Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Oops--the turtle is flipped on his back. Those tapes of him and his staff bad-mouthing Ashley Judd also show that he may have used his staff illegally to go after her. Maybe calling the FBI wasn't such a bright idea after all   (motherjones.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Ashley Judd, Mitch McConnell, FBI, Senate, state property, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee  
•       •       •

6304 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Apr 2013 at 1:22 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



251 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-10 11:54:46 AM  
What an idiot.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-10 12:01:25 PM  
t1.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-10 12:01:39 PM  
Saw this on the news last night. I love how he got all upset when caught using his own tactics against him.
 
2013-04-10 12:03:40 PM  
$5 bucks says the source of the leak was one of the legislative aides.
 
2013-04-10 12:04:31 PM  
I love how he brings up Nixon in the audio clip and quickly calls to end the topic when he realizes what he just said.
 
2013-04-10 12:04:46 PM  
McConnell's staff will rely on...

marcustutt.files.wordpress.com

"We were all being assholes on our own time"
 
2013-04-10 12:08:05 PM  
Absolutely nothing will happen to Mitch McConnell.
 
2013-04-10 12:08:14 PM  
You know who else withdrew into his shell when he realized the tables had turned?
 
2013-04-10 12:09:50 PM  
I can't imagine that this thread will devolve into an "attack the messenger" brigade against MoJo.  Certainly we'll all be looking at the substance of this article.
 
2013-04-10 12:09:58 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Absolutely nothing will happen to Mitch McConnell.


No, but it's still amusing to watch him put on the Acme rocket skates.
 
2013-04-10 12:10:43 PM  
Considering that everyone looks the other way about using staff for personal reasons, I seriously doubt that any ethics charges will be brought against him.
 
2013-04-10 12:11:18 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Absolutely nothing will happen to Mitch McConnell.


Why do you say that? This is a pretty gross violation of ethics.
 
2013-04-10 12:11:51 PM  

vpb: [t1.gstatic.com image 259x194]


Yep.
 
2013-04-10 12:12:37 PM  
images59.fotki.com

So far, the only news to come out of this is that McConnell's a giant prick.

Which isn't exactly "news."
 
2013-04-10 12:14:58 PM  

ginandbacon: Soup4Bonnie: Absolutely nothing will happen to Mitch McConnell.

Why do you say that? This is a pretty gross violation of ethics.


There are rules for how evidence is obtained, and the fifth amendment does apply to people in this situation.  This is politically sticky, because perception is important regardless of court-of-law findings, but ultimately it would be difficult for Senate Ethics to get a real case against him.  These staffers and LAs know that if they roll over on Senator McConnell, they're finished in DC.  And the person that did the recording has probably violated wiretap laws... this isn't video of a public event, this was discreet audio recording of a closed-door meeting.
 
2013-04-10 12:15:36 PM  
Wow. He's that worried about Ashley Judd?
 
2013-04-10 12:16:27 PM  
McConnell: his head and legs withdrawn, his lettuce wilted
 
2013-04-10 12:19:43 PM  

factoryconnection: ginandbacon: Soup4Bonnie: Absolutely nothing will happen to Mitch McConnell.

Why do you say that? This is a pretty gross violation of ethics.

There are rules for how evidence is obtained, and the fifth amendment does apply to people in this situation.  This is politically sticky, because perception is important regardless of court-of-law findings, but ultimately it would be difficult for Senate Ethics to get a real case against him.  These staffers and LAs know that if they roll over on Senator McConnell, they're finished in DC.  And the person that did the recording has probably violated wiretap laws... this isn't video of a public event, this was discreet audio recording of a closed-door meeting.


Yup. It depends on Kentucky's laws on wiretapping and recording. If the law says only one party needs to know it's legal, but if both parties need to know, it's just court of public opinion.
 
2013-04-10 12:20:23 PM  
Ashley Judd should just say "F*ck it, I'm in" and crush him like a bug.
Think she can't win? Sorry to break it to you, but elections are popularity contests.
If Jesse "The Body" Ventura and Ah-nold can win, she can easily win. She's hotter than both of them.
 
