THAT AT LEAST some trace amount of the half-hearted defense of the Not-So-Sterling Donald was the fact that his accuser recorded his utterances without his permission. And it is a worthy defense, albeit misplaced. We have a presumption of privacy in our “houses, persons, papers, and effects” which, by the law shall remain uninfringed. But, also which by the law, not only the government may infringe. (That means everybody.)
And, one might be forgiven for assuming that those campaigning for public office should be held to a higher standard, nest paw?
But a recent round of advertisements “and I approve this message” from Mitch McConnell assert beginning, middle, and end that their contents were drawn from “undercover news report” and “hidden camera footage” …
I.E., without Matt Bevin’s knowledge or permission.
It seems to me that such turpitude (Mitch, not Matt) ought to be immediately disqualifying. But there’s no truth in political advertising and, were Bevin to complain, it would be dismissed as whining by his opponents, but, still, has not McConnell broken the law? What penalty shall attend upon this breach?