Was Romney taped illegally? Was the publication in Mother Jones Illegal?

reply to post by underduck


Big mess, huh...

And I agree. Not likely to change anytime soon.

I've enjoyed our interaction. Thanks for discussing the issue with me.

For the most part, we aren't really on different pages.

Maybe we'll get lucky, and meaningful peaceful change will occur for the better.

Cheers.

reply to post by loam


Agreed.

Thank you as well. See you around on the transparency threads. Cheers.

he is a public figure

no more secrets

sorry

reply to post by underduck

The problem I see is that most Americans believe their government to be corrupt liars but we still line up and pick against our least favorite puppet.

Exactly. That right there. At this point, we literally have no one that's truly electable, because viable candidates are literally afraid to run.

Afraid of the face off with the media, and afraid of any backlash they may have to face, and afraid of what unsaid government entities may dig up on them to use against them.

As I said, we all make or made mistakes in the past, the point is, did we grow and learn from them? Seems no one is willing to give credit where credit is due in that respect, but instead, people have to fear that maybe they were perceived as a bully in elementary school, or perhaps their grades weren't the best, or their thesis kind of sucked.

In the end, if they are willing to stand up and not *be* a puppet, do those other things even matter?

Candidates have enough to worry about as it is without having to fear being surreptitiously recorded in the days of cellphones and ipads and laptops and the like. I have even seen ink pens with full audio/video recording abilities, web browsers, and apps. Ink pens.

Will it have to come down to full body searches before people attend a private dinner or other private event now? Or, will people just have to be afraid of everything they say? This doesn't just go for public officials, but for private individuals, as well.

reply to post by Resonant

I would not interpret the law in such a manner. That's ridiculous.

Speaking to a room of 100 or so individuals is an entirely different matter.

Listen, I am not trying to attack your personal character, I am just trying to pose a meaningful discussion, and I'd rather leave out the cheap shots. Back to the discussion...

I'm sorry I said it that way, I did not mean it the way it came across. I was certainly not meaning to attack your character. I apologize for that.

I do not think he was speaking to a room of 100 or so people, though. I think the number was far lower, that remains to be told, however. Perhaps it will come out later.

From my understanding of the law, there is a lot of gray area. If this goes to court, which it probably will, there will be some rather open-ended questions that will be asked.

I agree, and I eagerly await seeing how this is handled. I think it is meaningful to all of us, not just politicians.

I feel we are crossing a bridge here with telecommunications and technology. I think this can leave privacy advocates feeling a bit unsettled. I personally know I have felt somewhat uneasy when I see multiple cellphones out at work, for instance, and a bit less likely to be myself. Not that I do anything wrong, but simply that it makes me self conscious and more aware that in the instance I did make a mistake, someone may catch it on tape.

We all have Biden moments. I prefer to call them blonde moments, or in my case senior moments. All the more embarrassing to have them posted on Facebook and to be the last to know.

Originally posted by Libertygal
Exactly. That right there. At this point, we literally have no one that's truly electable, because viable candidates are literally afraid to run.

Afraid of the face off with the media, and afraid of any backlash they may have to face, and afraid of what unsaid government entities may dig up on them to use against them.

As I said, we all make or made mistakes in the past, the point is, did we grow and learn from them? Seems no one is willing to give credit where credit is due in that respect, but instead, people have to fear that maybe they were perceived as a bully in elementary school, or perhaps their grades weren't the best, or their thesis kind of sucked.

In the end, if they are willing to stand up and not *be* a puppet, do those other things even matter?

Candidates have enough to worry about as it is without having to fear being surreptitiously recorded in the days of cellphones and ipads and laptops and the like. I have even seen ink pens with full audio/video recording abilities, web browsers, and apps. Ink pens.

Will it have to come down to full body searches before people attend a private dinner or other private event now? Or, will people just have to be afraid of everything they say? This doesn't just go for public officials, but for private individuals, as well.

