Are you just adding some historical context and additional information? Or are you saying that to dismiss my idea/suggestion?

Well, I think it will result into the same consequences. It would be immediately weaponised by the political opposition and would be retired almost as soon as it was introduced.

All "things" can be weaponized to various degrees. The good has to outweigh the bad, and we can't dismiss potential solution areas because they can be weaponized to some degree or have some set of negative consequences. A lot of the things we take for granted that exist currently could just as easily have been argued-against under the banner of "can be weaponized by the political opposition". And we've seen that potential, and put various "checks and balances" in place to try to stem that possibility.

In my mind, the constructive way to proceed would be, and I'd hope that you or others would indulge me on this: How can we have a tamper-proof evidentiary record of all the conversations that politicians engage in whilst minimizing the potential of it being regularly abused/weaponized and compromising the privacy of the individuals involved?

False dichotomy

It would be if I was presenting an argument. However, I was asking out of curiosity. Their response seemed to be a criticism and I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt by giving a valid alternative interpretation.

Criticism is not dismissal

Stay on topic, please.