The NBC audio tape that has torpedoed the Trump candidacy was made illegally and released illegally per California Law we quote below. If Mr. Trump complains consistently, and through his California friends we can be sure at least two people are going to spend some time in the LA County Jail or a California prison.
No one will endorse what Mr. Trump has expressed, but it is wrapped in the great difference between the way man and women are attracted to one another.
Men look for the pretty, very symmetrical face, abundant hair on the head, but nowhere else, well defined breasts, slim body and long legs, all moving smoothly and gracefully; signs of good health. He is looking for good breeding stock even though he may not realize it.
Women look for a half-again their size, strong man and a few marks or scars on him, proving he is a fighter and will protect her, are OK to desirable. In the modern world his net worth is important and nothing reeks of sexiness in a lady’s mind more than a deep balance sheet. She is much more interested in who he is than how he looks.
Mr. Trump can weather this storm and many women will vote for him in secrecy as America is sick and tired of the corruption that is Washington, DC and the Clintons, the Bobsy Twins of Skullduggery and that is not a small town in Illinois. Meanwhile back at the Golden State:
California Wiretapping Law
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.
Consult The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press’s Can We Tape?: California for more information on California wiretapping law.
However this turns out we can be sure at least two NBC employees are going to be wearing orange coveralls and eating Baloney sandwiches three times a day for a year, maybe more.