Jerry Brown's office taped reporters' calls

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

A spokesman for Attorney General Jerry Brown acknowledged Thursday that he taped a phone conversation with a reporter for The Chronicle this week without disclosing the fact or asking permission - and admitted he has taped conversations with other news reporters.

Scott Gerber, spokesman for Brown's office, made the admission after the publication of a story in the newspaper that detailed consumer activist Harvey Rosenfield's criticisms of revisions the attorney general made to the summary of a ballot measure that deals with car insurance rates.

California Penal Code Section 632 prohibits the recording of private telephone conversations without consent, and the state is one of 12 states that require notification of all parties prior to taping.

... "Here's the implication: Reporters now have one hell of a story about a guy who's running for governor of California," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, based in Virginia. "He's just lit a fire under a real big political thing."

... "California law says all parties to a conversation must know they are being taped," she said. "So if one person didn't (know), it's a violation of the law, and it doesn't matter that it's the AG's office doing the taping."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/29/MNV11ACMVR.DTL&tsp=1

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. Pathetically stupid. nt

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

18. Won't go anywhere in my opinion. Jerry's got bigger fish to fry according to this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6889643

[Ian David]

2. Hasta la vista, Jerry. n/t

[the other one]

3. I wonder if he will prosecute himself...

Actually I don't. Jerry has been in politics long enough to know how to conduct an investigation that concludes in No Wrongdoing.

[No Elephants]

22. Don't you have to establish commission of a crime by Brown before you ask that question?

And, if it appears that a crime was actually committed, whether by Brown or by his campaign's employee, a special prosecutor would, of course, be appointed. In fact, don't be surprised if the Republicans don't pressure Ahnuld to cause that, no matter what.

[Robb]

4. Brown didn't record the calls. Scott Gerber did.

Jerry can easily deflect this.

And 632 expressly covers confidential conversations, which conference calls with reporters expressly ain't.

[msongs]

5. lol reporters don't let facts get in the way of their self righteousness nt

[robcon]

6. Wow!. You sure can come up with weasely ways to avoid the law.

I think Brown is in trouble.

[Demit]

10. The article itself points out that it isn't clear that what happened was illegal.

So the poster you responded to is not 'avoiding the law.' He sees, as the First Amendment expert quoted in the article does, that there's an argument to be made that the reporter didn't have an expectation of privacy.

[No Elephants]

19. Avoid the law? Did Brown have any actual knowledge of the recording? Remember, this is a

criminal statute, not one governing civil liablity.

With the latter, an employer is financially responsible for the actions of his or her employees, whether or not the employer has actual knowledge of the specific activities. (Unless the mess up is considered outside he scope of employment.) Reason: Society wants employers to carry insurance to cover the damage caused by employees acting within the scope of employment.

Criminal statutes have entirely different standards. You don't get accused of a crime, let alone get a criminal record or a criminal fine or a prison sentence if your employee commits a crime.

Besides, the wording of the statute does very much matter. If it does not cover, or makes an exception for, conversations with reporters, then no crime was committed. (I have not googled the statute myself, though, so I don't know.)

Now the above goes only to your comment about a poster's "weasely ways" to avoid the law. It does not go to your comment about his being in trouble. IF he knew, he will be in trouble with the law.

Even if he did know, he may get into trouble with voters who think he did did something wrong. More likely, though, they will base their decision on something else.

[Capn Sunshine]

33. wow. This could cost him 20 points in the polls

Then he'd only be ahead by 18 points

[earcandle]

7. Hey, what about other government entities listening in our our conversations? We cannot have a

double standard here!  If only the bad guys can tape to play
gotcha, but the good guys cannot to prove duplicity
then we are in a dupe state.

[robcon]

8. What do 'other government entities' have to do with this?

Brown, the Attorney-General of California, apparently broke California law.

Let's not spare him any of the opprobrium he is due.

[Le Taz Hot]

9. More disturbing news about Brown:

He had no objection to Ahnold's nomination, the horrendously conservative Chuck Poochigian, being placed on the Court of Appeals. This AFTER the California Bar Associated deemed he was unqualified.

http://www.fresnobee.com/490/story/1652108.html

Sorry boys and girls, but Brown is just another smoke-and-mirrors politician. Liberals need to look elsewhere for our next governor.

[Tempest]

12. Like who?

Newsom?

You obviously don't live in the state.

Brown has done a lot of good for the state over the years. If you want to cherry pick, you'll find something wrong with anyone you throw out.

[Le Taz Hot]

23. LOL!

I've lived in the state for 54 years and lived through the Brown governorship. Try again. Btw, there are other parties than D & R.

[Cleita]

21. Last time he was governor, he did a pretty good job and even built

up a surplus in the Treasury until Howard Jarvis came by and blew it all with Proposition 13.

[No Elephants]

24. Is that the worst you've got against Brown? If so, he must be a saint in comparison

with every other politician I've ever heard of. And he did call him a Neanderthal.

BTW, under California law, does the approval of the AG even mean anything with respect to a judicial appointment made by the Governor?

