Reply #112: Let's look at the exchange:

[Hannah Bell]

NA: I can't imagine that anyone here is defending a government employee placing video cameras in people's private homes without their knowledge or consent...

HB: no one here is or has, not that i expect you to acknowledge it. however, i'm not sure why you emphasize "a government employee", as if it would be more legal if done by a private party or a corporate employee, & as if a local school board were the equivalent of the CIA.

WMWS: You aren't sure why it's relevant that a "government employee" is involved?



Please explain how

"why you emphasize 'a government employee' as if it would be more *legal* if done by a private party..."

has the same meaning as

"why it's *relevant* that a government employee is involved"