The President could have recorded conversations with Comey

2seaoat wrote:The District of Columbia's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. DC makes it a crime to record a phone call or conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. See D.C. Code § 23-542.

2seaoat wrote:He could alter the tapes and release them to the press.


Except, the President is not sure if the FBI director had gotten a warrant, and in fact was taping his attempt to influence the investigation.

2seaoat wrote:That is not what I am saying.  DC is a one party consent state.  If one party knew of the recording, the recording was legal.  In Illinois it has been a nightmare since 2014 as they require both parties consent unless it is in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy.  The courts have ruled various versions of the statute unconstitutional.  All I am saying is in DC a person can record a conversation as long as they are a participant and they consent to the recording.  The other person can have no idea.

2seaoat wrote:The District of Columbia's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. DC makes it a crime to record a phone call or conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. See D.C. Code § 23-542.

2seaoat wrote:Now who does that if they're innocent?


I certainly have not claimed anyone is innocent, but the presumption of innocence has to be overcome by elements of a crime being proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  I have not seen one scintilla of evidence to date which would put anybody in jail.   The grand jury is looking at that evidence.  The FBI is investigating and gathering evidence, but for people to do to President Trump what was done to Hillary Clinton in a very partisan fashion remains in my mind fundamentally wrong given the presumption of innocence.  Some of Trump's behavior could simply go to his multiple personality disorders where he has a fixation that people think he cheated and that in fact he did not WIN, and in fact he LOST.   To a normal person this would simply pass, but his constant tweets and his obsession concerning the same I think explains his behavior more than any evidence to date proves he has broken the law, and he is trying to cover it up.  He in fact could have been an active participant with the Russians and in fact broken the law.  He could in fact be intimidating a witness, and attempting to obstruct justice, but we will have to wait for facts.

2seaoat wrote:
Here's a hint;  with Trump you don't have to choose between maliciousness and stupidity - with Trump it's ALWAYS both.

2seaoat wrote:The White House is Federal property, you twit! The D.C. Code doesn't apply,The Federal Government has Territorial Jurisdiction.

                                      DUH!


This has just become more fun than a barrel of monkeys pretending they are Orwellian scholars.  So your argument is that when one is on federal property that the jurisdictional laws of that state and territory do not apply.  So in Illinois, I can lure someone into the lobby of the federal building, and tape record a conversation without their permission, and the Cook County states attorney is barred from prosecuting me for a violation of Illinois law.  Duh is right.

So, the cited statute covering DC would also be inapplicable because the tape recording happened at the White House.  Double Duh.

2seaoat wrote:Now who does that if they're innocent?


I certainly have not claimed anyone is innocent, but the presumption of innocence has to be overcome by elements of a crime being proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  I have not seen one scintilla of evidence to date which would put anybody in jail.   The grand jury is looking at that evidence.  The FBI is investigating and gathering evidence, but for people to do to President Trump what was done to Hillary Clinton in a very partisan fashion remains in my mind fundamentally wrong given the presumption of innocence.  Some of Trump's behavior could simply go to his multiple personality disorders where he has a fixation that people think he cheated and that in fact he did not WIN, and in fact he LOST.   To a normal person this would simply pass, but his constant tweets and his obsession concerning the same I think explains his behavior more than any evidence to date proves he has broken the law, and he is trying to cover it up.  He in fact could have been an active participant with the Russians and in fact broken the law.  He could in fact be intimidating a witness, and attempting to obstruct justice, but we will have to wait for facts.

2seaoat wrote:I do not have to look it up.  I know it.  If a person commits a murder on federal property the state or territory can prosecute.  Period.  You might want to read your cut and paste and think about the word concurrent.  Stupid is hard to fix but it is good to know that in between Canterbury Tales you typed a 35 page Orwellian treatise as an undergraduate, and emulated the Summoner.  He spouted Latin phrases in an attempt to fool those around him that he was educated and intelligent.  In the end a fools errand.  You do understand the statute I quoted on the first part of this thread was a federal statute, and your distinction of the the federal law not applying to a federal park is a dog chasing one's tail.   The statute I quoted is applicable.   Exclusive jurisdiction is limited, and there are exceptions depending on the crime and the sequence of the crime, but in this thread the very law I quoted was federal.  Again stupid is hard to fix.

2seaoat wrote:   The statute I quoted is applicable.   Exclusive jurisdiction is limited, and there are exceptions depending on the crime and the sequence of the crime, but in this thread the very law I quoted was federal.

2seaoat wrote:The D.C. Code doesn't apply,

Who was wrong?  You do understand that DC code is boilerplate federal law?  Evidently not.  So if it is not a single consent law, please show me the other law which made my post incorrect?  Is the White House governed by dual consent?  I see....trying hard to prove your sophomoric posts have meaning.  They do not, but keep googling.  I do not have to do the same because I was correct that the recording was legal under a single consent.  I am still waiting for your correction of that fact and how federal law does not apply.  Too funny again.  Should the defense rest?