[Le Taz Hot]

36. Chuck Poochigian

is a homophobe of the worst kind. Having him on the Court of Appeals makes me EXTREMELY uncomfortable. The fact that he had NO objections disturbs me a great deal. And no, that's not the worst I've got against him but I can see everyone here is masturbating at the thought of him being in the Governor's mansion again so I'll just bide my time. Just like I did with President Change.

[Tempest]

11. It can be argued that the Code doesn't apply to reporters

(a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication

The term "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto


The reason people talk to reporters is for a story, which will not be kept confidential or confined to the parties.

[Robb]

13. It can be argued, and IIRC in other states it has been, successfully. nt

[Tempest]

15. It can also be argued

That when a reporter tells someone the conversation will be recorded, for the purpose of going back to make direct quotes in an article, the reporter is agreeing to having the other party record the conversation as well.


This is much ado about nothing.

[No Elephants]

25. And, if it is to be "off the record," that would not typically be the desire of the reporter.

However, it may be that, during the course of the conversation, a reporter may make remarks that s/he might not make if s/he knew about the recording. For example, "If it had been up to me, I would never have called you about this, but my idiot boss insisted."

[ronnykmarshall]

14. Dumb ass.

You just blew the election Jerry.

[Tempest]

16. Don't bet on it

Most people are not going to give a rat's ass, and once the code is read it becomes obvious conversations with reporters are not covered by it.

[ronnykmarshall]

43. Now with Go-Go Gavin out ... you're probably right.

[kestrel91316]

34. I'm am betting Jerry is smarter than this. Either he knows it's not illegal because

of some specific aspect of the circumstances, or perhaps he knew nothing about the recordings and a staffer committed a crime (or non-crime).

Jerry's not stupid.

[NashVegas]

17. Don't Most Reporters Hook a Tape Recorder Into the Phone?

[No Elephants]

26. If they do, they probably notify the other parties to the conversation, or ask

permission.

[NashVegas]

29. I Assure You, It's a Given

Before articles are written, transcripts are typed up.

Where do you think the text comes from?

It ain't all memory.

[David Zephyr]

39. Yes.

.

[Cleita]

20. Looks like the RW attack machine is already gearing up to

put Jerry in a bad light. I think it's understood that your conversation is going to be taped especially in the attorney general's office. I would venture to say that probably everyone in Sacramento's state government tapes conversations.

[No Elephants]

27. In a primary fight, the RW is not the only suspect, unless you include the RW of the Democrats.

Could be the RW, especially since Brown is the frontrunner. However, it could also be one of Brown's rivals, or supporters of one of Brown's rivals. But, regardless of the source, I do believe the RW will jump all over this.

For me, the more serious allegation in the OP article by far is that he or his office altered the wording of ballot summary to help the Mercury General insurance industry in gratitude for donations to his campaign.

If true, I'd be surprised. It's not the image I have of Brown and 13K would not seem to be all that meaningful to him.

[bemildred]

28. I would think taping all conversations with reporters would be SOP by both sides. nt

[damntexdem]

30. Did he suspect them of harboring medflies?

;-)

[Taverner]

31. Jeezus fucking christ - is this what's going to take him down?????

[kestrel91316]

35. No. LOL. He's not stupid. I doubt what occurred here is illegal.

[Taverner]

38. Whether its legal makes no difference in the court of public opinion...

[jody]

32. I join other posters who point out CAL. PEN. CODE § 632 : California Code - Section 632 excludes

conversations that are not confidential.
CAL. PEN. CODE § 632 : California Code - Section 632

(a)Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

(c)The term "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

Can a conversation with a reporter “on the record” be construed as a “confidential communication”?

In any case Brown was not involved, it was Scott Gerber.

[musiclawyer]

37. This is not a big deal

Reporters call me all the time and half the time they forget to tell me they are taping when I know they are. I dare the reporters to make a legal issue out of this.

[David Zephyr]

40. This won't matter one bit. Brown will be the next Governor of California.

And I can't wait.

[Book Lover]

41. The Chronicle story is more than misleading

Did Chron Overcook Jerry Brown Interview-Taping Story?

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2009/10/post_11.php

[David Zephyr]

42. Thanks for posting this ray of truth here, Book Lover.

And shame on those here who jumped on this bullshit against Jerry.

Thanks!

[bemildred]

44. Jerry Brown's spokesman admits secret recordings

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The communications director for California Attorney General Jerry Brown was placed on administrative leave Friday after it was revealed that he had been secretly recording telephone conversations with reporters, an apparent violation of state law.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported Friday that spokesman Scott Gerber acknowledged taping a phone interview with one of its reporters. It said Gerber also acknowledged recording other conversations with reporters without asking their permission.

When Gerber was asked if he had recorded conversations with other news reporters, he said, "Sure, I've done it before," the Chronicle reported. "Reporters routinely record my conversations."

California is one of 12 states that require notification of all parties before a phone call is taped. Under the law, reporters must notify sources if the interview will be recorded.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grStierBGjqyvzUq2QvW6pPSS_uQD9BLN1LO1

[earcandle]

45. And Fitzgerald secretly recorded Blago. I don't get it. AT&T secretly records us everyday! And

Jerry Brown cannot entrap the people who try to coerce him?  

What is wrong with this picture?