Should it be against the law to secretly record the POTUS?

[HitRed]

The President of the United States is constantly in meetings, attending events and calling and being called by members of Congress, military leaders and and endless number of Alphabet Agencies.

[thegreekdog]

The President of the United States is constantly in meetings, attending events and calling and being called by members of Congress, military leaders and and endless number of Alphabet Agencies.

No.

[HitRed]

The President of the United States is constantly in meetings, attending events and calling and being called by members of Congress, military leaders and and endless number of Alphabet Agencies.

No.

I think Congress will look at this seriously in the future.

Before 9/11 you used to go greet grandma getting off the plane. Our local military bases were OPEN to the public. If national security is at stake things can change quickly.

[KoolBak]

Is Potus the plural of Potty? I don't believe recording is a good idea....

[Neoteny]

Nope.

[Dukasaur]

Is Potus the plural of Potty?

I think it's the opposite. I think Potti is the plural of Pottus...

I don't believe recording is a good idea....

I think the fewer secrets the government has, the better. Recording, presumably, contributes to keeping them in line.

[HitRed]

The President gives the orders to the Pentagon. Any recording could endanger our troops.

[Neoteny]

God forbid troops be in danger.

[Dukasaur]

The President gives the orders to the Pentagon. Any recording could endanger our troops.

This is the type of excuse people in power usually give. Quite simply, if you're discussing stuff that absolutely must remain secret, then don't allow anyone in the room who can't be trusted with that information.

The principles of democracy demand that those in power be held accountable, which means that it has to be possible for the electorate to review their decisions. Some decisions may need to be secret for a limited time, especially during war, but it is rare that they need to be secret for long periods. Generally, when things are kept secret for long periods of time, it isn't out of genuine necessity, it's so people making bad decisions can cover their ass.

[Dukasaur]

The President gives the orders to the Pentagon. Any recording could endanger our troops.

This is the type of excuse people in power usually give. Quite simply, if you're discussing stuff that absolutely must remain secret, then don't allow anyone in the room who can't be trusted with that information.

The principles of democracy demand that those in power be held accountable, which means that it has to be possible for the electorate to review their decisions. Some decisions may need to be secret for a limited time, especially during war, but it is rare that they need to be secret for long periods. Generally, when things are kept secret for long periods of time, it isn't out of genuine necessity, it's so people making bad decisions can cover their ass.

Being is business we have HEATED DISCUSSIONS / ARGUMENTS about any work related topic you can think of. If the rank-in-file knew how dis-unified we were at times it might create issues with retaining workers or moral. It's best kept behind closed doors (as the mod issues show). At higher levels concerning trade deals or war & peace discussions / arguments must happen in order to form the best way forward. This needs to be done in private.

In your business the owner probably has access to that information. If he wants to keep it secret, it is his right.

In a democracy, the owners are supposed to be the people. The elected representatives are supposed to be our servants, not our masters (although of course they tend to forget this.) We, the owners, have a right to know what our servants are doing. If we lose this right, they become our masters, and the whole process of Enlightenment and Revolution was for nothing. If we are unable to supervise what deals they are striking behind closed doors, you can be sure those deals will be in their interest, not ours.

[notyou2]

The President gives the orders to the Pentagon. Any recording could endanger our troops.

Stop starting wars. Be kind to others.

[notyou2]

The President gives the orders to the Pentagon. Any recording could endanger our troops.

This is the type of excuse people in power usually give. Quite simply, if you're discussing stuff that absolutely must remain secret, then don't allow anyone in the room who can't be trusted with that information.

The principles of democracy demand that those in power be held accountable, which means that it has to be possible for the electorate to review their decisions. Some decisions may need to be secret for a limited time, especially during war, but it is rare that they need to be secret for long periods. Generally, when things are kept secret for long periods of time, it isn't out of genuine necessity, it's so people making bad decisions can cover their ass.

Being is business we have HEATED DISCUSSIONS / ARGUMENTS about any work related topic you can think of. If the rank-in-file knew how dis-unified we were at times it might create issues with retaining workers or moral. It's best kept behind closed doors (as the mod issues show). At higher levels concerning trade deals or war & peace discussions / arguments must happen in order to form the best way forward. This needs to be done in private.

