I don't think one party recording a conversation they're in with another party should be considered wiretapping in general, and especially not if one party is a public official. Public officials' actions affect people's lives and shielding their communication and actions from scrutiny reduces their accountability.

"Under United States federal law and most state laws there is nothing illegal about one of the parties to a telephone call recording the conversation, or giving permission for calls to be recorded or permitting their telephone line to be tapped. However, several states (e.g., California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington) require that all parties consent when one party wants to record a telephone conversation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws

Too bad he's in New Hampshire, otherwise him being one of the party aware of recording the conversation would make the recording perfectly legal.

His lawyers can probably blow this out of state (internet being an inter-state medium, appeals and maybe even supremacy clause) where federal law will take precedence over the state law. This case will be a waste of time, money and government resources and a circus nonetheless.

You realize that can't happen right? He's been accused of breaking the law of the state he lives in. That won't change if the case gets appealed to federal courts.

Having laws which are only enforced against people you don't like is unfair. Laws should be like trademarks, if they're not vigorously enforced, then they should lose force.

I like that principle. I often wonder how we can sunset old bad laws, and this sounds like a good approach. Either enforce the laws, or lose them.

I think he's suggesting that two decades in prison is an unreasonable punishment for violating those laws.