I wanted EDWARDS. All the way to the CONVENTION.

[FlyingSquirrel]

No matter what it might have done to the party in the General Election.

I was wrong. Edwards knew that and that's why he suspended his campaign.

Few people are talking about how Hillary Clinton got her latest talking point, which has been picked up by McCain. She got it by sneaking someone into a private fundraiser for Obama and recording him without his knowledge.

Unless I'm completely mistaken, this is in violation of the Federal Wiretapping Act. Or something like that. You need to have people's consent in order to record them. It's rarely enforced but it's still the law.

Besides being illegal - something you wouldn't expect someone who is running for the Chief Law Enforcement position in the land to condone - it's just plain dirty. And it's a part of the pattern of her campaign, to win by any means possible.

More to the point, it has given McCain a major talking point, whether true or (in most people's opinion) false, that he might not have otherwise had.

The people who said she could damage him more than the Republicans could were, in my opinion based on this incident, correct. It's easier for a fellow Democrat who knows the ropes and has contacts within the party to penetrate a private fundraiser like her operative did. She's given the Republicans something they wouldn't likely have had. She could do it again. Certainly she's probably had a chilling effect on any fundraisers he may do in the future - people who might really be supporters of his campaign could be excluded. People who AREN'T excluded may have to go through the indignity of a search to ensure they aren't carrying a tape recorder (or a wire??).

This has gone too far. She can't win through legal means so she's using ILLEGAL means and it's damaging him in the GE more than the Repugs could do.

So now, based on this information, I'm calling for her to both apologize and drop out. I'm calling for others to publicize the fact that she's condoning an illegal act, one that might make you wonder what she'll be willing to do once in office with regard to Wiretapping of US Citizens - certainly not a minor issue.

I'm basically calling on her to put the Democratic Party and the People of the United States before her own ambitions, as Edwards did.

But hey, I'm just one guy. Still, I'll hit "Post message".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On edit, to clarify position on "Illegal", which is not something one should claim lightly:

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.

Federal law and most state laws also make it illegal to disclose the contents of an illegally intercepted call or communication.

California

Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632: It is a crime in California to intercept or eavesdrop upon any confidential communication, including a telephone call or wire communication, without the consent of all parties.

It is also a crime to disclose information obtained from such an interception. A first offense is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and imprisonment for no more than one year. Subsequent offenses carry a maximum fine of $10,000 and jail sentence of up to one year.

Eavesdropping upon or recording a conversation, whether by telephone (including cordless or cellular telephone) or in person, that a person would reasonably expect to be confined to the parties present, carries the same penalty as intercepting telephone or wire communications.

Conversations occurring at any public gathering that one should expect to be overheard, including any legislative, judicial or executive proceeding open to the public, are not covered by the law.

An appellate court has ruled that using a hidden video camera violates the statute. California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (1989). However, a television network that used a hidden camera to videotape a conversation that took place at a business lunch meeting on a crowded outdoor patio of a public restaurant that did not include "secret" information did not violate the Penal Code's prohibition against eavesdropping because it was not a "confidential communication." Wilkins v. NBC, Inc., 71 Cal. App. 4th 1066 (1999).

Anyone injured by a violation of the wiretapping laws can recover civil damages of $5,000 or three times actual damages, whichever is greater. Cal. Penal Code § 637.2(a). A civil action for invasion of privacy also may be brought against the person who committed the violation. Cal. Penal Code § 637.2.

[LSparkle]

1. I agree it's sneaky but I don't think it's illegal ...

Remember "Macaca"? All the campaigns have moles checking out what their opponents
are doing, and in the age of YouTube, nothing can be assumed "off the record." Maybe
the law you reference is still in place when it comes to phone calls, but I don't
think it prevents people from using cellphone cameras to capture what occurs at
political gatherings like the one in S.F.

That being said, it's a really dirty kind of politicking, the kind we need to change.
It's a shame that the Clinton campaign are holding Obama to running a "different
kind of campaign," while they'll stoop at nothing to score political points themselves.

[FlyingSquirrel]

5. Here's something from the state of California

http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs9-wrtp.htm

Who are the most common targets of electronic eavesdropping & wiretapping?

