Posted on 03/09/2024 1:33:04 PM PST by Macho MAGA Man
On Thursday Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist confirmed our reporting from February last year.
A new book from Mike Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman admits that a widely misunderstood phone call, on which Willis’ political prosecution rests, was illegally recorded. That means the entire prosecution could crumble with defendants having a new avenue to challenge Democrat lawfare.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
“ This should be grounds to blow the case by Fanni Willis out of the water.”
Along with a few dozen other reasons.
I’m sure the whole “fruit of a poison tree” doctrine will be rejected in this case, just as the “statute of limitations” doctrine was tossed in the garbage to enable E Jean Carroll’s preposterous rape case against Trump to go forward in New York State.
IMO, this one man is the prime person who should be in actual PRISON for what he did in helping Democrats cheat that election. Life sentence.
A new book from Mike Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman admits that a widely propagated phone
call made by Trump, on which Fani Willis’ political prosecution rests, was illegally recorded.
Ga’s Brad Raffensperger’s Office Committed a Crime in Jan. 2021 by recording
Trump’s Phone Call in Florida which has restrictions on recording phone calls.
I call him Ratburger.
He was personally responsible for the Georgia steal and the coverup of the steal.
I’d need more than a broad claim like this to buy the story. Georgia is a one party state. So the only way it would be illegal is if the SoS didn’t know it was recorded. Which is possible, but needs some facts to support it. And none of the excerpts I’ve seen posted on FR have provided the additional facts.
OK, if the recording was done in Florida, there could be support for that, and criminal prosecution of the perp in that state.
Dismiss, fruit of the poisonous tree.
Indeed. He is a complete criminal in my book.
Rule of law?
Are you joking?
When will Brad The RAT go to Prison?
What does that have to do with whether or not the phone call was illegally recorded? Your assertion makes no sense.
This should send Brad Raffensperger up the river.
He illegally recorded the call.
He lied in his notes as to what Trump said.
He deleted the illegally recorded call. However, he left it in his trash bin and it was recovered.
He is the China connection and reason for the Dominion voting machines.
I agree.
We need more information.
Of course Raffensperger can say nothing about this, or else.
Legal opinion from a Charlotte NC attorney. Re: Recording phone conversations over multiple states.
“In North Carolina, only one party has to consent to the recording or disclosure of communications. That means you can agree, to yourself, to record your conversation with a person who is in North Carolina, and you do not need that person’s consent to record the conversation. If the person on the other end of your call is in another state, however, you may need that person’s consent to record the conversation, depending on the wiretapping laws of that state.”
This opens up a hornets nest.
There are 11 states that require two-party consent. In other words, every individual involved in a conversation must be made aware (and agree to) the recording of the phone call. Those states are California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
Pro tip: don’t let the phrase “two-party” throw you. If there are five people on a call, you would need five permissions. The “two” in “two-party” moreso acts as the opposite of the “one” in “one-party.”
If it was recorded in Georgia, it was legal. If it was recorded in Florida, it was illegal. But even then, one would need to do research into Georgia law to see if it would be excluded. Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001) might also come into play. (That case involved a third party who intercepted a cell call illegally and provided it to a reporter).
Georgia law doesn’t require that the recording be made in Georgia, just that one party consented. Interesting legal issue that may not have yet been addressed.
Ransom v. Ransom 253 Ga 656 (1985) does give a broad reading to the statute (but see the dissent) but is not clearly on point.
If you have any good legal authority for the assertions made in the thread, I’d be interested in seeing them and am happy to revise my views based on any controlling legal authority, and at least re-visit them based on persuasive legal authority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.