tldr: Putting aside the method of acquiring information you outline above (direct audio feed), there are a number of laws that limit what government information you are allowed to access and additionally limit your access to sensitive buildings or rooms.
There are a broad spectrum of laws and case law on this topic, so consider this a very limited outline.
Our right to information about the Federal government is largely governed by the Freedom of Information Act. There are some specific exemptions on the type of information we're allowed access to.
The nine exemption categories that authorize government agencies to withhold information are:
- classified information for national defense or foreign policy
- internal personnel rules and practices information that is exempt under other laws trade secrets and confidential business information
- inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters that are protected by legal privileges personnel and medical files law enforcement
- records or information information concerning bank supervision
- geological and geophysical information
There are additionally, three special law enforcement related types of exclusions outlined.
Congress provided special protection in the FOIA for three narrow
categories of law enforcement and national security records. The
provisions protecting those records are known as “exclusions”. The
first exclusion protects the existence of an ongoing criminal law
enforcement investigation when the subject of the investigation is
unaware that it is pending and disclosure could reasonably be expected
to interfere with enforcement proceedings. The second exclusion is
limited to criminal law enforcement agencies and protects the
existence of informant records when the informant’s status has not
been officially confirmed. The third exclusion is limited to the FBI
and protects the existence of foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence, or international terrorism records when the
existence of such records is classified. Records falling within
exclusion are not subject to the requirements of the FOIA.
On the topic of executive privilege, the Congressional Research Service put together a legal analysis that outlines the currently defined "boundaries" of executive privilege:
Executive privilege (or what is sometimes referred to by lower courts
as the presidential communications privilege) is a relatively
nebulous, constitutional privilege that protects the confidentiality
of presidential communications on the grounds that “[a] President and
those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the
process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way
many would be unwilling to express except privately.” The Supreme
Court’s only significant analysis of executive privilege (privilege)
comes from a pair of cases involving President Nixon’s unsuccessful
attempts to maintain control over his communications and records. In
United States v. Nixon (Nixon I), the Court rejected then-President
Nixon’s attempts to quash a judicial subpoena issued at the request of
a special prosecutor for recordings of conversations the President had
in the oval office with close advisors regarding the Watergate
break-in. In that case, the Court determined that “absent a [] need to
protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets,”
the President’s “generalized interest in confidentiality” was
outweighed by the “demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a
pending criminal trial.”
Three years later, after President Nixon had resigned, the Court again
disagreed with the former President’s broad conception of the
privilege—this time in relation to the disposition of his records
after he left office. In Nixon v. GSA (Nixon II), the Court rejected
Nixon’s challenge to the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, a
statute that nullified an arrangement that gave the former President
control over his own presidential records and instead established a
process to secure and preserve Nixon’s records with the General
Services Administration. Although the Court concluded that a former
President may assert the privilege over communications that occurred
while in office, any ongoing expectation of confidentiality was
“subject to erosion over time….”
Additionally, in the Nixon litigation, the courts outlined that communications not related to the execution of the President's duties aren't covered.
“the privilege is limited to communications ‘in performance of the
President’s responsibilities,’ ‘of his office,’ and made ‘in the
process of shaping policies and making decisions….’”
Now, why can't we just walk into the Senate or House cloakroom and hear for ourselves? It's a federal building and we're taxpayers, right? Not so fast. 40 U.S.C. § 193f forbids access:
(1) to enter or to remain upon the floor of either House of the Congress, to enter or
to remain in any cloakroom or lobby adjacent to such floor, or to
enter or to remain in the Rayburn Room of the House or the Marble Room
of the Senate, unless such person is authorized, pursuant to rules
adopted by that House or pursuant to authorization given by that
House, to enter or to remain upon such floor or in such cloakroom,
lobby, or room;
(2) to enter or to remain in the gallery of either House of the
Congress in violation of rules governing admission to such gallery
adopted by that House or pursuant to authorization given by that
House;
(3) to enter or to remain in any room within any of the Capitol
Buildings set aside or designated for the use of either House of the
Congress or any Member, committee, subcommittee, officer, or employee
of the Congress or either House thereof with intent to disrupt the
orderly conduct of official business;
and 18 U.S.C. § 1752 is a little more direct about prohibited access
(1)the term “restricted buildings or grounds” means any posted, cordoned off, or
otherwise restricted area— (A)of the White House or its grounds, or
the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds; (B)of a
building or grounds where the President or other person protected by
the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or (C)of a
building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event
designated as a special event of national significance
Otherwise, this blog has some incredible information about what you have the right to record and the legal background on how that right is protected.
