Same Crooked Clintons – Different Day.

Last weekend the corrupt Clinton supporting New York Times produced an article showing Donald Trump’s taxes. The article showed three pages of Mr. Trump’s 1995 tax returns, for filings in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. They showed $900 million in losses that could have allowed him to reduce his future years’ taxes by this amount.

This was just another illegal act by the Clintons and Clinton cronies because if the tax returns provided to the NYT were legit, it would be illegal for someone other than Mr. Trump or his designates to provide to anyone his tax returns or those of his companies without his permission. The New York Times and whomever provided Trump’s tax returns to the NYT without Trump’s permission committed crimes in releasing these records for the Clinton Crime Family.

Now this week the Clinton Family Crime machine and their myriad of cronies in the press starting with the Washington Post released a video tape of Donald Trump saying he wanted to have sex with a woman a decade ago in an effort to damage Trump again. “The video captures Trump talking with Billy Bush, then of “Access Hollywood,” on a bus with the show’s name written across the side. They were arriving on the set of “Days of Our Lives” to tape a segment about Trump’s cameo on the soap opera.”

The problem with the Clinton Crime family release this week is that it is illegal per California’s wiretapping laws (Days of our Lives is filmed in studios in California) to eavesdrop on someone’s personal ‘confidential communication’. It is highly unlikely that Mr. Trump gave anyone permission to tape or release the taped discussion.

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).

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.

If you are operating in California, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you might be “private” or “confidential.” In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the California wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party. See Cal. Penal Code § 637.2.

Another day another Clinton Crime.

The moral equivalence the media is representing through these stories is shocking – Trump says something or takes legal tax loss offsets as opposed to Bill Clinton being a rapist and Hillary attacking the women Bill attacked.

Our media is so corrupt.