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.
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."
"'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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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