If you are in a position where others might benefit from listening to your conversations, you may be a target of electronic eavesdropping or wiretapping. For example, if other companies could experience financial gain from hearing details about your work, you run a higher risk of being wiretapped or "bugged." People involved in controversial political activities and high-stakes legal proceedings are also at risk of being the target of illegal monitoring and eavesdropping.

Note the word "illegal"

[FlyingSquirrel]

12. Here's a little more

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.

Federal law and most state laws also make it illegal to disclose the contents of an illegally intercepted call or communication.

California

Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632: It is a crime in California to intercept or eavesdrop upon any confidential communication, including a telephone call or wire communication, without the consent of all parties.

It is also a crime to disclose information obtained from such an interception. A first offense is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and imprisonment for no more than one year. Subsequent offenses carry a maximum fine of $10,000 and jail sentence of up to one year.

Eavesdropping upon or recording a conversation, whether by telephone (including cordless or cellular telephone) or in person, that a person would reasonably expect to be confined to the parties present, carries the same penalty as intercepting telephone or wire communications.

Conversations occurring at any public gathering that one should expect to be overheard, including any legislative, judicial or executive proceeding open to the public, are not covered by the law.

An appellate court has ruled that using a hidden video camera violates the statute. California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (1989). However, a television network that used a hidden camera to videotape a conversation that took place at a business lunch meeting on a crowded outdoor patio of a public restaurant that did not include "secret" information did not violate the Penal Code's prohibition against eavesdropping because it was not a "confidential communication." Wilkins v. NBC, Inc., 71 Cal. App. 4th 1066 (1999).

Anyone injured by a violation of the wiretapping laws can recover civil damages of $5,000 or three times actual damages, whichever is greater. Cal. Penal Code § 637.2(a). A civil action for invasion of privacy also may be brought against the person who committed the violation. Cal. Penal Code § 637.2.

[LSparkle]

17. You're right -- "Macaca" happened in VA ...

Being from CA (and having been required to take shorthand notes of board meetings
at my job because we couldn't tape record them -- since some parties joined the
meetings by phone), I remember wondering at the time of the Lewinsky scandal how
the tapes of her conversations with Linda Tripp weren't ruled illegal ... but since
those were recorded in D.C. or Virginia (where there is no law against taping),
that explains it.

That woman is in some trouble here ...

[Romulox]

31. That's a very cool website.

It doesn't look like a violation of the California law to me.

Cal. Penal Code §632

(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

[FlyingSquirrel]

32. It was a private fundraiser. There were precautions taken

to ensure that only those invited were allowed to enter. It took place in a private residence. The recording took place without his knowledge or consent.

Just because he's a public figure does not mean he's not entitled to be covered by the same privacy laws as the rest of the country if he is on private property holding a private fundraiser.

"Obama had not been aware that one of the supporters attending the closed-door private event was a citizen-journalist who was recording his speech when he explained to the group what he thinks motivates working-class voters in small towns that have lost industrial and other jobs and fallen on hard times. "

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010632115

Guess they didn't screen the guests quite well enough... doesn't mean that guest had the right to do what they did.

[Romulox]

38. I don't think the "private" nature of the gathering is the key here.

And at any rate, it was "private" only inasmuch as it cost $2300 to get in. I don't think that a speech given by a news-worthy person in front of hundreds of people has a reasonable expectation of "confidentiality" for purposes of that law.

[Bake]

45. Key words: "parties present"

You miss the point. Your statute might apply if, perhaps, someone planted a "bug" to transmit or record a private conversation to which that person was not personally a party. At this event, it appears that the person who did the recording was, in fact, one of the parties present at the event. Ergo, no violation of the statute.

Bake

[FlyingSquirrel]

53. No, key words: "Consent of all parties"

Re-read it.

[Bake]

55. Good luck enforcing that.

You've got to show that it was something intended to be kept confidential, like the business secrets case. Hard to imagine how a political fundraiser is intended to be confidential (including any and all statements made at the fundraiser).

The statute, assuming you're correct in its construction, is a mess. I'd hate to try to enforce it. It's good as far as telephone/cellular conversations go, but when you get to the in person stuff, that's a train wreck. I suppose the police can't send somebody in wearing a wire, either.