2013-04-10 12:20:26 PM  

ginandbacon: Soup4Bonnie: Absolutely nothing will happen to Mitch McConnell.
Why do you say that? This is a pretty gross violation of ethics.


But one that a substantial percentage of his Congressional colleagues also engage in (albeit generally without being dumb enough to do it so obviously that they get caught).
 
2013-04-10 12:22:23 PM  

factoryconnection: ginandbacon: Soup4Bonnie: Absolutely nothing will happen to Mitch McConnell.

Why do you say that? This is a pretty gross violation of ethics.

There are rules for how evidence is obtained, and the fifth amendment does apply to people in this situation.  This is politically sticky, because perception is important regardless of court-of-law findings, but ultimately it would be difficult for Senate Ethics to get a real case against him.  These staffers and LAs know that if they roll over on Senator McConnell, they're finished in DC.  And the person that did the recording has probably violated wiretap laws... this isn't video of a public event, this was discreet audio recording of a closed-door meeting.


"Official resources of the House must, as a general rule, be used for the performance of official business of the House, and hence those resources may not be used for campaign or political purposes.  The laws and rules referenced in this section reflect "the basic principle that government funds should not be spent to help incumbents gain reelection." Link. This is a pretty big no-no.
 
2013-04-10 12:24:04 PM  

Bontesla: Wow. He's that worried about Ashley Judd?


He would be more worried if she would have married a NASCAR driver instead of an Indy driver.
 
2013-04-10 12:26:11 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-10 12:27:16 PM  

Cyberluddite: ginandbacon: Soup4Bonnie: Absolutely nothing will happen to Mitch McConnell.
Why do you say that? This is a pretty gross violation of ethics.

But one that a substantial percentage of his Congressional colleagues also engage in (albeit generally without being dumb enough to do it so obviously that they get caught).


Yeah um I don't think that's true. Most people are pretty careful to keep their campaign activities very separate from their congressional activities. If McConnell asked his staff to do this during normal office hours, he's in deep doo-doo.
 
2013-04-10 12:28:10 PM  

Bontesla: Wow. He's that worried about Ashley Judd?


Ironically, he may have broken the law because of Judd Dread.
 
2013-04-10 12:29:05 PM  

whither_apophis: Yup. It depends on Kentucky's laws on wiretapping and recording. If the law says only one party needs to know it's legal, but if both parties need to know, it's just court of public opinion.


Kentucky is a one party state. That means if it was someone in the room. which it most likely was, then no wire tapping law was broken and , yeah.....
 
2013-04-10 12:29:58 PM  

ginandbacon: "Official resources of the House must, as a general rule, be used for the performance of official business of the House, and hence those resources may not be used for campaign or political purposes.  The laws and rules referenced in this section reflect "the basic principle that government funds should not be spent to help incumbents gain reelection." Link. This is a pretty big no-no.


I certainly hope Senator Mitch McConnell did misuse House resources.  That might be interesting.
 
2013-04-10 12:32:26 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: ginandbacon: "Official resources of the House must, as a general rule, be used for the performance of official business of the House, and hence those resources may not be used for campaign or political purposes.  The laws and rules referenced in this section reflect "the basic principle that government funds should not be spent to help incumbents gain reelection." Link. This is a pretty big no-no.

I certainly hope Senator Mitch McConnell did misuse House resources.  That might be interesting.


Right?
 
2013-04-10 12:33:37 PM  
People actually believe politicians are accountable when they break the law?

That's cute.
 
2013-04-10 12:35:39 PM  

factoryconnection: ginandbacon: Soup4Bonnie: Absolutely nothing will happen to Mitch McConnell.

Why do you say that? This is a pretty gross violation of ethics.

There are rules for how evidence is obtained, and the fifth amendment does apply to people in this situation.  This is politically sticky, because perception is important regardless of court-of-law findings, but ultimately it would be difficult for Senate Ethics to get a real case against him.  These staffers and LAs know that if they roll over on Senator McConnell, they're finished in DC.  And the person that did the recording has probably violated wiretap laws... this isn't video of a public event, this was discreet audio recording of a closed-door meeting.


