CNN has reported Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe to police

[bripat9643]

Federal law requires at least one party consent.

Federal? New York state has no say? Georgia has no say?

Why don't you post the federal law that you think backs your claim?

18 U.S.C. § 2511 - U.S. Code Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 2511 | FindLaw

(e)  (i) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, intercepted by means authorized by sections 2511(2)(a)(ii) , 2511(2)(b)-(c) , 2511(2)(e) , 2516 , and 2518 of this chapter, (ii) knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, (iii) having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and (iv) with intent to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation, ​

Nope, no banana, dumbass.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Federal law requires at least one party consent.

Federal? New York state has no say? Georgia has no say?

Why don't you post the federal law that you think backs your claim?

18 U.S.C. § 2511 - U.S. Code Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 2511 | FindLaw

Looks like this makes it legal.
The person who gave him the code to the conference call gave him permission.

 

[Winston]

Federal law requires at least one party consent.

Federal? New York state has no say? Georgia has no say?

Why don't you post the federal law that you think backs your claim?

18 U.S.C. § 2511 - U.S. Code Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 2511 | FindLaw

s

(e)  (i) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, intercepted by means authorized by sections 2511(2)(a)(ii) , 2511(2)(b)-(c) , 2511(2)(e) , 2516 , and 2518 of this chapter, (ii) knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, (iii) having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and (iv) with intent to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation, ​

Nope, no banana, dumbass.

s

Seriously, what criminal activity is CNN involved in. I mean I swear, you are beyond stupid.

 

[Crepitus]

I remember when the left used to protect whistle blowers. Now they persecute them.

James O'Queef is not a whistle blower.

 

[MarathonMike]

It's about time this purveyor of fake news and made up stories gets his ass handed to him...with prejudice.
And I'm not sure what's so scandalous about any of this?

Purveyor of fake news? You may not like it that he unmasks organizations corrupted by Democrats but there is no way it is fake. He just records what they say and do.

 

[bripat9643]

I remember when the left used to protect whistle blowers. Now they persecute them.

James O'Queef is not a whistle blower.

He sure as hell is, dumbfuck.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I don't care about anything right-wing criminals posing as journalists have to say.....

 

[Thoth001]

These are the same fake news drones who defend the "defund the police" movement. He "spied on them" when he dialed in to a conference.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9007943/CNN-threatens-legal-action-against-Project-Veritas-leaked-clips-Jeff-Zuckers-conferences.html​

​

'Suppression media!': Trump slams CNN over boss Jeff Zucker's hacked conference calls in which he tells staff not to 'normalize Trump's erratic behavior' - as network reports Project Veritas to cops for 'spying on them' ​

​

​

James O'Keefe is doing an amazing job in exposing CNN for what we know it is. Welcome to the downfall and crumbling of the MSM!!

 

[Thoth001]

Federal law requires at least one party consent.

Federal? New York state has no say? Georgia has no say?

Why don't you post the federal law that you think backs your claim?

18 U.S.C. § 2511 - U.S. Code Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 2511 | FindLaw

s

(e)  (i) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, intercepted by means authorized by sections 2511(2)(a)(ii) , 2511(2)(b)-(c) , 2511(2)(e) , 2516 , and 2518 of this chapter, (ii) knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, (iii) having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and (iv) with intent to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation, ​

Nope, no banana, dumbass.

s

Seriously, what criminal activity is CNN involved in. I mean I swear, you are beyond stupid.

Well for one, it is the Communist News Network.

 

[Thoth001]

Federal law requires at least one party consent.

Federal? New York state has no say? Georgia has no say?

Why don't you post the federal law that you think backs your claim?

18 U.S.C. § 2511 - U.S. Code Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 2511 | FindLaw

s

(e)  (i) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, intercepted by means authorized by sections 2511(2)(a)(ii) , 2511(2)(b)-(c) , 2511(2)(e) , 2516 , and 2518 of this chapter, (ii) knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, (iii) having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and (iv) with intent to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation, ​

Nope, no banana, dumbass.

s

Seriously, what criminal activity is CNN involved in. I mean I swear, you are beyond stupid.

Election interference, Propaganda....Although under Obama it was made legal for the MSM to use propaganda.

 

[JoeB131]

I remember when the left used to protect whistle blowers. Now they persecute them.

O'Keefe isn't a whistle-blower. He's a criminal and a liar.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Who the fawk cares where O'Keefe is based. Seriously, do you not know anything about the law?

You don't care about New York law? LOL!

Jurisdiction is determined by where the meeting originated, not where the asshole that secretly taped it is based. I mean damn, you are better than this. Think about it, maybe he could have taped it from Somalia, would that mean the laws of Somalia would apply instead of the laws of Georgia. Damn, but the stupid here is beyond belief.

Jurisdiction is determined by where the meeting originated,

Jurisdiction is determined by where the parties are.

Think about it, maybe he could have taped it from New York, would that mean the laws of New York would apply instead of the laws of Georgia?

Yes.

