Now we know: it was (and remains) an attempted coup

[Midnightrider]

Quote from McCabe: "... and in the context of that conversation, the deputy attorney general offered to wear a wire into the White House. He said 'I never get searched when I go into the White House. So, I could easily wear a recording device they wouldn't know was there.'"

If recording the president, without his (or anyone else's in the WH) knowledge was legal, why would have to sneak a recording device in?

I'm still waiting for that "Trump collusion" thing to come out from Mueller. Two years and still nothing. Just because I had a lot of friend who committed crimes doesn't mean I'm guilty of any crime.

Because trump is less likely to incriminate himself if he sees Rosenstein holding a microphone

That quote only describes wearing a wire, not wearing an illegal wire.Seriously, DC is a one party consent jurisdiction

 

[Hijinx]

Because trump is less likely to incriminate himself if he sees Rosenstein holding a microphone

That quote only describes wearing a wire, not wearing an illegal wire.Seriously, DC is a one party consent jurisdiction

That quote only describes wearing a wire, not wearing an illegal wire.Seriously, DC is a one party consent jurisdiction

One of the most stupid things I have read in a long while.

 

[Midnightrider]

That quote only describes wearing a wire, not wearing an illegal wire.Seriously, DC is a one party consent jurisdiction

One of the most stupid things I have read in a long while.

Which part do you think is incorrect? Because that is the law in DC and why omarosa wasn’t prosecuted for doing it

 

[Hijinx]

Which part do you think is incorrect? Because that is the law in DC and why omarosa wasn’t prosecuted for doing it

DC law does not mean much in the WH, but Federal law does and she could have been prosecuted for taping there.
If she actually did.
She made a lot of claims but have you heard any tapes?
If so please give us a link to them I would love hearing this foul mouthed butch cursing Kelly

 

[Midnightrider]

DC law does not mean much in the WH, but Federal law does and she could have been prosecuted for taping there.
If she actually did.
She made a lot of claims but have you heard any tapes?
If so please give us a link to them I would love hearing this foul mouthed butch cursing Kelly

Federal law says only one party needs to consent, and there is plenty of precedent that recording public officials is a constitutional right.

 

[PsyOps]

Because trump is less likely to incriminate himself if he sees Rosenstein holding a microphone

That quote only describes wearing a wire, not wearing an illegal wire.Seriously, DC is a one party consent jurisdiction

Your denial is unsurprising.

 

[Midnightrider]

Your denial is unsurprising.

I have shown that one party consent is the law in both the district and federally. What exactly am I in denial over? There is nothing inherently illegal about recording someone, even the president, in the whitehouse.

 

[This_person]

I have shown that one party consent is the law in both the district and federally. What exactly am I in denial over? There is nothing inherently illegal about recording someone, even the president, in the whitehouse.

Contrary to what you try to portray, I don't believe that you are stupid. You know that it's not that simple.

If it's a pre-decisional conversation, it is likely to be covered by Executive privilege. If the conversation is held in a place that is not allowed to have recording devices, it is illegal. There's no simple answer regardless of how much you want there to be.

 

[TCROW]

I have shown that one party consent is the law in both the district and federally. What exactly am I in denial over? There is nothing inherently illegal about recording someone, even the president, in the whitehouse.

I'm tracking with you for the most part, but I think one party consent is a bit more nuanced in this case. For example, when I used to work within DOD, I could not carry a phone in to a secure facility. Is there a chance the WH could be considered as such and therefore not quite be subject to one party consent?

I don't know, I'm asking your thoughts.

 

[WingsOfGold]

Which part do you think is incorrect? Because that is the law in DC and why omarosa wasn’t prosecuted for doing it

Has it been proven she in fact did wear one, where is the tape?

 

[Hijinx]

I already asked that and got a laugh meme.
I asked for a link also.

If we were playing poker it would be said that he is bluffing, but here in the forums he is just full of sh*t.

 

[WingsOfGold]

I already asked that and got a laugh meme.
I asked for a link also.

If we were playing poker it would be said that he is bluffing, but here in the forums he is just full of sh*t.

Maybe the ghetto tramp is holding out for a 50 million dollar payday from Putin?

 

[Midnightrider]

I'm tracking with you for the most part, but I think one party consent is a bit more nuanced in this case. For example, when I used to work within DOD, I could not carry a phone in to a secure facility. Is there a chance the WH could be considered as such and therefore not quite be subject to one party consent?

I don't know, I'm asking your thoughts.

I’m sure that there are places in the whitehouse where carrying a recording device would be illegal. I am also betting the deputy/acting AG knows what he could theoretically do within the law. There are lots of places, including on the phone, where they could legally record the conversation.

 

[Bird Dog]

TC and MR are talking to themselves........how cute

 

[BOP]

That’s some hilarious revisionist history.

Trump, the current president lead the birther charge. There were numerous investigations and lawsuits and I’m pretty sure the idiot birthers took it all the way to scotus.

Funny how that revenge has somehow lead to so many crimes being uncovered and so many convictions

Speaking of revisionist history, that came out of your girl Hilldebeast's camp. Trump was certainly on board with it at one point, but that's where it started.

 

[PsyOps]

I have shown that one party consent is the law in both the district and federally. What exactly am I in denial over? There is nothing inherently illegal about recording someone, even the president, in the whitehouse.

You've shown you don't know the first thing about the White House. McCabe stated that Rosenstein was going to sneak a recording device in. He stated that Rosenstein said he never gets searched and could easily SNEAK one in. Do you think if WH security had searched him and found this recording device they would have just let him keep it on him? Not only would he have had it confiscated, they would have removed him from the WH and Trump would have been informed that Rosenstein was attempting to illegally record him, and Rosenstein would have been fired. You are completely ignorant of this fact because 1) you didn't bother to watch the video and gain an informed opinion on it, and 2) you like to make up your own facts on things.

 

[Midnightrider]

You've shown you don't know the first thing about the White House. McCabe stated that Rosenstein was going to sneak a recording device in. He stated that Rosenstein said he never gets searched and could easily SNEAK one in. Do you think if WH security had searched him and found this recording device they would have just let him keep it on him? Not only would he have had it confiscated, they would have removed him from the WH and Trump would have been informed that Rosenstein was attempting to illegally record him, and Rosenstein would have been fired. You are completely ignorant of this fact because 1) you didn't bother to watch the video and gain an informed opinion on it, and 2) you like to make up your own facts on things.

You make a lot of assumptions but none of them are based on fact. What law would Rosenstein have been breaking?

It’s really that simple. Name the law he would be breaking by recording in the whitehouse.

BTW, you still haven’t shown the quote where McCabe said Rosenstein would do anything illegal.

 

[Hijinx]

When you dig a hole you cannot get out of digging it deeper is not a wise move.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Which part do you think is incorrect? Because that is the law in DC and why omarosa wasn’t prosecuted for doing it

DC law is not superior to Federal law. That also means that DC law has no jurisdiction in Federal buildings. Once one steps into a Federal building, Federal law immediately applies over that of the district. Just look at all the security signage. Everything law quoted as, "in violation off", is, (United State Code), USC this and USC that. Everyone who is anyone knows what applies.

 

[Kyle]

If I may ...

DC law is not superior to Federal law. That also means that DC law has no jurisdiction in Federal buildings. Once one steps into a Federal building, Federal law immediately applies over that of the district. Just look at all the security signage. Everything law quoted as, "in violation off", is, (United State Code), USC this and USC that. Everyone who is anyone knows what applies.

MR attended the same preschool as Chris so he knows everything.