president trump. what his allies are concerned about is when they came into his office, his hotel room, his home this week, they took all of his computers, phones, electronics devices. in those devices were actually the recordings he s made of different phone calls he s had over the years. that s a concerning idea to a lot of people around the president. you know, you have these reportings, what is better evident for the special counsel s office that is actual people talking to each other on tape. if he made recordings and played them for associates and also for the president or then citizen donald trump, was it known that he recorded conversations? it must have been at least among some people. among some folks we obviously suppose to who we talked to about this story, knew he had recordings. i don t know that most people new york is a one-party consent
so, if he made recordings and played them for associates and also for the president, or then citizen donald trump, i mean, i guess was it known that he recorded conversations? i mean, it must have been at least among some people. amongst some folks, they ve heard him play the recordings, and knew that he did it. i don t know that most people who spoke to him knew they did it. new york is a one party consent state. both sides do not have to agree to the conversation being recorded. that said, the recordings could actually prove to backfire here, if they show activity. one of the other things we reported tonight is that he also did business transactions to have leverage. in political conversations, he would play the recordings for president trump. he would talk to different people about the president and then he would show the recordings and let the president
his accusers. what s interesting, though, is that he has a duty to the people of the state of missouri, and one of the duties that he has failed to discharge is to be open, transparent and forthcoming. despite being asked very straightforward questions about, hey, did you take a photograph? yeah, but your client recorded a conversation between himself and his former wife where they discussed the photo. is that legal in missouri and will that factor in as evidence? answer is simple. yes, missouri is a one-party consent state, so all it takes is one party to a tape recording to permit the admissibility and render it legal for that tape recording to have been made. same with phone conversations that emanate from missouri and are received in missouri. only one person s consent is required to have that be a legal recording. what s interesting to me, robert, news of the affair came out right as the campaign was announced. how did that play out in the race? well, the news of the affai
be legal to have tapes in the oval office? well, it doesn t violate any law directly. there s actually a law that allows you to tape, oddly enough, if one party consents to it. but there are requirements for him to preserve any of this. so if he is, in fact, taping people, whether on his phone or through some sort of recording device in the oval office, that is something that he is required to preserve under the presidential records act and one would hope that the white house counsel s office would know that that is happening. what did he say? didn t he say you re going to be disappointed, i m not going did to tell you now, i ll tell you soon but your all going to be disappointed? i was curious what you made from that discussion at the rose garden. he s known to have recorded conversations as a private citizen. new york as one party consent state. my takeaway was, stay tuned. we ve seen this approach previous times from him. why would we be disappointed by the answer? because
for donald sterling, you can t kick me out of this league based on the fruit of the poisonous tree, nice phrase that lawyers love. this tape was illegally made. you can t use it. you support that statement for me. why? well, that s one of the arguments that he s raising and he s saying ultimately that this is all stemming from this illegal tape recording because in california it s a two-party consent state that meaning both parties need to consent to something being recorded and he didn t. and what he s going to do is he s going to marry this to the substantive due process argument saying that this is essentially fundamentally unfair. the problem i think he s going to run into is hold on, let mel robbins tell us what the problem is because the nba is saying this isn t a court of law. this is a basketball court. what does the difference make in this regard, mel? well, the difference is, is really important here, chris. it s everything, in fact. and basically he signed up to be