Ponderosa's WH recordings

Remember when the "Grab 'em by the Pu$$Y" tape dropped....

The entire GOP coalesced around then candidate Trump and backed him anyway...

Makes you wonder what they'll do if that other tape comes out...

1453.gif
Oh I think we'll know exactly what they'll do lol. "Obama and Hillary actually hate black people more than Trump ever did" and "literally everybody talks like that," etc. Lots of hard Ns will start being thrown around by people in red hats, and we'll get a completely insincere public apology that is 75% insults and 25% pretending to be sorry.
 
The policy of companies, many of which operate in multiple different states, has no bearing on the legality of a citizen recording a conversation.

Because again. That's what this is about, since you erroneously claimed that it was illegal for a citizen to record a conversation without informing the other party.

You've provided multiple links that explicitly and repeatedly say it is legal, in single party consent jurisdiction, for one party to record a conversation without informing the other parties of the recording

Your own sources say this.

I like how this thread went sideways because EradicatedHaggis misread a statute and refused to back down. EradicatedHaggis ITT:

source.gif



On topic, if Ponderosa ends up going to jail for surreptitiously recording the POTUS I will laugh my ass off.
 
I like how this thread went sideways because EradicatedHaggis misread a statute and refused to back down. EradicatedHaggis ITT:

source.gif



On topic, if Ponderosa ends up going to jail for surreptitiously recording the POTUS I will laugh my ass off.

More entrenched then then Verdun.
 
I have no doubt some of trumps staff had it in for her cause she is black. She sure aint gonna let them destroy her hence why she prepared all the tapes
 
The follow up to this tweet is so pathetic:


yeah she was awful but she said great things about me!

This is hilarious when juxtaposed with the recorded conversation. What a backstabber.
 
The follow up to this tweet is so pathetic:


yeah she was awful but she said great things about me!

This is like a three year old explaining their friendships
 
In Omarosa's defense, I would definitely do her so.
{<tongue}
I think if you watched her on Big Brother and saw her without makeup, you'd be likely to change your mind. Unless you're the "just throw a bag on it" type.
 
always think back to this tweet just before the election.
 
I want to care about this story but Omarosa was a lying, snake bitch on The Apprentice. Nothing she says or does that is in accordance with being a liar or a snake should surprise us. She was never trustworthy and the fact that she had any position within the White House was one of the clearest signs that this administration had no interest in proper governance on behalf of the American people.
I can't believe I'm defending this woman, because I'm not, really, but to correct the record, she had prior experience, having worked in the Clinton White House.

Now, being as how reality shows are fake, and she actually had genuine prior experience, I don't see how it can be seen as improper that she was hired, other than that she had a prior relationship with Trump, which for some, is suspicious on its face.

I don't disagree with much that is being said ITT, I think she's pretty gross, but don't believe anything about how people behave on reality shows.
 
Who are the losers that buy these books? Seems like the end goal for every staffer for every administration evers goal is to write a hit piece in their way out.
The same losers who voted in a reality TV star. They will now buy the book about a reality TV personality fighting with another reality TV personality. You go to a circus, don't be surprised when you see clowns.
 
Way to go out on your shield EradiatedHaggis. Illiteracy is quite the hill to die on.

<36>
 
always think back to this tweet just before the election.

At this time, I feel it's fun to point out my phone records all my calls automatically.
Let me recap here.

You and I are talking in a single party consent state. I secretly bring a tape recorder. I do not need to tell you I am recording as I, one of the parties to the conversation, have implicitly consented to the recording by doing the recording. As the law requires only one parties consent to the recordings (unless I'm using it for illegal purposes) this is 100% legal. I would in no way have to inform you I've recorded our conversation.

Which is exactly what is occuring in this matter.
He's missing something in the call centre example too. It always says "may be recorded". Since, on any given call, even the agent doesn't know if they're being recorded, someone has to be told, so the customer gets the message at the start.
 
Back
Top