. Personally, I think leaders should be able to have frank, honest discussions with advisors. I know that JFK's private consultations with his attorney general (and brother) helped avoid World War 3. For the consultations to be forthright, that means those discussions aren't public.

  8. Re:This is shocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. Fox went to court in Florida to defend the "right" to lie as news. They are the only news network to do so in the history of reporting. This is significant.

    Wrong! First, it was NOT FoxNews. It was a Fox affiliate. You know, the TV station that shows "Family Guy" and "The Simpsons"? Next, they never went to court to fight for the "right to lie as news". That was something that a blogger wrote on his blog in his "analysis" of the verdict.

    This case was about a story on BGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) in milk. Jane Akre and Steve Wilson were "journalists" who wrote a story about the dangers of BGH. The Fox Broadcasting Company station, WTVT in Tampa, Florida, was willing to air the story, but was also going to give Monsanto a chance to respond. This pissed Akre and Wilson off. They thought they would be allowed to report their story without any chance at giving the company that they were skewering a chance to respond. Akre and Wilson pulled their story and sued, arguing that Monsanto would just lie, and therefor should not be allowed to respond.

    Nowhere, did FoxNews, or even the Fox affiliate WTVT EVER claim that they had a right to lie.

    2. Shepard Smith (the only redeeming quality of Fox) is not enough to balance the derp.

    Next, on number 2, Shepherd Smith is not the only liberal on FoxNews. Bob Beckel, Mariah Liason, Juan Williams, Sally Kohn, Alan Colmes, Kristen Powers, Susan Estrich, Pat Caddell, Greta Van Sustren and many others are on FoxNews to represent the liberal perspective.

    Deal with it.

    I recommend that you take your own advice.

  9. Re:This is shocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I bought a CueCat Scanner at a thrift shop for $1, I can lend it to anyone who needs it.

  10. Re:This is shocking by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Please mod the parent up.

    The "fox news argued in court that they have the right to lie" is in itself a lie. It's one of those things where people repeat it enough to believe that it is true. Even googling it you get links to nothing but blogs about it, with not one professional analysis to speak of. Further, they all claim that Fox News itself was behind it, even though neither Fox nor its parent company had anything to do with it. It was all done by a local news station who happens to be a Fox TV affiliate (as in, they get the rights to air Fox television shows, but it doesn't extend much beyond that.)

    And of course, all of the above completely ignores that the TV station itself simply wanted a fair story as opposed to a blanket slam piece. Compare that to say MSNBC who is known to deliberately alter news content (most recently, editing the George Zimmerman audio clips) in order to fit their "racism" narrative.

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  11. Re:Whoops! by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

    Your initial post was correct. The post you responded to relies on clever misdirection to, in effect, lie. The man facing an indictment by a grand jury didn't simply overhear a conversation through a door as he innocently passed by, he specifically went there based on an insider tip to secretly record their conversation without their consent, and violate their privacy. I don't think there is any real question about there being an expectation of privacy when engaged in private conversation behind closed doors in a private office in a private building. If the standard for privacy is, "can't be heard by hook or by crook," there will be nothing considered private.

    Once again, you were completely correct in your initial post.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  12. Re:Bugged? by quantaman · · Score: 2

    So, let me get this straight. He didn't surreptitiously gain access to any area any random member of the public wouldn't have access to. He didn't plant any recording device to record in his absence. He stood outside a door and with a cel phone recorded what any passerby would have heard had they stopped to listen. Is that correct?

    That doesn't even sound particularly unethical to me. A bit sleazy, but then if McConnell's careless enough to have that kind of discussion where anyone in the hallway can overhear the problem doesn't lie with the people in the hallway listening.

    I think this is where the phrase 'reasonable expectation of privacy' comes into play. If I'm behind a closed door in my campaign HQ I think I have a reasonable expectation of privacy, I could do more, but most people would think me paranoid.

    Now we usually think of bugging as recording something we can't hear ourselves, either because we can't be in the right location (ie planting a bug), or our hearing isn't sensitive enough (ie a parabolic mike), so ethically I don't think this is bugging. But the fact he recorded it makes it worse than eavesdropping, and as political dirty tricks go I'm comfortable with it being prosecuted.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  13. Re:Damn you autocorrect by chihowa · · Score: 2

    I liked the original post better. This place would be much more awesome if discussions randomly devolved into elephant matter nectar.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  14. Re:Bugged? by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You didn't quite get it straight, so no, you aren't correct. His stated and only purpose for going to the building, based on an insider tip he received, was to secretly record the meeting of Senator McConnell's reelection committee without their consent. He went there on a holiday with an accomplice, snuck into the building, past an unmanned reception desk (as stated, it was a holiday), until he found Senator McConnell's office. He then used a hand-held device with a microphone and digital recording capability to record the conversations of Senator McConnell's committee for at least 12 minutes while holding his device to the door vent. They must have been at the door for even longer since they apparently checked what they were recording and made adjustments to their equipment, and changed their mind about how and what they were recording, going from an attempt to capture video to only audio. And how does he describe how he felt, and when he left?

    I was sweating. My heart was racing. . . . When a gentleman walked out of the campaign headquarters and into the hall, I put my Flip and phone back in my pocket, and headed to the elevator.

    Shawn was already there. We made our escape.

    He made his escape. Doesn't really sound innocent, does it? Do you think an ordinary passerby, that wasn't trespassing on a holiday to record the Senator's meeting, would linger with a recording device by a door for 20 minutes if it occurred on a normal business day at 2:00 PM? The fact that his recording device was his cell phone is completely irrelevant, and it is the recording that makes this a possible criminal offense.

    You don't find anything even mildly unethical about it? You think the problem isn't with the two intruders? It certainly appears to be direct violation of the law, probably more than one, hence the prosecutor and grand jury. As I indicated, I don't think you have this one straight.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell