Trumps legal revenge against Omarosa

airplanemechanic

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 2014
17,778
12,759
2,415
Last edited:
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.
Omarosa’s an evil **** who helped get that son of a bitch elected. I hope they eat each other alive.

P.S. Hey rubes, remember complaining about Obama’s “most transparent administration ever?” This orange motherfucker is having everyone in D.C. sign non disclosure agreements, demanding total opacity, and you all cheer.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
His popularity with black Americans has doubled since the election.
 
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.

Same holds true for USMB trolls.
 
If someone records your private conversation, can you file a lawsuit against them?

The short answer: Yes. The eavesdropping statute allows eavesdropping victims to bring a civil lawsuit against the perpetrator.
 
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.
Most opaque administration in history
 
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.
You know that's not what it means, right? Omerosa knew there was recording going on....that's the 1 party...and Virginia and DC are 1 party states.
 
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.

If its a party the person is part of, they can consent to the recording. If Omarosa recorded conversations she wasn't a part of, then you have a point. If she recorded conversation she was a part of then it depends on jurisdiction and if the one or two party standard is applied for consent.
 
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.

Actually, from a little quick reading, it seems that most states have what is called "one party consent" recording laws which makes it legal to record a conversation as long as one of the two people consents to it.

Of course, any recording made by Omarosa may well have been done illegally, it just isn't automatically the case. :dunno:
 
She was not part of the conversation, thus she was not one of the "parties" involved. She recorded 2 people who did not consent. It was illegal.

You think if she was part of the conversation that the alleged "N" word would have been used? Of course not. Then she could have claimed that they said it in front of her, which she didn't. They only way she knew they used the "N" word was the recording, which she was not a part of.

It's a felony to do what she did. She should be sharing a prison cell with Clinton.
 
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.

Actually, from a little quick reading, it seems that most states have what is called "one party consent" recording laws which makes it legal to record a conversation as long as one of the two people consents to it.

Of course, any recording made by Omarosa may well have been done illegally, it just isn't automatically the case. :dunno:

I believe the federal standard is also one party consent. If these were conversations that Omarosa was a party to, she should be covered on wiretapping laws.

Now, there are all sorts of other security issues and agreements she may have violated. But what kind of mickey mouse security game are they playing in the WH that a reality TV star was able to sneak a recording device into the situation room?
 
She is legally safe on the recording end. Airplanemechanic is clearly forever wrong on this issue.

The DNA does affect the book.

Interesting times, and the smearing of Trump cannot be put back in the bottle.
 
She is legally safe on the recording end. Airplanemechanic is clearly forever wrong on this issue.

The DNA does affect the book.

Interesting times, and the smearing of Trump cannot be put back in the bottle.

Ok, care to explain how recording two people who don't know they are being recorded in a 1 party consent state is legal? She was not part of the conversation. They allegedly used the "N" word. which they would have never used in her presence.

Did Omarosa break the law by secretly taping her firing in White House Situation Room?

Current and former officials of Trump's White House were unanimous in their belief that Omarosa's secret taping constituted law-breaking as well as trust-breaking, and at least one former official of President Barack Obama's administration agreed.
 
She was not part of the conversation, thus she was not one of the "parties" involved. She recorded 2 people who did not consent. It was illegal.

You think if she was part of the conversation that the alleged "N" word would have been used? Of course not. Then she could have claimed that they said it in front of her, which she didn't. They only way she knew they used the "N" word was the recording, which she was not a part of.

It's a felony to do what she did. She should be sharing a prison cell with Clinton.

Maybe. Omarosa apparently brought the topic of conversation up.

"Pierson told Fox News on Sunday that Manigault Newman was the first member of the Trump campaign to discuss a so-called “Apprentice” tape of Trump allegedly using a slur on the set of the reality show he starred in. Pierson said neither Miller nor Patton have any “idea what she’s talking about.”

Omarosa Releases Tape Of Trump Campaign Aides Discussing Alleged N-Word Video | HuffPost

If Omarosa brought this topic up and others were discussing her allegations in the same conversation, then she's a part of that conversation and can record it.

If its a different conversation she's not a part of, then you may be right.
 
She is legally safe on the recording end. Airplanemechanic is clearly forever wrong on this issue.

The DNA does affect the book.

Interesting times, and the smearing of Trump cannot be put back in the bottle.

Ok, care to explain how recording two people who don't know they are being recorded in a 1 party consent state is legal? She was not part of the conversation. They allegedly used the "N" word. which they would have never used in her presence.
No, you don't get "just once more" when it has been explained several times above to you.

You don't know what you are talking or you don't care what is the truth.

Whoever at Trump Alt Right Central is feeding you and your ilk talking points has no idea what s/he is talking about.
 
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.
If Omarosa was one of the parties in a conversation in DC, she did not violate the recording law for that jurisdiction. She qualifies as one of the parties. The other party doesn't have to be notified. However, if she was not a party to the conversation, then she can be charged with eavesdropping. Recording in the Situation Room of the White House, however, is another matter and could be covered under a different federal law.

Recording Phone Calls and Conversations | Digital Media Law Project
 

Forum List

Back
Top