I find it impossible to believe there was a bug in the office, as they hired experts to search for one and found none. I find it much easier to believe that not everyone in the room was as fond of McConnell as he might expect. He’s an extremely unlikeable guy, unless maybe if you have a fetish for guys who look like giant tortoises. It shows what a despicable prick this guy is and displays his total eagerness to take the low road in the campaign. Now he’s not only alienated women, he’s shat in the face of anyone who has ever sought treatment for depression.
Eh, McConnell hardly speaks during the tape, and doesn’t say anything about Judd being a woman or mentally ill. The person giving the presentation briefly mentions Judd’s mental illness (it would be a pretty crappy oppo-researcher that didn’t), but its not the focus of the presentation, and it’s done in a closed door meeting. There isn’t really much there there. If someone meant it as an attack on McConnell, it was a pretty weak effort.
I’m thinking a disgruntled staffer and Judd does not appear to be stable. Absolutely legitimate to bring that up,when someone is trying to get a job of governing people.
To see if Congressional staffers were participating in campaign work?
As a factual matter, most government employees can engage in political activity so long as they aren’t being paid by the government to do so, or using government resources for electioneering. The whole room could have been filled with congressional staff, and so long as they weren’t being paid by the government for their time, there is no issue.
So starting an investigation into who was in the room would seem to be a fishing expedition to me. I am still curious if that is what BG was driving at…
Why would they investigate the source? Very awkward for them if they should actually find it.
The only reason that the FBI is bothering to check it out is as a courtesy to McConnell. If the Senate Minority Leader requests that the FBI investigates, then I think it should. Sucks to be him when they confirm no outside involvement.
They should investigate it because McConnell says he believes it was the result of someone bugging his office, bugging a Senators office is a federal crime, and the FBI investigates federal crimes. Not sure if that’s “awkward” or not (guess it depends who did the taping).
And you didn’t answer the question.
Because it seems plausible that a crime might have been committed. A conversation appears to have been covertly recorded, which the Federal Wiretap Act seems to prohibit. There’s no evidence at this point that anyone consented to the recording – that may be inferred, but if nobody did consent, then it seems quite likely that a crime did occur.
I wish you would just explain what it is that you’re driving at, as to why it is “curious” that the FBI isn’t investigating the content. Why would you expect them to investigate the content? What crime do you think they’d be trying to establish happen, or did not happen? And what do you mean “awkward?”
Is it really so difficult to explain yourself?
And what then? Actually arrest/indict such person, under these circumstances? “Controversial” does not even begin to cover it; the majority will sympathize with the suspect. Very awkward for the FBI.
Even more awkward for McConnell – he should be wanting this whole thing just to blow over and be forgotten; and a whole new news-story with a previously-unreported person’s name in it, and a high-profile trial coming up, only prolongs the matter’s presence in the public mind. He has played right into the Streisand Effect.
Was in jest, of course. The point of it being that, certainly, the content of what McConnell or his aides said on that tape is not illegal or actionable – but, it is rather more incriminating, in the broader-than-legal sense of that term (i.e., the sense that really counts in politics), than the actions of the bugger.
So having a meeting to discuss how to respond to a possible future opponent is “incriminating”? Does this apply to all politicians, or only Republicans?
Regards,
Shodan
If a third party really bugged the office of a US Senator, I don’t think many people would find that sympathetic.
Did you read the transcript. McConnell barely says anything in it. What specifically do you think he said that was incriminating, even in a non-legal sense.
To all depending on content. In this particular instance, the content is the sort of thing that I strongly suspect one would be somewhat more likely to hear at a Pub candidate’s strategy-meeting than a Dem’s.
People will think of Mitt Romney’s “47%” remark being surreptitiously recorded by Scott Prouty, who in the public mind is still the hero of that story, and Romney not a victim. Legally distinguishable situation, perhaps, but that matters little for purposes of public sympathy.
Well, it’s not what McConnell says but what his aides said (with McConnell sitting there listening, and not at any point even jumping in to say “Shame on you! We don’t do that!”), that is incriminating in the sense of being very extremely embarrassing (and, at this stage in our history, tending to reinforce stereotyped negative impressions of Republican pols in general).
These are neither good nor honest people – and that is the most important impression the public will get from this story.
So you are saying that Republicans are more likely to hold meetings where they discuss strategy against a possible opponent who is a crackpot? No doubt you are correct, but they would have to, wouldn’t they?
Regards,
Shodan
A cynical and dishonest smear campaign against an opponent? Slightly more likely.
I think bugging an office to record a private meeting in an office will get far less public sympathy then someone who simply records a speech on their phone.
OK, that’s not what you said. You said that McConnell had said something incriminating, not that he was simply in the room when something offensive was said. The difference isn’t trivial.
But in any case, even what the Oppo researcher said wasn’t particularly offensive. Judd does have mental health problems, it’d be kinda ridiculous for McConnell’s people to pretend to totally ignore that even behind closed doors.
Uh, cracking jokes about a candidate who, apparently by her own admission, exhibits psychological distress over fuzzy socks, isn’t a smear campaign. Accusing McCain of having a black baby out of wedlock is a smear campaign.
I think that most Americans would have trouble voting for a candidate who seems to have made a fair number of odd, concerning, or disparaging remarks about one’s country, state, and mental health. I don’t think there’s any secret campaign code of protection for candidates who have trouble dealing with stress, don’t feel at home in this country, insult their home states, or sometimes act a little whackadoodle. If we fellow BG’s argument just a skootch further, we arrive at the Truman maxim about how mental deficients deserve representation in government (or however that phrase went).
I don’t see anything cynical or dishonest in the transcript.
Put it this way - which of the topics allegedly discussed would be off limits if applied to a Republican?
Regards,
Shodan
How attractive is the Republican?