The Madison County, Mississippi District Attorney said “no persons [sic] or persons” including state Sen. Chris McDaniel’s (R-MS) campaign has been cleared in the investigation into the photographing of Sen. Thad Cochran’s (R-MS) wife.
The district attorney, Michael Guest, told The Washington Post on Thursday night that the investigation was ongoing and the McDaniel campaign had not been cleared in connection to political blogger “Constitutional Clayton” Kelly photographing Rose Cochran, the senator’s wife. McDaniel is challenging Cochran in the Republican primary and Kelly supported McDaniel.
When asked by the Post if Guest has been looking into McDaniel or his campaign, Guest said “no persons [sic] or persons have been cleared.” That statement somewhat different from what Mississippi’s WAPT 16 News reported, saying Guest said he didn’t believe that anyone with McDaniel’s campaign was involved in the photographing.
Guest’s statement to the local news outlet came the same day that three more men were arrested in the case. One of those men, attorney Mark Mayfield, is on the board of directors for the Central Mississippi Tea Party and has fundraised for McDaniel.
I guess I’m a bit dizzy, but what laws were broken? From what I understand (and I may be completely wrong), but somebody went into a nursing home and took some pics. Did they really ‘break in’? The whole thing seems a bit odd to me. Maybe someone who understands this better can reply…
Well, if someone told this guy to do it, or better yet, paid him to do it (money, or a promise of some position after the election) I imagine it would turn it into some sort of conspiracy.
Of course, unless McRacist is an idiot (note: he certainly is, but how big of one?), and if his campaign WAS involved, he’ll have a disposable flunky to take the fall for him.
This particular post is a non-story. No DA in his right mind would ever say, this early in an investigation, that “persons X, Y, and Z have been cleared of any involvement.” Imagine what would happen in court if they later found that person Y was, in fact, in it up to his neck. The defense, on cross, would be asking questions like, “Did you not say, on May 23 of this year, that my client had been unequivocally cleared of all involvement in this mess?”
The fact that the DA said that no one has been cleared is not exactly “breaking news.”
If you are not in a public place no one has the right to take your picture without your consent and use it for their own purposes.
If you have no reaction to the immorality of invading this woman’s privacy in her illness there is probably no way we can explain this to you.
Are you under the weird impression that it’s perfectly legal to talk your way into a nursing home (these are not public venues) and take pictures of a helpless, non-consenting, frail person? Really?