Damn, but the stupid here is beyond belief.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Wow, you just dropped to the bottom of my respect list. Federal law requires at least one party consent. Sorry, but O'Keefe doesn't even qualify as a party. He did not participate. New York law also requires one party consent. Tell me, what party consented to the recording of the conversation. Georgia, as I have stated, is a one party consent law, tell me what party consented to the recording. And please, don't be stupid and give me the whistleblower bullshit. Whistleblowers, by definition, reveal illegal behavior. Is it illegal to be bias? God, I wish it was. That would really improve our situation.

Honestly, I think this time O'Keefe overloaded his asshole. I hope his ass gets crucified. When he is in Fulton county lockup I hope some big black dude makes him his bitch. Karma is such a wonderful thing.

Jeff Zucker’s CNN got exposed as a corrupt agenda-driven media outlet. No amount of kicking and smearing O’Keefe is going to change that.

 

[Billiejeens]

I remember when the left used to protect whistle blowers. Now they persecute them.

James O'Queef is not a whistle blower.

He sure as hell is, dumbfuck.

He is not a whistle-blower, he is a Journalist
There is no actual whistleblower involved in this story
CNN accidently hired a decent person with a conscience who felt that information about CNN needed to become news itself.
O'Keefe made it news.

 

[Cellblock2429]

It's about time this purveyor of fake news and made up stories gets his ass handed to him...with prejudice.
And I'm not sure what's so scandalous about any of this?

/——/ What’s made up about the tapes?

 

[rightwinger]

OKeefe originated Fake News

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Lt Col Vindman would like a word with you

I'll have a word with him when I drop some coin in his tin cup.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

These are the same fake news drones who defend the "defund the police" movement. He "spied on them" when he dialed in to a conference.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9007943/CNN-threatens-legal-action-against-Project-Veritas-leaked-clips-Jeff-Zuckers-conferences.html​

​

'Suppression media!': Trump slams CNN over boss Jeff Zucker's hacked conference calls in which he tells staff not to 'normalize Trump's erratic behavior' - as network reports Project Veritas to cops for 'spying on them' ​

​

​

I don't think it was just dialing in to the meeting, Bripat. I use Zoom most every day for conferences, meetings, and for classes I initiate. They all show who else is in the Zoom; uninvited guests are easily booted off. Only the host can give a participant permission to record, and Zuckerberg obviously wouldn't have given it to O'Keefe. So the correct wording here is HACKED. Which last I knew was illegal.

So uninformed
He was invited in and given the dial in number
By a (wait for it) whistleblower.

then it's not hacking if someone FW'd the invite to him. the invite may or may not include the password for ease of meeting entry. but again, once there, a participant can't record someone elses meeting UNLESS the admin of the meeting set the option to allow it. maybe he recorded it with an external device and not local.

who knows. but it still seems like a ton of risk to prove something everyone already knows.

Democrats don't know how to run a secure teleconference...surprise, surprise. Another 'hot mic' incident, and liberals are pissed they got caught.....again.

No, the default is that only the host can record. In order for anyone else to record, the host has to make that person a co- host, and that doesn't happen accidentally.

You can record simply by using an app that records what's on your screen.

you still would need to notify the participants as far as i know. in multi-region meetings you usually must assume 2 party consent and ask for permission.

Nope. If the person recording is in a one-party state, the other participants to the call do not need to be notified and consent, even if they are in two party States. At least that's the law in Mississippi, Kansas, and other one-party states that I have litigated cases involving this very issue.

Like I believe you have litigated shit. But if that is the case, can a hacker break into a private business conversation, and since the hacker gives himself permission to record the call in a one-party State, it is legit? Seriously, I can hack into the presidents daily briefing, and I can hack in from a one-party state, I can release classified information without legal repercussions? Come on, impress me, tell me the truth. I mean this shit is getting beyond stupid.

I don't give a shit what you believe, I've litigated cases in federal court in 13 states. Your scenario is ridiculous, as sharing classified information is always against the law. Those CNN calls were not classified information briefings. Also, there's no indication he "hacked" into the call.

 

[Crepitus]

I remember when the left used to protect whistle blowers. Now they persecute them.

James O'Queef is not a whistle blower.

He sure as hell is, dumbfuck.

Nope. Sorry for your luck.

 

[Crepitus]

I remember when the left used to protect whistle blowers. Now they persecute them.

James O'Queef is not a whistle blower.

He sure as hell is, dumbfuck.

He is not a whistle-blower, he is a Journalist
There is no actual whistleblower involved in this story
CNN accidently hired a decent person with a conscience who felt that information about CNN needed to become news itself.
O'Keefe made it news.

He's not a journalist either. They don't create content, they report it. O'Queef makes shit up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I remember when the left used to protect whistle blowers. Now they persecute them.

James O'Queef is not a whistle blower.

He sure as hell is, dumbfuck.

He is not a whistle-blower, he is a Journalist
There is no actual whistleblower involved in this story
CNN accidently hired a decent person with a conscience who felt that information about CNN needed to become news itself.
O'Keefe made it news.

He's not a journalist either. They don't create content, they report it. O'Queef makes shit up.

They don't create content, they report it.

Liar.