Recording a live conversation is not wiretapping. Wiretapping involves interception of communications that are carried via phone, computer, etc. Typically the laws concerning wiretapping differ from those concerning live recordings.
 
2013-04-10 12:37:09 PM  

Cyberluddite: ginandbacon: Soup4Bonnie: Absolutely nothing will happen to Mitch McConnell.
Why do you say that? This is a pretty gross violation of ethics.

But one that a substantial percentage of his Congressional colleagues also engage in (albeit generally without being dumb enough to do it so obviously that they get caught).


I'm not sure how true that is, though undoubtedly he's not the only one.

But going after McConnell (who despite - or because of -  his position, isn't particularly well-liked) could shore up their own image with regard to ethics.
 
2013-04-10 12:37:22 PM  

ginandbacon: Yeah um I don't think that's true. Most people are pretty careful to keep their campaign activities very separate from their congressional activities. If McConnell asked his staff to do this during normal office hours, he's in deep doo-doo.


That's the law, and I wish people followed it.  But based on what I've seen--not from the inside, but from dealing directly with them from the outside--a significant number of them consider themselves to be above that pesky law.
 
2013-04-10 12:38:29 PM  

ginandbacon: Right?


Indeed.  Which House of Representatives "resources" do you think the good Senator misused?
 
2013-04-10 12:39:58 PM  

cretinbob: whither_apophis: Yup. It depends on Kentucky's laws on wiretapping and recording. If the law says only one party needs to know it's legal, but if both parties need to know, it's just court of public opinion.

Kentucky is a one party state. That means if it was someone in the room. which it most likely was, then no wire tapping law was broken and , yeah.....


The Federal government also has the same law on the books.  If the person was invited to the meeting, McConnell is SOL.
 
2013-04-10 12:41:16 PM  

ginandbacon: This is a pretty big no-no.


I'm not questioning that, however it must be proven and I think that evidence/testimony will be difficult to come by for the reasons I stated.

kronicfeld: Recording a live conversation is not wiretapping. Wiretapping involves interception of communications that are carried via phone, computer, etc. Typically the laws concerning wiretapping differ from those concerning live recordings.


That depends on the applicable consent laws:

cretinbob: Kentucky is a one party state. That means if it was someone in the room. which it most likely was, then no wire tapping law was broken and , yeah.....


Okay, that is significant.  However, they'd still need to have someone out themselves as the recorder ASSUMING it was someone that was party to the conversation.  Again, that would sink that staffer's political career and, yeah, these are working stiffs that like getting a paycheck for that mortgage and groceries and child-raising expenses thing.

If it is from a bug, then no, no, no... that has to be inadmissable and, in fact criminal.
 
2013-04-10 12:42:56 PM  

neritz: If the person was invited to the meeting, McConnell is SOL.


If it can be validated, and unless that can be done without "outing the submitter," so to speak, I'm doubtful it will be.  Legally safe and occupationally safe are two different things.
 
2013-04-10 12:43:15 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: ginandbacon: Right?

Indeed.  Which House of Representatives "resources" do you think the good Senator misused?


His staff.
 
2013-04-10 12:44:27 PM  

ginandbacon: Soup4Bonnie: ginandbacon: Right?

Indeed.  Which House of Representatives "resources" do you think the good Senator misused?

His staff.


What?  A sex scandal too?
 
2013-04-10 12:45:38 PM  

factoryconnection: If it is from a bug, then no, no, no... that has to be inadmissable and, in fact criminal.


Not necessarily. If someone in the room knew the bug was there and consented to it, it's still legal. The person doesn't have to sit there with a recorder in their hand.

I can record a conversation of you and your friends by taking control of your computer microphone, let's say. If I get your consent, no problem. If I don't then I'm in trouble. I do not have to be in the room. I just have to have permission of one person who is a part of the conversation.

But yeah, It's not exactly Benghazi now , is it?
 