Bake

[LSparkle]

13. What a mess cellphones (and especially camera phones) have wrought ...

What's the difference between taping someone with a cassette player or with
a cellphone camera? If this woman did something illegal, then the Obama
campaign ought to call her on it ...

[pnwmom]

52. Many people were recording the event, even on video cameras. She wasn't the only

one recording, and she didn't do it secretly. The OP is based on error.

Obama couldn't have had any expectation of privacy in a room full of video cams (some of which made recordings that were posted almost immediately on youtube.)

[pnwmom]

20. That doesn't mean all recording is illegal. Just of "confidential conversations."

And a large political gathering of miscellaneous supporters can't be considered a confidential conversation. For one thing, a conversation is two-way. Obama making a speech doesn't count.

[FlyingSquirrel]

23. Obama wasn't making a speech at the time, he was answering a question.

And it was a PRIVATE fundraiser, not a public event.

[pnwmom]

26. And how many hundreds of people were at the event?

It's ridiculous for anyone to think that you could speak freely at such an event. And I've been to donor events in the past, and NEVER been asked to sign a confidentiality form.

[FlyingSquirrel]

29. Here, why don't you read all about how this person penetrated the event

http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaires_row/

Which they weren't invited to. (I think this is the person. I'm still trying to get more info)

[pnwmom]

35. No, it was NOT this blogger. Why don't you get the facts before you post?

It was a woman blogger with a website called OfftheBus. It took me about five seconds to google this up. You should have checked, too, before making that accusation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14web-seelye.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1208289755-toSlBUFc5a2jDOkzUCNO6A



"Mayhill Fowler, a blogger for OffTheBus.net, a Web site published by Huffington Post and created by Arianna Huffington and Jay Rosen, was the first to report Mr. Obama’s comments — that small-town voters bitter over their economic circumstances, “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as a way to explain their frustrations."

[Cronus Protagonist]

2. He suspended his campaign because he got less than 15% of the vote

Which is not the case with Hillary. Apples and Oranges. And I'm an Edwards fan, I'm not a Hillary hater or lover.

[FlyingSquirrel]

25. Perhaps. I should have limited the OP to discussion about the legality

of that recording 'cause that's what it's turned into. Too late to edit any further though.

[poplockndropit]

3. such is life.

[pnwmom]

21. Welcome to DU, poplockndropit! n/t

[depakid]

4. You have no idea why Edwards decided to pull out

[jsamuel]

6. The woman who was there was a blogger who supported Obama, not Clinton

from what I have read. I believe your version of events is incorrect.

She donated 2300 to Obama and 100 to Clinton.

[FlyingSquirrel]

8. Regardless of whom they supported, I'm sure they did not have

permission to record him. I bet they even had to sign something like that to attend the event. The Obama campaign is pretty careful about that kind of thing, as they should be.

[jsamuel]

9. Did they publish a recording online or did they just report what was said?

Again, I think your account is incorrect. All I have heard is that the blogger reported what was said. I have not heard of any recordings being available.

[FlyingSquirrel]

14. Jon Stewart played the recording on his show last night.

It was very muffled but you could understand what he said when they put the caption below it. It seemed clear that the person doing the recording had done it secretly.

[jsamuel]

15. Ah, thanks for that info. I was unaware of the recording.

While there are laws against recordings, I don't know if that applies to public figures in a forum like the one Obama was speaking at.

[FlyingSquirrel]

18. If a lawsuit were brought, I'm sure it wouldn't be dismissed as "frivolous"

It might fail, but it might succeed. After all it was a private fundraiser, not a public event. It would be nice (but not necessary) to know whether the attendees had to sign a consent not to record the candidate.

[pnwmom]

24. Don't you think the Obama people would have already announced that

if that were true? Or at least one of the attendees would have gone to the press and yelled about how there was a confidentiality form to sign?

This wouldn't have been kept a secret.

[FlyingSquirrel]

27. I really don't know. I'd like to find out though.

But the signing of a confidentiality agreement is not necessary for the law to be in effect. It was a private fundraiser, not a public gathering.

[pnwmom]

33. That still doesn't make anything that happened there a confidential

conversation.

