McConnell tapped planning on how to Deal with Ashley Judd

[Jarvan]

Ok.. So apparently McConnell was either secretly tapped, or one of his people tapped it to sell.

Either way, they were discussing what they would do if they had a challenge by Ashely Judd.

I read the transcript, and not a single thing in there was a lie. Poor taste, yes., but all political campaigns are in poor taste.

So now the left is up in arms over some of the things they discussed, like her talks of committing suicide, which she admits to, her depression, which she also admits to. Then there is this.. She described having children as selfish, and she thinks it's unconscionable to breed.

They are also made at the laughter.

So.. I take it that Obama's team didn't sit around planning ways to attack Romney? It must also be likely that they had straight faces, and not once were happy that they found some "piece" of info to use.

Frankly, I hope this was an inside job, cause if it was someone bugging their office.. it's going to be interesting.

[diethx]

Sorry, what does Obama and/or Romney have to do with this?

[Latrinsorm]

This was inevitable when we let the person or persons who hacked Congressman Weiner's phone get away.

[Parkbandit]

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/31/why_i_secretly_recorded_mitch_mcconnell/

Hopefully, he's prosecuted to the fullest extent the law provides.

[Sjoldamn]

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/31/why_i_secretly_recorded_mitch_mcconnell/

Hopefully, he's prosecuted to the fullest extent the law provides.

A quick Google search turns up Kentucky as a "single party consent" state. If this recorded meeting was open to the public, then his lawyers simply need to make the case that, as part of the public, he constitutes one side of the conversation. If the meeting was closed to the public, he's screwed.

Kentucky has hidden camera laws, but they specifically refer to the recording of "adult" activities.

[Parkbandit]

A quick Google search turns up Kentucky as a "single party consent" state. If this recorded meeting was open to the public, then his lawyers simply need to make the case that, as part of the public, he constitutes one side of the conversation. If the meeting was closed to the public, he's screwed.

Kentucky has hidden camera laws, but they specifically refer to the recording of "adult" activities.

LOL. You're fucking with us at this point.. right?

[ClydeR]

A quick Google search turns up Kentucky as a "single party consent" state. If this recorded meeting was open to the public, then his lawyers simply need to make the case that, as part of the public, he constitutes one side of the conversation. If the meeting was closed to the public, he's screwed.

Kentucky has hidden camera laws, but they specifically refer to the recording of "adult" activities.

Good work.

The meeting wasn't open to the public. And the article says a U.S. Attorney is bringing the case before a grand jury. That means it's federal law.

And before anybody makes a big case out of it, I'll preemptively let you know that the Kentucky U.S. Attorney was not one of those fired (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy) in 2006 for refusing to bring charges against Democrats right before an election.

[Latrinsorm]

LOL. You're fucking with us at this point.. right?This is an odd response, given that Sjoldamn's post and yours are in agreement.