It feels like Alex Witt is really dwelling on Mary Trump's recording

[Nexus2]

but more on the fact her Judge Trump didn't know she was being recorded than what it contained (which, tbh, didn't strike me as that much of a bombshell). But Witt's focus leaves an impression that making the recording was the greater 'wrong' in this case. That's just the impression it gave, she hasn't said that explicitly. I think her POV is shaped by her career as a journalist.

[grumpyduck]

1. Of course,

redirect and turn it all around.

[mr_lebowski]

2. It's what I said would happen in the first thread that appeared on the subject last night ...

This 'spin' is exactly why I was concerned.

And it's a pretty obvious spin. She gave IQ45 a perfect opportunity to attack her, and some people will be receptive.

I'm not sure it was worth it, if she released them w/o getting Barry's consent. There's not enough 'there' from what we've heard so far.

MHO, ymmv.

[empedocles]

3. Headlined in WaPo 7 NYT

[Big Blue Marble]

4. I understand in New York

it is legal to record a conversation if one party is knowledgable of the recording.
Mary's reason for recording was to get evidence that she had been grifted by the family in
her grandfather's estate settlement. The rest was gravy.

She did nothing wrong. She knew that her aunts and uncles were not her friends. She
was looking for confirmation.

[malaise]

5. THIS

Go Mary!

[FakeNoose]

6. We can be certain that the Auntie-Judge knew exactly what was happening

... when she participated in screwing the children of her oldest brother.

The entire family is vile and hateful (other than Barron and Mary.). I vote we move them off the planet.

[Trumpocalypse]

7. Witt is a conservative

Always has been. She was horrible during the Bush years.

[karynnj]

8. While legal in NY as long as one side of the conversation agrees, it is rightly controversial

In today's world, it might be that anyone in or near public life has to act as though they might be taped at all times. For candidates themselves, this means filtering everything they say while speaking as much as 16 hours a day.

In this case, there is no question of legality. It is legal. The question of whether it is ethical is interesting. Chris Christie, who knows the judge, raised issues that she would not want this public. However, I don't think he raised a concern over Linda Tripp recording Monica when that came out in 1998. He was a county official in Morris County, where I lived, earlier in the 1990s and was a prominent Republican after he lost that office in the Republican primary in 1996. It would have been newsworthy if he spoke out and reported in the Morris County Record.

It would be good to have a consistent view of whether covertly taping someone is acceptable. On one hand, you deny someone the right to NOT tell what they know. On the other hand, what they tape may contain information that if known could change opinions.

Back to Mary Trump, she sees her uncle as an existential threat to the country. She used her access to the family to shed more light on what she has seen personally augmented by things his siblings told her. The tapes prove those things were said. Ethically, I would agree that violating the judge's confidences was equivalent to speaking out when you see something like domestic violence.

[Buckeyeblue]

9. And it's really a family thing. She knew how her aunt felt about Donald.

Has the aunt came out and said she was mad about the recordings? Probably not. She probably doesn't give a shit.