I will certainly agree to that. Like I said in an earlier post here the media blows the smallest things way out of proportion. I really wish that people were smarter than letting certain little thiings throw them off. The example I used was Howard Dean back in 2004. His complete campaign came to a hault on reaction to coming in 3rd. He screamed and agreed it looked awkward but that was it. That is all the media needed to shut him down and they did.

Again I agree that everyone makes mistakes and there isnt anything wrong with it as long as they get corrected as much as possible. I really wonder if there are many "good" politicians on that level. Lets face it. To get to that level you almost had to screw someone over or make some back-handed deal. At least that always seems to be the case. I wouldnt run for president, not because I am afraid of what the press might find in my past, but because I simply dont have the ego to make decisions for 270 million people.

If you are afraid of being recorded, dont run for president, dont pursue fame, and just dont work in the public sector. On top of that there is a real simple way to avoid embarassing moments like that. Just dont say something like that. Just dont. I dont care if you are talking to your mother in her house. Unless you genuinely believe something just dont say it.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by detachedindividual

 

Originally posted by detachedindividual
...This is what your MSM is SUPPOSED to do...

Well, not quite.

I can think of nothing worse or unmanageable than as standard of 'media investigation' that enables someone to violate my privacy rights in the name of 'news'.

Where would it end?

Do bloggers count as media?

Can a private citizen violate my privacy rights to 'investigate' any potential issue of interest to the spying individual(s), if they think it might be newsworthy?

I would dare say that if you were the target of such interest, you'd change your tune very quickly.

We live in an imperfect society... That will ALWAYS be the case. But your vision would make things much, much worse, imo.

edit on 19-9-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)

He was giving a speech to an audience. This is not some guy having a conversation over the phone.

Is it also an invasion of privacy if one of those in attendance went out and wrote an article about what he stated in that room?

The crossing of lines goes both ways. He was giving a speech to people, none of those people can be "silenced", this was NOT a private conversation, it was a public speech to those able to afford the ridiculous "face time" with someone who shouldn't be selling it to begin with.

Again, the guy is just complaining because he was caught telling a bunch of rich people how they are more important than half of the American population. He's just openly told the world what many of us already suspect about the wealthy politicians controlling things.

His words have vindicated the entire Occupy movement, all of those against the economic inequality in America, and all those who believed for a long time that MONEY = POWER and no one else matters.

Romney has openly admitted that the rich people giving him money are more important to him - when he becomes president of the USA - than the rest of the country.

In any sensible nation, his hopes for leadership would be dead in the water. But as this is happening in America, where Republicans would seemingly support absolutely anyone at all if it means their "team" winning, nothing would surprise me.

Some further devlopments.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As I posted here, the Anne Onymous person is now threatening to release Romney's tax records according to a tweet she made.

www.businessinsider.com...

Here is an image of the tweet, using the same picture hosted on her youtube account.

In the youtube image, she was wise enough to rename the picture, however, notsomuch on the tweet account.

zm3nzuq6t9hoxly4x5wb.jpg

www.tineye.com...

A quick image search on tineye turns up the image name lesliechang, at this link:

www.timeout.com.hk...

And leads to an interview with Leslie Chang here:

www.timeout.com.hk...

Interview: Leslie T. Chang
Posted: 12 Dec 2008

Bong Miquiabas speaks with Leslie T. Chang about her two years spent among the Factory Girls of Dongguan.

Any savvy reporter knows that great stories can often be found in commonplace situations. Journalist Leslie T. Chang took this approach to winning effect in her new book Factory Girls. Her story about the lives of Chinese migrant factory workers uncovers a world fuelled by individual hustle, overwhelming pressure to succeed, and, ultimately, hope.

Chang, who was born and raised in New York, and educated at Harvard, first visited Dongguan, in Guangdong province, in 2004 as a reporter for the Wall Street Journal. She saw there was far more to say about the state of Chinese factories than merely detailing the often atrocious working conditions. “It began with a bit of a contrarian instinct,” says Chang, of her decision to write a book examining the lives and choices of Chinese migrant workers. “Newspapers had missed out on a lot of human interest.”