There would have to be an understanding that the conversation was confidential, and few people would think that about a large political gathering.

[pnwmom]

19. Your whole OP is based on an untruth -- a pro-Obama blogger, not HRC,

was the one who recorded the audio and posted it on her blog.

And such a gathering could hardly be considered a "confidential conversation." Obama can't have been dumb enough to think that he could say whatever he wanted and not have it get out. He just slipped up and didn't choose his words carefully, unfortunately.

[FlyingSquirrel]

22. It doesn't matter who did the recording, what matters is if she had permission

And a private fundraiser is just that, private. It's a big difference whether someone just says "I heard Barack say THIS" and someone having a RECORDING of it.

I'm wondering if anyone here has attended any private fundraisers and knows whether you have to sign something stating you will not record the candidate.

[pnwmom]

42. She did have implicit permission. They knew who she was when they

issued the invitation, she had blogged about attending Obama's campaign events before, and she was one of MANY who were OPENLY recording the event.

[pnwmom]

41. She and many others -- with professional video cams -- recorded openly.

If the Obama people wanted them to stop, they would have said something.

[LSparkle]

10. I think there's some question as to whether she REALLY supported Obama

$2,300 is a small price for some people to pay in order to get access
to the "other side."

[cali]

11. purportedly. She's an odd duck. She's written flatteringly about

hillary, and said she expected to vote for her back in 2007 on her blog. She's given to Fred Thompson and Obama, but most of what she's written about Obama is very negative. Did she give to him to gain access and do this? It's certainly possible. She's obviously not an Obama supporter, judging from her poison pen.

[blm]

16. And Lucianne Goldberg successfully posed as a Democrat for years, eh? How did that work out?

.

[book_worm]

7. I wonder if he regrets suspending his campaign?

given the infighting between Hill and Obama I wonder if some people would have turned to him to unite the party?

[cbayer]

28. I have not seen one shred of evidence linking this person to the Clinton campaign.

I have seen speculation and blatant accusation, but not one shred of evidence. It is tremendously irresponsible to promote this idea without anything to back it up. I do not think Obama would approve of your doing so. He tends to be intellectually honest.

[FlyingSquirrel]

30. As stated before, it doesn't matter whether she was connected to the Clinton Campaign.

What she did was illegal and Hillary, by using it, is condoning an illegal act.

[pnwmom]

34. That is really stretching it. There was no illegality,

there was no HRC informant, and HRC merely reacted to the statement once it was out there.

Obama made a mistake and didn't choose his words carefully enough. That's all that happened.

[cbayer]

37. Perhaps you should consider taking the statement out of your OP.

You state rather emphatically "Few people are talking about how Hillary Clinton got her latest talking point, which has been picked up by McCain. She got it by sneaking someone into a private fundraiser for Obama and recording him without his knowledge."

Your statement that it was illegal is also not based in fact. The participants were apparently asked not to record but, IMO, there was no legal prohibition about doing do so.

At any rate, it is pretty foolish to say things at a fundraiser that you would not want repeated. I don't think any of the candidates can expect that anything they say to anyone other than their doctor, clergyperson, attorney or spouse can be considered confidential.

[pnwmom]

40. It's even worse than that. They were NOT asked not to record,

and many of them had video cams and were quite openly recording, including a professor who took his taping back to his class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14web-seelye.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&adxnnlx=1208289755-toSlBUFc5a2jDOkzUCNO6A

[cbayer]

43. Now that's interesting.

It was being stated repeatedly that the participants were asked not to record and that she hid her recorder. This article makes the accusation that she was somehow an operative of the Clinton campaign even more ludicrous.

I again re-iterate that none of the candidates can really expect that whatever they say will not be repeated.

[pnwmom]

44. I agree. Any candidate speaking before a group must expect to be repeated.

And Obama could not have had any expectation of privacy at this meeting. Not while he was staring video cams in the face.

[RememberWellstone]

36. Flying bull shit

I cannot believe how low you Oompas will go.:eyes:

[pnwmom]

39. Your whole argument is shot -- the blogger and many others recorded OPENLY.

That means that Obama gave them permission by not objecting. Obama should have been more careful in his choice of words.

