Trumps legal revenge against Omarosa

[bodecea]

It is almost like Kelly wanted to try to protect that conversation in someway.....

Ya think?

But just because Kelly wanted to protect the conversation does not make that conversation classified from a national security interest perspective. It might make it "classified" from a Trump Security Interest perspective, that something else entirely.


.>>>>

Speculation....if she isn't arrested for recording in the Sit Room....could it be either it didn't happen or trump is terrified of something else being revealed...........just speculation here.

 

[Issa]

Agent orange is a thug and a **** and he surrounds himself with his likes.
He was acting he didnt even know she was fired hahahaha the fucking ****....and he told her he didnt want her to leave LOOOOL....what a scum bag liar.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

A non closure agreement pretty much puts her in deep trouble. Recording something in a secure facility probably is illegal as well. Did anyone really expect Omarosa to be smart about this?

She’s being as smart as her mentor taught her to be. Hubris and a low IQ make for a bad apprentice and an even worse President.

Yes I know. Obama proved that over 8 years of idiocy.

The NDA isn't about the recording, it's about the book.

Is that 8 years of idiocy the same 8 years he became the only administration in the last 50 years to not have a single indictment or conviction?

Is that 8 years of idiocy the same 8 years where he (despite being such and idiot) -- supposedly created the Deep State and was able to mastermind and force Trump's own FBI and DOJ to investigate his own administration??

Yea, what a dummy that Obama was

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Anybody point out that the White House trying to get staff to sign an NDA is unconstitutional yet?

Trump NDAs can’t silence ex-White House officials: legal experts

 

[Syriusly]

Here's a great article on the topic with an interview of Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas who specializes in national security and constitutional law. They discuss Omarosa and the recordings so far.

Did Omarosa’s secret recordings break the law? We asked a legal expert.

Vladeck draws a huge distinction between breaking the rules and breaking the law.

Stephen Vladeck

It’s not just a lack of experience; it’s an aggressive indifference to following the rules that normally govern how senior executive officials do their jobs. It’s the latest in a long and numbing line of examples that this White House just doesn’t take security seriously.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm not talking about the recording she released, that's a huge violation of federal law with sneaking a recording device into the situation room. That's a violation of espionage laws. She claims to have a recording of two people in which one used the N word. She was not a part of that conversation. If that is true IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

Omarosa Manigault Newman On Her Secret Recordings, Alleges Audio Of Trump Saying N-Word | 'TODAY'

You're talking about the N-word tape? She didn't record that. That was a live mic situation when Trump worked for the Apprentice.

As for 'Espionage Act' violations, that's a bit of a stretch. As nothing she's claimed to have recorded involved anything classified. Talking about her getting fired isn't a national security issues.

In Trump's Brave New World I wouldn't be surprised if Don the Con makes talking about getting fired a national security issue.

After all Turkey imprisoning an American cleric apparently is now a national security issue.

 

[skews13]

The bitch signed an agreement and violated it.

Trump calls Omarosa 'that dog' as she releases ANOTHER bombshell recording | Daily Mail Online

It is illegal to record someone without their knowledge in all 50 states. They have 1 and two party states, but none have zero party states. Meaning at least ONE of the people being recorded must know about it and in this last recording, neither did.

Not enforceable. Everything not classified is open for disclosure. It's actually against the law to create secrecy. Everything the President says, or anyone in the White House says is public record. Paid for by the tax payers. The White House is the peoples house, not Trumps private boardroom at Trump tower.

This rises to the level of impeachable offense, and when the Dems get control of the oversight committee next year, every member of the White House staff should be subpoenaed to testify if they are aware of any information not being open to the public, and made to show any non disclosure agreement in front of the committee and made public.

 

[candycorn]

The bitch signed an agreement and violated it.

Trump calls Omarosa 'that dog' as she releases ANOTHER bombshell recording | Daily Mail Online

It is illegal to record someone without their knowledge in all 50 states. They have 1 and two party states, but none have zero party states. Meaning at least ONE of the people being recorded must know about it and in this last recording, neither did.

So if Omarosa and The President are talking, Omarosa is one of the parties…hence “one party consent” is satisfied.

 

[candycorn]

It is almost like Kelly wanted to try to protect that conversation in someway.....

Ya think?

But just because Kelly wanted to protect the conversation does not make that conversation classified from a national security interest perspective. It might make it "classified" from a Trump Security Interest perspective, that something else entirely.


.>>>>

Speculation....if she isn't arrested for recording in the Sit Room....could it be either it didn't happen or trump is terrified of something else being revealed...........just speculation here.

I really doubt she was anywhere near the Situation Room. I really, really doubt Mueller had/has any interest in Omarosa. I could be wrong but I doubt even the Trump white house would allow her into that space.

 

[dannyboys]

Apples and oranges!
A US Gov. employee secretly recording another Gov. employee in a official US Gov. setting is looking at serious prison time.
You all can have a seperate debate about 'Person 1' secretly recording ''Person 2' in a public/private setting.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The bitch signed an agreement and violated it.