In your business the owner probably has access to that information. If he wants to keep it secret, it is his right.

In a democracy, the owners are supposed to be the people. The elected representatives are supposed to be our servants, not our masters (although of course they tend to forget this.) We, the owners, have a right to know what our servants are doing. If we lose this right, they become our masters, and the whole process of Enlightenment and Revolution was for nothing. If we are unable to supervise what deals they are striking behind closed doors, you can be sure those deals will be in their interest, not ours.

+1 Duk

[patches70]

What the hell? There are already plenty of laws concerning this. The District of Columbia is a one party consent. That means anyone can record any conversation with anyone so long as one party of the conversation (usually the one recording obviously) has consented to being recorded. The consenting person doesn't even have to disclose that the conversation is being recorded. Had what's her name done this in California or 11 other specific states, her ass would have gone to jail because 12 states require all party consent.

So what's her name can't get into trouble for recording her conversations with what's his name and Trump.
However,

she has two other problems.

First, she signed an NDA and then proceeded to write a book. Now, as far as I can tell, NDA's aren't ironclad, so maybe she can avoid that problem depending on how good her attorney is.
The second problem and this one is a bit more complicated, according to what's her name, she said she recorded Kelly firing her in the Situation Room. The Situation Room is a SCIF and no unauthorized recording devices of any kind are allowed into a SCIF. Ever. SCIF stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. Now I'm not sure what federal laws there are pertaining to SCIF's, but if there are, what's her name might be in a world of shit. She sure as hell ain't Hillary Clinton, so she ain't got no protection if she broke Federal Laws.

But, anyway, if you are having a conversation with the President then you can by all means record it without telling him so long as you aren't in one of the 12 all party consent and as long as they aren't in a all party consent state. For instance, if the President calls you from California, your ass better not record unless you get his consent first. The Supreme Court was very clear on this, in conversations where parties are in different states where one of the states is all party consent and the other is not, the more strict all party consent laws apply. Oh, and don't bring recording devices into secure areas, or sign NDA's and then break them, cause that's just going to cause headaches down the road.
But for the most party, yeah, you can record the president, hell you can record your conversation with any mother fucker you want for the most part, in most states, and it's all legal smegal.

[Symmetry]

What the hell? There are already plenty of laws concerning this. The District of Columbia is a one party consent. That means anyone can record any conversation with anyone so long as one party of the conversation (usually the one recording obviously) has consented to being recorded. The consenting person doesn't even have to disclose that the conversation is being recorded. Had what's her name done this in California or 11 other specific states, her ass would have gone to jail because 12 states require all party consent.

So what's her name can't get into trouble for recording her conversations with what's his name and Trump.
However,

she has two other problems.

First, she signed an NDA and then proceeded to write a book. Now, as far as I can tell, NDA's aren't ironclad, so maybe she can avoid that problem depending on how good her attorney is.
The second problem and this one is a bit more complicated, according to what's her name, she said she recorded Kelly firing her in the Situation Room. The Situation Room is a SCIF and no unauthorized recording devices of any kind are allowed into a SCIF. Ever. SCIF stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. Now I'm not sure what federal laws there are pertaining to SCIF's, but if there are, what's her name might be in a world of shit. She sure as hell ain't Hillary Clinton, so she ain't got no protection if she broke Federal Laws.

But, anyway, if you are having a conversation with the President then you can by all means record it without telling him so long as you aren't in one of the 12 all party consent and as long as they aren't in a all party consent state. For instance, if the President calls you from California, your ass better not record unless you get his consent first. The Supreme Court was very clear on this, in conversations where parties are in different states where one of the states is all party consent and the other is not, the more strict all party consent laws apply. Oh, and don't bring recording devices into secure areas, or sign NDA's and then break them, cause that's just going to cause headaches down the road.
But for the most party, yeah, you can record the president, hell you can record your conversation with any mother fucker you want for the most part, in most states, and it's all legal smegal.