Oh noes, not Hahhhvahhhd *again*.

A reporter for the Wallstreet Journal! Well Well WELLLL!

www.youtube.com...

Her youtube channel with the pic, movies posted:

Mitt Romney admits using Chinese slave labor @ Bain. (Leaked Video) 44,409 views
Mitt Romney admits buying Chinese sweatshop while at Bain. 20,000 young girls. 12 girls per room. 120 girls per bathroom. Huge fences with guard to...
.

Anne Onymous commented 4 days ago
Mitt Romney admits buying Chinese sweatshop while at Bain. 20,000 young girls. 12 girls per room. 120 girls per bathroom. Huge fences with guard towers.


Mitt Romney admits using Chinese slave labor @ Bain. (Leaked Video) 44,409 views
Mitt Romney admits buying Chinese sweatshop while at Bain. 20,000 young girls. 12 girls per room. 120 girls per bathroom. Huge fences with guard to...
.

Romney Invested Millions in Chinese Company Profiting from US Outsourcing MidweekPolitics • 2,131 views
--Mother Jones' David Corn reports that Mitt Romney invested millions in Chinese firm Global-Tech Appliances, which directly profited from US outso


Anne Onymous commented and liked 3 weeks ago
Watch Mitt Romney admit to using Chinese slave labor.

Mitt Romney admits using Chinese slave labor @ Bain. (Leaked Video) 44,409 views
Mitt Romney admits buying Chinese sweatshop while at Bain. 20,000 young girls. 12 girls per room. 120 girls per bathroom. Huge fences with


twitter.com...
Twitter channel with the pic

@AnneOnymous670 ‏@AnneOnymous670
@donnabrazile Romney buys Chinese Bain sweatshop, 20,000 young girls, 12 girls per room, 120 girls per bathroom. www.youtube.com... …

This tweet supports the image and the book

the threatening tweet is removed, but is saved in the link here www.businessinsider.com...

www.leslietchang.com...

Here is her website and her photo, they appear to be the same person on the youtube account, the twitter account, annnnd the book cover.

She and her husband, writer Peter Hessler, live in Cairo with their two daughters.

Interesting.

And her husband. en.wikipedia.org...

Both writers, journalists.

Wonder how she likes her images being linked with this, as well as her good name and book being drug into this?

Interesting, no?

The person who runs "Mother Jones" is now saying part of the speech is missing from the video because the phone cut off......stinks.

Critical audio gap in “complete” Romney tape released by Mother Jones (Update – Corn responds, 1-2 minutes missing)
Posted by William A. Jacobson Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 9:31pm

legalinsurrection.com...

Yet the complete audio and video is not complete. There is a gap in the recording immediately after Romney’s now famous discussion of the 47% of voters who don’t pay taxes. The cut in the audio and video comes while Romney is in mid-sentence, so we actually do not have the full audio of what Romney said on the subject.

Originally posted by timetothink
The person who runs "Mother Jones" is now saying part of the speech is missing from the video because the phone cut off......stinks.

Yes but look what is posted on the link above:

Interestingly, the full video posted Tuesday, which Mother Jones claims has not been edited, does not contain the clip of Romney discussing his visit to the factory in China.

Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

It is posted seperately, though, on her youtube account. So which is it? Edited, or.. not? It *is* from the same dinner.

reply to post by Libertygal


Good question...from what I read it sounds like 1-2 minutes are actually missing...I go with edited to make Romney sound worse.

Privacy is important, but when you are a representative and especially a representative who is supposed to be selected to serve the people it's nice to see the lights turned on in a kitchen full of roaches. It is the duty of citizens to expose what politicians of all shape color and creed say behind closed doors so one may know the true candor of the individuals that claim to represent us.

If we lived in a functional honest and just society this might not be necessary but take a minute to think about the caliber of individual we are dealing with when it comes to politics. Throw the doors wide open on every last one of them. They write laws to know every last detail of every last citizen and grant themselves the rights to your life liberty and property and you are worried about exposing them for what they are.

