Once again, the media is asking the wrong questions, spinning for the Clintons.
The evil stench of media bias may have gone too far with the disclosure of a hidden recording made of Donald Trump in a 2005 conversation aboard a private bus.
Typical of the pile-on coverage of the story is the Washington Post piece “Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005.” What’s missing is disclosure about how the recording surfaced.
While the press is free to report anything they wish, one “armchair lawyer” in the outback of East Texas offers you more serious food for thought:
All (good) reporters know that California is a 2-party consent state WRT recordings.
This is clearly detailed on the Digital Media Law Project website here: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law
Since the recordings in question were apparently made on a bus in California, on its way to the Days of Our Lives set in California, and in a private setting where Trump had what seems to us to be a “reasonable expectation of privacy” the portion of the DMLP page that I would direct you to says this:
“California’s wiretapping law is a “two-party consent” law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to “confidential communications” — i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).”
The Digital Millennium Law Project notation continues:
“If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you’re recording may or may not have “an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation,” and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place.”
While no charges are likely to ever be filed, due to the political nature of the case, and the criticality of this Clinton distraction, we are not surprised that the democrats of California and Washington D.C. in the media control nexus, would not shrink from engaging in possibly illegal activity of covert recording to “invent an issue” to use against the republican nominee.
But then again, when comes to sex and spin of the most salacious kind, Trump is but an amateur compared to the Clintons.
But this is how it works: Forget the democrats record of eight failed years, a new war launching in Syria, and Clinton’s disastrous terms of Secretary of State in which she presided over serial foreign policy blunders in places well beyond Benghazi.
Notice how the email scandal has evaporated?
The Clinton’s are trying to make Trump’s mouth a bigger issue that Bill’s roving pechewzelwhacker and rape allegations. Again, the distraction game.
Were it not for the democratic apologists in the closing hours of the Clinton I presidency, Bill would have been impeached.
And is we are now looking at a potentially felonious disclosure.
I doubt it is the first time the law has been forced to take a back seat to the Clinton agendas. And with plausible deniability, of course.