Thursday Round-up

National Republicans are caught between the tea party and reality, so Speaker John Boehner is asking Democrats to tell him what to oppose. Meanwhile, the Republican's Dennis Kucinich knock-off is pushing for articles of impeachment, following theSillySeason's advice.

Polling continues to show that Americans in general and Wisconsonites in particular support public worker collective bargaining rights. Rasmussen (R) confirms the PPP poll of Wisconsin that a majority there opposes Scott Walker's plan to bust public sector unions. The survey was realeased on the heals of a Rupert Murdoch-bought poll which confirmed that nationally, collective bargaining rights for teachers, firefighters, and other state employees enjoy almost a 30 point edge over proposals similar to the Wisconsin bill. I wonder what all of the Right-wing blogogandists will have to say about the Wall Street Journal and Rasmussen polls that confirm the results of the PPP, NYT/CBS, and Gallup polling on the collective bargaing question. Two days ago, Michelle Malkin, Fire Andrea Mitchell, Hot Air, and a dozen other spit-and-bluster factories attacked the poll findings. Thus far, no retractions, no mea culpas, no nothing.

MD Wiretap Violation Not a Slam Dunk Against O'Keefe

Earlier today I alleged that James O'Keefe deserves to be thrown in a Maryland State penitentiary for planning to illegally record a conversation with a correspondent from CNN. I may be wrong. I based this opinion on my reading of MD v. Graber, a case decided two days ago which brought the Maryland wiretap law to my notice. Though James O'Keefe may still have violated the law, the Maryland case law is not as clear on whether he is likely to be convicted if indicted as I had initially anticipated.

Upon review of the relevant case law, specifically a civil suit Hawes v. Carberry, 103 Md. App. 214 (1995), I discovered that it may be more difficult to prosecute O'Keefe than I had originally envisioned. In Hawes, the judge reversed a lower court decision which awarded damages to Mr. Carberry on the basis that Mr. Hawes illegally recorded a private conversation on Mr. Carberry's doorstep. While the Hawes decision reinforces my analysis of what constitutes an illegal taping as far as the requirements of surreptitiousness, one-party consent, and the expectation of privacy, the judge reverses the decision because Mr. Hawes's action was not sufficiently "willfull." Let's throw the old relevant sections up on the big board again:

§ 10-402 (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle, it is unlawful for any person to: (1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communicaton;