Anybody think Kitty Kelley should have tape recorded her interview?

[WI_DEM]

With Sharon Bush? obviously it was a major interview and I wonder what she did? did she take notes while at the lunch or write up the four hour interview afterward? But heck, for such a important interview it would have made sense for her to tape it.

Not that I'm disputing Kitty's account, it sounds right. Sharon Bush seems frightened to me and I think the Bush crime family got to her, and apparently there is a third party who was at the lunch who backs Kitty up as well, but it would be a mute point if she had taped the interview.

[cthrumatrix]

1. how do we know she didn't?

[berner59]

3. Lauer asked her about that...

She said she had a witness to both interviews - said it not right to bring a tape recorder to lunch and she had her editor from Random House (I think) with her for the phone call - speaker phone I guess...

Is this the only bomshell though from the book?? Isn't there more??

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. She told Matt..WH SHILL-Lauer that she didn't tape her conversation

with Sharon because she had a WITNESS sitting there listening to the conversation so, she didn't think she needed a recording of it. Makes sense to me.

[liberal_in_GA]

6. Sharon Bush probably asked her not to tape it

A journalist can't tape something unless the other party agrees to it. I am sure she at least took notes on a pad, and having a witness was very smart. She also had to thoroughly fact-check her book several times over (in addition to it being vetted by the publisher's lawyers). I'm sure she ran all of Sharon Bush's quotes by her (if not verbatim, then she paraphrased them) --it's standard journalistic procedure.

If Bushie doesn't sue, it's all true.

[demnan]

2. We shall see

who gets killed over this book. Doubtless someone will.

[Lex]

5. No, that gets people to shut-up quicker than anything.

You want someone to spill their guts, take 'em to lunch, buy 'em a few martinis, and just have along another person to corroborate what was said.

Laying a recorder on the table wouldn't have done anything but make Sharon Bush clam up.

Secretly recording what Sharon Bush said might've been a crime in that state (making a recording of what someone says without their persmission).

[Soopercali]

7. It depends on what state they met in.

For instance, it's illegal in Pennsylvania - but not in New Jersey.

[Lex]

9. That's exactly why I said a secret recording *might've*

been illegal in that state.

[Czolgosz]

8. Why should Kelley have recorded her interview?

She had a third-party witness and she did a follow up telephone call. If Kelley made a tape recording, no doubt the Bush administration would have made up some different excuse (do you think they would be above attacking Sharon Bush? Do you doubt the would have attacked the curly apostrophes in the tape recording?). You may as well as ask "why, oh, why didn't Kitty Kelley fix Sharon Bush with a wire and send her to the Bush family reunion?"

[GOPAgainstGW]

10. HOME PAGE FOR KITTY KELLY'S BOOK

http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/thefamily/

[PurityOfEssence]

11. Depending on where it was done, it's illegal

Most places have two-party consent laws these days, and even though there was no prosecution of Linda Tripp for flagrantly breaking them, I don't think Ms. Kelley would skate...

[forgethell]

12. Yes, she should have.

Without evidence, it's just her word against Sharon's. Hell, even with a recording, it would be just her word against the Bushie's. so even if absolutely true, it's not going to affect the election, IMO.