quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
When assholes collide....

Eeeewwwwww.



On another note, does the legality of making surreptitious recordings in person or on telephone vary by state?

as I recall it does

in some states its two party consent

regardless, he has shown Megyn to be the scheming low-life scum-bitch we all knew she was and she's now been caught lying on the job

I think he might have done us a favor

quote:

Originally posted by rusbro:
Kelly is a run-of-the-mill talking head, which is bad enough. Jones is a destructive, dangerous nutbag. I'm not personally interested in hearing his defense or accusations because he's a worthless POS.

Jones is a terrible human being.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:


On another note, does the legality of making surreptitious recordings in person or on telephone vary by state?

Of course. Most states require both parties to a recording to know they are being recorded. But a significant minority require only one party to a conversation know about the recording. There are some federal laws that apply to phones.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Jones is a loon, but that was a smart move on his part. Something tells me that more people will begin taking such precautions when being interviewed by these deceivers and as a result, the deceivers will have to be much more careful.

I'd say that's a good thing

I cannot fathom being interviewed in today's climate and not making a separate, surreptitious recording.

It certainly helped out VCDL quite a bit with the Katie Couric thing, even though the original lawsuit was dismissed and they are appealing - but simply on face value, their recording proves the false nature of how the interviews they gave were presented in the media.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Jones is a loon, but that was a smart move on his part. Something tells me that more people will begin taking such precautions when being interviewed by these deceivers and as a result, the deceivers will have to be much more careful.

I'd say that's a good thing

I cannot fathom being interviewed in today's climate and not making a separate, surreptitious recording.

It certainly helped out VCDL quite a bit with the Katie Couric thing, even though the original lawsuit was dismissed and they are appealing - but simply on face value, their recording proves the false nature of how the interviews they gave were presented in the media.

Yup, when dealing with the corrupt media, if you must, you got to cover yourself.

quote:

Megyn Kelly to leave Fox for NBC

It will raise the IQ of both.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:


On another note, does the legality of making surreptitious recordings in person or on telephone vary by state?

Of course. Most states require both parties to a recording to know they are being recorded. But a significant minority require only one party to a conversation know about the recording. There are some federal laws that apply to phones.

Since they were already recording their interview of him, wouldn't that count as consent for him to record them or would consent have to be implicitly given if they were in a state that required 2 party consent?

Did the interview occur in Austin? If so, one party.

Looks like she has stuck her foot in it again. Couldn't happen to a more appropriate person!

quote:

Originally posted by Paten:


Since they were already recording their interview of him, wouldn't that count as consent for him to record them or would consent have to be implicitly given if they were in a state that required 2 party consent?

No, that wouldn't be consent. But, I can't imagine they would object. And, the interviewee could make it a condition of granting the interview. Why would you need "implied consent" or make the recording without telling them?

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Paten:


Since they were already recording their interview of him, wouldn't that count as consent for him to record them or would consent have to be implicitly given if they were in a state that required 2 party consent?

No, that wouldn't be consent. But, I can't imagine they would object. And, the interviewee could make it a condition of granting the interview. Why would you need "implied consent" or make the recording without telling them?

If Megyn knew that the other side was recording, I'd expect she'd change some of the lines of questioning, and definitely change how they edited the interview to alter your perception of the answers.

Perhaps by surreptitiously recording other parties Jones broke one or more laws. Regardless of this, the damage is done. Kelly's ambush was still preempted and her conceited comments about being a combination of Oprah Winfrey and Wally Cox or whomever are still out there for all to hear. I don't care for Jones but he won this one.

Wally Cox....there's a name from the archives..

Against my better judgement, I wasted 30 minutes on the video posted on page 7. Unless I missed something, I don't see any kind of justification of a major beef on Jones' part, despite the supposed bombshell 30-minute video with secret recordings of Kelly. Sure, she butters him up and tells him she wants to give a more complete picture of him, but she also says multiple times she's going to ask him about the controversial stuff, and give him a chance to respond. Nothing to the contrary has been proven. Jones griped about how in a teaser for the interview his full reply to a controversial question wasn't shown. Well duh, it's a teaser.

You can rest assured everyone who's ever conducted an interview with a controversial person has told them they want give them a chance to tell their side of the story. Jones knew exactly what he was getting into and now he's just playing the interview up in his typical self-serving bullshit fashion. I'm not making any kind of a larger defense of Kelly, but based on the evidence presented, if she's done anything seriously wrong to Jones, I'm missing it.

As far as I'm concerned, Jones is a special kind of scum, NEVER to be trusted.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: rusbro,

quote:

far as I'm concerned, Jones is a special kind of scum, NEVER to be trusted.

Second only, perhaps, to most of the mainstream media - Megyn Kelly included.

Like Para said, I'm no fan of his or hers but I support what he did and it seems a good thing.

I was gonna say, the fact that he's scum doesn't mean she isn't. Think in terms of a mob of Antifa and a mob of Aryan Nations beating each other to death - no humans involved.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Perhaps by surreptitiously recording other parties Jones broke one or more laws. Regardless of this, the damage is done. Kelly's ambush was still preempted and her conceited comments about being a combination of Oprah Winfrey and Wally Cox or whomever are still out there for all to hear. I don't care for Jones but he won this one.

I was actual thinking Joe Flynn from back in the 60's

Well, I set my DVR for 7 PM PT...............for Interstellar on FX.

I won't be jeopardizing any brains calls watching that at least.

Jim