2013-04-10 12:48:29 PM  

factoryconnection: Okay, that is significant.  However, they'd still need to have someone out themselves as the recorder ASSUMING it was someone that was party to the conversation.  Again, that would sink that staffer's political career and, yeah, these are working stiffs that like getting a paycheck for that mortgage and groceries and child-raising expenses thing.


Would they need to have someone step forward? I mean, if one assumes it was recorded by a staff member, then it would be impossible to prove anyone "bugged" his office, since that's not what happened. If they can't prove that, what would be the next step? Would the FBI say, "There is no evidence to suggest a third party bugged McConnell's office" and the case would be dropped? Can Mitch compel them to try to find out who was the person recording it?

Although, if someone did record this and leaked it to MJ, then they had to know there was a risk of them being discovered, and decided it was worth that risk. So maybe they would step forward. Doubtful, but I wouldn't be shocked.
 
2013-04-10 12:52:31 PM  
Did he tweet a pic of his package? No..
Then he'll be fine
 
2013-04-10 12:52:42 PM  

factoryconnection: That depends on the applicable consent laws:


Perusing what I assume to be Kentucky's statutes on the subject, which are just delightfully broad and vague, "eavesdropping" appears to be a crime whether the recorded communication is an oral or wire communication, unless one party to the communication consents. How KY applies that to a multi-party meeting in which people are communicating back and forth I have no idea, but it's not unreasonable to believe that if the person recording is a participant in or at least an invitee to the meeting, that person is a party who can consent to the recording and satisfy the statute.
 
2013-04-10 12:55:02 PM  

KingKauff: Saw this on the news last night. I love how he got all upset when caught using his own tactics against him.


Thing is, even if he did break the ethics rules nothing wil happen to him.
 
2013-04-10 12:57:40 PM  

antidisestablishmentarianism: Bontesla: Wow. He's that worried about Ashley Judd?

He would be more worried if she would have married a NASCAR driver instead of an Indy driver.


They're divorced/separated anyway.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-10 12:59:38 PM  
Can you even suppress evidence in a Senate ethics hearing?  It's not like this would be a criminal trial in the federal court system.
 
2013-04-10 01:01:51 PM  

vpb: Can you even suppress evidence in a Senate ethics hearing?  It's not like this would be a criminal trial in the federal court system.


Unless a senator is caught on live national television committing murder...they can essentially break whatever laws they feel like and not worry about consequences.
 
2013-04-10 01:02:41 PM  
looks like subby doesn't understand what the word "illegally" means.

Figures, blame the victim.
 
2013-04-10 01:03:49 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: looks like subby doesn't understand what the word "illegally" means.


Much like "illegal" immigrants, right?
 
2013-04-10 01:04:26 PM  

kronicfeld: factoryconnection: That depends on the applicable consent laws:

Perusing what I assume to be Kentucky's statutes on the subject, which are just delightfully broad and vague, "eavesdropping" appears to be a crime whether the recorded communication is an oral or wire communication, unless one party to the communication consents. How KY applies that to a multi-party meeting in which people are communicating back and forth I have no idea, but it's not unreasonable to believe that if the person recording is a participant in or at least an invitee to the meeting, that person is a party who can consent to the recording and satisfy the statute.


while I am sure that the laws are probably INSANE, in reality, you can not eavesdrop on a conversation which you are part of.
Having a recording of you conversation is only one step above making a written record of the conversation after the fact. It is certainly legal for you to tell others what was said in a meeting. The recording only makes it verifiable.

It would be funny if the soon to be outed person, went on the record with the media.
"Yes, I was in the meeting, I can verify that that recording is accurate. It is exactly as I remember."

All that the turtle can do is "complain" that someone recorded his being an asshole. LOL

/yes, I know ... the law might treat the recording differently. but in the court of public opinion, the turtle would just look stupid and petty. GET THE FBI ON IT!!! LOLOLOL
 
2013-04-10 01:04:33 PM  

Aarontology: People actually believe politicians are accountable when they break the law?

That's cute.


1.  He didn't break any laws. How cute that you don't understand that.
2.  But you are right, Rangel is still in office so we don't think that Dems are accountable.
 
Displayed 50 of 251 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report