Trump NDAs can’t silence ex-White House officials: legal experts

Money quote:

The NDAs, as described by the Post, contain an essential constitutional flaw. White House employees don’t work for President Trump. They work for the United States, so the U.S. is the supposed beneficiary of the non-disclosure agreements.

The U.S., and not President Trump, would also be responsible for enforcing the agreements, said law professors Heidi Kitrosser of the University of Minnesota and Mark Fenster of the University of Florida. But the First Amendment protects people against government restrictions on free speech. “These NDAs strike me as clearly unconstitutional under the First Amendment,” said Kitrosser.

“A public employee,” added Fenster, “can’t be forced to sign away the right to speak.”

Trump doesn't understand that he's a public servant. He thinks that the people serve him.

[Symmetry]

The President of the United States is constantly in meetings, attending events and calling and being called by members of Congress, military leaders and and endless number of Alphabet Agencies.

No.

+1

Also, it's laughable that HR thinks Trump is constantly in important meetings.

https://trumpgolfcount.com/

[thegreekdog]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Omorosa should be taping conversations in the situation room. But I also go back to "how did Omorosa get into the situation room."

My personal point of view is that certain national security matters should be sacrosanct because I do think we should not harm our own soldiers or our own self-interested operations. But other than that, I want to know (and think we have the right to know) everything else.

[Symmetry]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Omorosa should be taping conversations in the situation room. But I also go back to "how did Omorosa get into the situation room."

My personal point of view is that certain national security matters should be sacrosanct because I do think we should not harm our own soldiers or our own self-interested operations. But other than that, I want to know (and think we have the right to know) everything else.

Yup, plus, what the hell is Kelly doing threatening people in the Situation Room? He comes out of this looking bad.

1) He's clearly abusing the security of the situation room. Its secrecy is for national security, not for making threats against people you're firing.
2) He's incompetent. He clearly let a disgruntled staffer into one of the most secure rooms in the US with a recording device.
3) He carried out his threat. The smear campaign against Manigault is very much underway from the White House.
4) His boss now looks like a fool for hiring both of them.

This whole shtick of Manigault threatening national security by recording her own firing? Utter nonsense. Kelly is the one to be wary of.

[thegreekdog]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Omorosa should be taping conversations in the situation room. But I also go back to "how did Omorosa get into the situation room."

My personal point of view is that certain national security matters should be sacrosanct because I do think we should not harm our own soldiers or our own self-interested operations. But other than that, I want to know (and think we have the right to know) everything else.

Yup, plus, what the hell is Kelly doing threatening people in the Situation Room? He comes out of this looking bad.

1) He's clearly abusing the security of the situation room. Its secrecy is for national security, not for making threats against people you're firing.
2) He's incompetent. He clearly let a disgruntled staffer into one of the most secure rooms in the US with a recording device.
3) He carried out his threat. The smear campaign against Manigault is very much underway from the White House.
4) His boss now looks like a fool for hiring both of them.

This whole shtick of Manigault threatening national security by recording her own firing? Utter nonsense. Kelly is the one to be wary of.

I don't think he looks bad abusing power (frankly, I would guess lots of people that get jobs in the White House enjoy having power over others). I do think he looks bad in bringing a reality show contestant into the situation room period. I'm not sure how the president can look more foolish than he already does; that ultimately does not seem to matter. I have not seen any appreciable difference negatively in polling since he began his presidency.

[mookiemcgee]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Omorosa should be taping conversations in the situation room. But I also go back to "how did Omorosa get into the situation room."

My personal point of view is that certain national security matters should be sacrosanct because I do think we should not harm our own soldiers or our own self-interested operations. But other than that, I want to know (and think we have the right to know) everything else.

Yup, plus, what the hell is Kelly doing threatening people in the Situation Room? He comes out of this looking bad.

1) He's clearly abusing the security of the situation room. Its secrecy is for national security, not for making threats against people you're firing.
2) He's incompetent. He clearly let a disgruntled staffer into one of the most secure rooms in the US with a recording device.
3) He carried out his threat. The smear campaign against Manigault is very much underway from the White House.
4) His boss now looks like a fool for hiring both of them.

