Reply #14: Disagree. The law has wiggle room: did all parties to the conversation [View All]

[No Elephants]

reasonably expect the conversation to be private? If so, Gerber broke the law. If not, Gerber committed no crime whatever.

See, for example, this article about whether Amber Frey violated the law by taping her conversations with Scott Peterson while he was in prison. http://home.earthlink.net/~bdega/criminaldefenselawyerdanielhorowitz/id11.html

So, let's say Gerber and the reporter were the only parties to the call. Gerber knew it was being recorded, so he doesn't count. If the reporter thought the conversation would be private, there would hardly have been a reason for the reporter to interview Gerber. The whole point was to make the interview public by publishing it.

That said, it MAY possibly be that, if we listen to the tape, we would find some indication that the reporter expected privacy. However, we don't know that unless we listen to the tape--and that would also break the law.

Would it have been better for Gerber to have said "Just so you know, I record all my conversations with reporters?" Sure.

Did he create a totally unnecessary and potentially negative distraction in his bosses' campaign? Yes. His job is to enhance and protect the candidacy, not harm it gratuitously. So, he most definitely should have resigned (or "resigned"). Not to "take one for the team but because he fucked up his job big time. (And, he has no business hiring himself out as "Director of Communications" to a political campaign without knowing the law about taping. Haven't we all heard about Linda Tripp, fff?)

Did he commit a crime? Not at all clear based on what we know so far, IMO. As I said, probably not, but we'd have to hear the tape to know for sure.

And let's not forget how this info came out. The reporter misquoted Gerber, maybe innocently, maybe intentionally; and Gerber admitting the taping to show that his correction was accurate.