This is why we are boned as a country.

reply to post by LaughingatHumanity


And yet as this thread illustrates; the Roaches are excused, supported and defended; with every BS subterfuge imaginable.

Yes we are boned. And that's a quite nice way of phrasing it.

reply to post by timetothink


A couple of points I'd like to make:

--Mother Jones got the video from another source and said it came in two files. Apparently, those two minutes are the point between the two videos. An explanation could easily be that something happened and the recorder was turned off and then on again, creating two files. ETA: From what I can tell, no one is claiming the video is all chopped up. Only that there are two minutes missing where the video appears to cut off at one point and then begin again. I don't believe that there are any other edits within the supposedly two segments of the video.

--Edit: I removed a point here that I think may have been inaccurate

--Romney saw the video himself and owned up to what he said. He can't now go back and try to claim that what we see him saying in that video is somehow distorted if ROMNEY HIMSELF admitted to saying those things and also reaffirmed that he meant to say what he said.

--As for the release of this tape being illegal, Romney called for the entire tape to be released AFTER he was aware that he was secretly recorded. He can't then turn around and sue the filmmaker for invasion of privacy after he asked for it to be released in its entirety. It just doesn't hold any weight.

--Let's say that this video was recorded illegally. It still doesn't change the fact that Romney made comments that he himself admitted to and acknowledge as true.

As a regular citizen YES it was illegal (expectation of privacy) but as a candidate for POTUS it is debatable.

It was reported that the missing two minutes were because the automatic timer timed out and it took a few moments for the person doing the recording to notice and turn it on again. As some pundit pointed out today, it's highly unlikely the missing two minutes include something to the effect of Romney saying, "hahaha, just kidding about the 47%!"

And let's not forget for whatever it's worth, the 50K a plate people were not the only ones in the room. All the waitstaff heard every word also (although in true Romney fashion, he probably ignored them as invisible).

It would be interesting to find out if the 50K'ers and the waitstaff had to sign nondisclosure agreements before Romney started talking. If not, then it could be argued that Romney had no expectation of privacy. I disagree that that was a 'small intimate' table. It was more than a handful of diners.

I don't know whether it was illegal or not but there should be some discussion about whether powerful people should be able to have top level strategy discussions that impact policy that effect all of us in secret in a democracy. There should also be many doubts about whether he or Obama is having many other discussions about many other things that impact us and the fact that the only ones that get media attention are those supported by the corporations and conduct the most important activity in secret while those that gain support and discuss policy in the open like Jill Stein get no media attention.

Another issue is the possibility that this was recorded under circumstances with a ulterior political motive that was under the control of the elites. How do people get access to this room in the house of a billionaire? Is it really a coincidence that James Carter the IV was the one that found it on the internet? What could they be doing if this isn't a completely unauthorized leak? Why can't this idiot Romney come up with a more credible response?

Originally posted by underduck

Originally posted by Libertygal
I don't think it is just me that feels this way, so again, it bothers me that this isn't disturbing to you.

Perhaps I live my life a little different than most. I say what I mean and I try to be as honest as possible. I dont hide my feelings in public only to release them privately when I think nobody is watching or listening.

I would be careful to not try to compare this to some sort of thought police type senerio either. We are not talking about a random person at home discussing the government with their spouse. We are talking about a public figure discussing his plan for the running of OUR country.

Everybody has a private and a public face. Even if they never show the one at home or otherwise its still there. And we have to face the reality that you just cant say what needs to be said in public. Many bite there tongue.

Think of living in your own home knowing it was bugged and anything you said could and would be used against you. This is the sort of thing the constitution set out to make a free zone for the citizen. At least in your own home you could be totaly free to speak. As it is many dont value that freedom anymore and it represents the rotteness in part that afflicts our society today.

It lends itself to blackmail, extortion and the like much much more that it serves truth.