Marc Cooper, also of OfftheBus, wrote about it in his blog according to the NYTimes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14web-seelye.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&adxnnlx=1208289755-toSlBUFc5a2jDOkzUCNO6A

SNIP

Still, he wrote, “Most if not all press was kept out of the room but Mayhill was invited in. She was under no obligation not to report. Obama was indeed more loose-lipped than usual. He should be more careful in his choice of words when he is staring into so many video cams, no matter who is holding them.”

Ms. Fowler said she held her digital recorder openly. The place was jammed with others using video cams and cell phone cameras. Among them, Ms. Fowler said, was a professor who was recording the event for his students. In fact, snippets of the speech have been posted on YouTube by others who were there.

Ms. Fowler started listening near where Mr. Obama was speaking but said it got so hot that she moved to the back, where she sat next to other people who were recording the event with professional equipment.

SNIP

“What’s gray is when a reporter engages in any level of deceit to get the story or violates a ground rule to which he or she promised to comply,” he writes. “Not the case with our reporter, thanks very much. She was known to the campaign as an OffTheBus reporter and they let her in as such and she worked the room as such and she recorded the event in the open as she sat with campaign staff,” He adds: “They probably let her in because they expected her to write unblemished pro-Obama copy. Or they don’t fully understand implications of internet age information. She herself was quite conflicted about writing something potentially harmful to Obama. But she correctly decided that the truth shall set ya free.”

SNIP

[grantcart]

47. with our reporter

'reporter' ? she is not a professional reporter. In any case while it is almost certainly legally it is considered highly unethical for anyone who presents themselves as a reporter to record 'off the record' comments. While not a professinoal reporter she clearly violated the spirit of talking with a candidate off the record as she went in with the intention of recording it for release to media sources.

[pnwmom]

50. There was no agreement that any comments were "off the record."

And the Obama campaign knew who she was, and that she had blogged about Obama campaign events before.

And as the NY times article said, others posted snippets from the event on youtube. She wasn't the only one making this event public, and the Obama campaign MUST have known that would happen. What did they think all the video cams were there for?

He just didn't speak carefully enough. Now he knows.

[2rth2pwr]

46. Edwards lied to you.

[ShaneGR]

48. The entire basis of your argument is incorrect, Freedom of the Press

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=25689

(snip)
Mayhill Fowler changed more than the presidential campaign this week when she posted comments Sen. Barack Obama made about "bitter" voters at a $1,000-a-head fundraiser in San Francisco. The 61-year-old blogger tore the curtain from the front window of a longtime political refuge -- the high-end fundraiser -- and the resulting chaos may rewrite the rules on how political campaigns screen folks at these sorts of events where it's presumed nobody would try to write something that might damage the candidate who they just dropped a grand on.

And it also raises a few ethical questions that traditional journalists deal with on a regular basis, but many political bloggers don't.

Fundraisers are generally no-press-allowed events. But they're not "no blogging"-allowed events. But let's get real. With the ubiquity of camera cell phones and palm-sized digital records, can you really stop it? Fowler's post showed how a single person -- even a supporter/donor of the candidate, like herself -- can change the national conversation in this new, decentralized media environment.

Fowler told The New York Times that she openly recorded the event with her digital recorder, as did others there carrying various recording devices. Only later, when her friend told her that such events were off-the-record, did she understand. Or didn't.

"This was never conveyed to me," Fowler told The NYT. "I was invited to the event, I had written on fund-raisers in the past, why wouldn't I this time? We had a fundamental misunderstanding of my priorities. Mine were as a reporter, not as a supporter. They thought I would put the role of supporter first."

[grantcart]

49. I have to say that I am really astonished that John Edwards didn't say something when this

'bitter-gate' erupted. He wouldn't even have to endorse anybody but simply to say that he had talked with similarly thousands of frustrated and bitter people and that Hillary shouldn't try to make a campaign advantage over that point. I mean wasn't that the whole point of Edwards' campaign? That's why I suported him.

[pnwmom]

51. Maybe he agreed with the people who are concerned that Obama's

remarks about guns and religion could sound condescending.

[grantcart]

54. he could have even said that but silence is astonishing