Trump calls Omarosa 'that dog' as she releases ANOTHER bombshell recording | Daily Mail Online

It is illegal to record someone without their knowledge in all 50 states. They have 1 and two party states, but none have zero party states. Meaning at least ONE of the people being recorded must know about it and in this last recording, neither did.

So if Omarosa and The President are talking, Omarosa is one of the parties…hence “one party consent” is satisfied.

Good. Not one of the recordings is between her and the president.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The bitch signed an agreement and violated it.

Trump calls Omarosa 'that dog' as she releases ANOTHER bombshell recording | Daily Mail Online

It is illegal to record someone without their knowledge in all 50 states. They have 1 and two party states, but none have zero party states. Meaning at least ONE of the people being recorded must know about it and in this last recording, neither did.

Not enforceable. Everything not classified is open for disclosure. It's actually against the law to create secrecy. Everything the President says, or anyone in the White House says is public record. Paid for by the tax payers.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard on USMB. Can I change my sig to that? I love it!

 

[candycorn]

The bitch signed an agreement and violated it.

Trump calls Omarosa 'that dog' as she releases ANOTHER bombshell recording | Daily Mail Online

It is illegal to record someone without their knowledge in all 50 states. They have 1 and two party states, but none have zero party states. Meaning at least ONE of the people being recorded must know about it and in this last recording, neither did.

So if Omarosa and The President are talking, Omarosa is one of the parties…hence “one party consent” is satisfied.

Good. Not one of the recordings is between her and the president.

You didn’t hear the phone conversation?

 

[airplanemechanic]

No, I heard the phone convo between two women.

 

[Skylar]

It is almost like Kelly wanted to try to protect that conversation in someway.....

Ya think?

But just because Kelly wanted to protect the conversation does not make that conversation classified from a national security interest perspective. It might make it "classified" from a Trump Security Interest perspective, that something else entirely.


.>>>>

Speculation....if she isn't arrested for recording in the Sit Room....could it be either it didn't happen or trump is terrified of something else being revealed...........just speculation here.

I really doubt she was anywhere near the Situation Room. I really, really doubt Mueller had/has any interest in Omarosa. I could be wrong but I doubt even the Trump white house would allow her into that space.

Kelly pulled her into the Situation Room. Which is odd, given that he knew that Omarosa didn't have security clearance. My guess is that he wanted the sound proofing in case Omarosa lost her shit and started yelling.

 

[Skylar]

No, I heard the phone convo between two women.

Three women. And Omarosa is one of them. She's on the conference call.

That's single party consent.

Now if one of the other two women is physically in a State that requires two party consent, that changes things. But my understanding is that they were all in their offices in DC.

 

[Skylar]

Apples and oranges!
A US Gov. employee secretly recording another Gov. employee in a official US Gov. setting is looking at serious prison time.

On what basis? There's no 'you can't record a government employee' law. What law are you referring to?

Remember....nothing recorded was classified. At least in any of the recordings that have been released.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Apples and oranges!
A US Gov. employee secretly recording another Gov. employee in a official US Gov. setting is looking at serious prison time.
You all can have a seperate debate about 'Person 1' secretly recording ''Person 2' in a public/private setting.

Unite States Code
Title 18
§ 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

Para (2)(d) "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State."

Federal law is one part consent unless conspiring to commit a crime. So when she recorded General Kelly firing her, were she and the General conspiring to commit?



18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

.>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Can we put this 'legal revenge' bullshit to rest then? As Omarosa was party to every recording she's shared. And none of them include classified information.

 

[candycorn]

It is almost like Kelly wanted to try to protect that conversation in someway.....

Ya think?

But just because Kelly wanted to protect the conversation does not make that conversation classified from a national security interest perspective. It might make it "classified" from a Trump Security Interest perspective, that something else entirely.


.>>>>

Speculation....if she isn't arrested for recording in the Sit Room....could it be either it didn't happen or trump is terrified of something else being revealed...........just speculation here.

I really doubt she was anywhere near the Situation Room. I really, really doubt Mueller had/has any interest in Omarosa. I could be wrong but I doubt even the Trump white house would allow her into that space.

Kelly pulled her into the Situation Room. Which is odd, given that he knew that Omarosa didn't have security clearance. My guess is that he wanted the sound proofing in case Omarosa lost her shit and started yelling.

To sort of quote General Kimsey; Do we have a “Until we get secondary, independent, verification”, I don’t believe it. First, I could understand Trump doing something like that or Dick Morris or his sons; not a General. Secondly, with someone like Omarosa you’re not going to say to yourself, “Hmmm….the situation room…nothing good is going to happen in here….I better record this.” I would think that this type of cheap person probably wanted to bring a reporter from Vanity Fair in there with her and pose with the nuclear football and her finger hovering over the button.

On the other hand; this is the Trump White House so there may be tours of the situation room available to people like her, Chaci, the Kardashians, and James Woods.