If I understand this correctly, is it really that worrying an argument? One can't use covert telephone recording (i.e., without two-party consent) as evidence i

If I understand this correctly, is it really that worrying an argument? One can't use covert telephone recording (i.e., without two-party consent) as evidence in most states, and it's important that the person being recorded didn't intend for the conversation to be recorded and available in the future as evidence. Similarly, one would expect leaks to not hold up as evidence. Much as I also dislike the ruling, the argument here seems quite reasonable to me.