This whole shtick of Manigault threatening national security by recording her own firing? Utter nonsense. Kelly is the one to be wary of.

I do think he looks bad in bringing a reality show contestant into the situation room period.

... you do realize Trump was the reality show host? But I'm in favor of him being banned from the situation room along side of her.

[thegreekdog]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Omorosa should be taping conversations in the situation room. But I also go back to "how did Omorosa get into the situation room."

My personal point of view is that certain national security matters should be sacrosanct because I do think we should not harm our own soldiers or our own self-interested operations. But other than that, I want to know (and think we have the right to know) everything else.

Yup, plus, what the hell is Kelly doing threatening people in the Situation Room? He comes out of this looking bad.

1) He's clearly abusing the security of the situation room. Its secrecy is for national security, not for making threats against people you're firing.
2) He's incompetent. He clearly let a disgruntled staffer into one of the most secure rooms in the US with a recording device.
3) He carried out his threat. The smear campaign against Manigault is very much underway from the White House.
4) His boss now looks like a fool for hiring both of them.

This whole shtick of Manigault threatening national security by recording her own firing? Utter nonsense. Kelly is the one to be wary of.

I do think he looks bad in bringing a reality show contestant into the situation room period.

... you do realize Trump was the reality show host? But I'm in favor of him being banned from the situation room along side of her.

I do realize that, yes. I voted for him a grand total of zero times but unfortunately I cannot control the votes of others.

[patches70]

Well, what's her name has just hit problem #1 I said above. The Trump campaign just filed a lawsuit today going after her for breaking her NDA. It's a good thing she has a book out, cause she'll need that money just to defend herself for breaking the NDA.

Will the hammer fall for the second problem she might have? I suppose we'll see eventually.

Now forget about the stuff about how she shouldn't be held to the NDA, or that Trump isn't supposed to use them or not. It doesn't matter if she's held for damages or not, even if eventually the court finds that she could legally break the NDA, all that's irrelevant. She'll still have to hire lawyers, pay lawyers and go to court, and it costs money. It just is what it is. I'm not advocating for or against I'm just pointing out the reality.

I'm assuming that she's taken into account all this, or at least I hope she has, and has done cost benefit studies to show that she'll come out ahead no matter what in the end. And that just may be the case, she's getting a lot of publicity and such and that might translate into future earnings. But it's a lesson, don't sign NDA's, non compete agreements and such without understanding fully the consequences breaching such contracts.
Unless you are a protected elite like Hillary Clinton of course, when you are at that level you are pretty much above the law. Omarosa ain't at that level though. So I hope she's thought this through because the die is cast now.

[notyou2]

Well, what's her name has just hit problem #1 I said above. The Trump campaign just filed a lawsuit today going after her for breaking her NDA. It's a good thing she has a book out, cause she'll need that money just to defend herself for breaking the NDA.

Will the hammer fall for the second problem she might have? I suppose we'll see eventually.

Now forget about the stuff about how she shouldn't be held to the NDA, or that Trump isn't supposed to use them or not. It doesn't matter if she's held for damages or not, even if eventually the court finds that she could legally break the NDA, all that's irrelevant. She'll still have to hire lawyers, pay lawyers and go to court, and it costs money. It just is what it is. I'm not advocating for or against I'm just pointing out the reality.

I'm assuming that she's taken into account all this, or at least I hope she has, and has done cost benefit studies to show that she'll come out ahead no matter what in the end. And that just may be the case, she's getting a lot of publicity and such and that might translate into future earnings. But it's a lesson, don't sign NDA's, non compete agreements and such without understanding fully the consequences breaching such contracts.
Unless you are a protected elite like Hillary Clinton of course, when you are at that level you are pretty much above the law. Omarosa ain't at that level though. So I hope she's thought this through because the die is cast now.

Pretty sure a GoFundMe would garner lots of support

[Neoteny]

What if the P tape and the N- tape were the same tape?

[patches70]

Pretty sure a GoFundMe would garner lots of support

Hey, that is a possibility, without a doubt.