Trumps legal revenge against Omarosa

[airplanemechanic]

Recording devices are forbidden in the situation room. Case closed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There is a recording of one person using the N word to another. She was not part of that conversation. And she recorded it. That's not one she released, that's one she still has.

#1 If she still has it and hasn't released it how do you know?

#2 If she recorded a conversation she was a party to and other were discussing Trump using (or not) the N word, that is not the same thing. That is a conversation to which she was a party.


.>>>>

 

[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'

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'

Okay- so you are talking about a recording you haven't heard- and you don't know whether she was a part of, and you don't know who recorded it.

And which only violated the law if there is an actual tape of Donald Trump actually was saying n*gger.

And your biggest issue with all of this is that you think she may have broken the law.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Because she SAID she has this recording. Now if she doesn't and she's lying, then she's a liar like I always thought she was.

Let me ask you this. Had someone snuck a recording device into the situation room and recorded Obama saying he was from Kenya would you be covering for them to this degree saying they didn't break the law? Of course not.

So get your fucking Trump hating partisan hack ass out of here.

 

[Syriusly]

Recording devices are forbidden in the situation room. Case closed.

You really have a hard time staying on track here.

The supposed recording of Trump saying n*gger wasn't in the situation room.

 

[Syriusly]

Because she SAID she has this recording. Now if she doesn't and she's lying, then she's a liar like I always thought she was.

Let me ask you this. Had someone snuck a recording device into the situation room and recorded Obama saying he was from Kenya would you be covering for them to this degree saying they didn't break the law? Of course not.

So get your fucking Trump hating partisan hack ass out of here.

When was the first time you ever criticized Omarosa here at USMB?

Before or after she was fired by Trump?

 

[Skylar]

Recording devices are forbidden in the situation room. Case closed.

True. But there's no running allowed at the public pool. That doesn't mean that doing either will result in criminal prosecution. Merely that doing so will get you ejected.

I haven't been able to find a law that forbids recording devices in situation room. Merely policies.

And of course, the conversation you cited was between Omarosa and at least 2 other people. Unless they are physically in 2 party consent laws (which is possible for say, a conference call), then she can consent to her own recording.

 

[Syriusly]

Yep, sneaking a recording device in there is a major violation of federal law. A huge breech of security.

Cite the federal rule, regulation, or law, please.

It is considered a high security area. No recording devices are allowed in there.

Omarosa’s secret Situation Room recordings called security breach

Omarosa draws fire for bringing cellphone into high-security White House Situation Room

Why Omarosa's secret recording is an alarm bell (Opinion) - CNN

Omarosa taping Trump's Situation Room may be one of the worst White House security breaches ever

Not one of those links cites any law she may have violated

Critics denounced the recordings as a serious breach of ethics and security.

I am wondering if previously it was just assumed that anyone allowed in that room would have been properly vetted and screened.

 

[Syriusly]

Because she SAID she has this recording. Now if she doesn't and she's lying, then she's a liar like I always thought she was.

So get your fucking Trump hating partisan hack ass out of here.

LOL get your fucking head out of Trump's ass for a moment.

And did you suddenly forget how to use the reply button?

Omarosa has said she has a recording of Trump using the word n*gger.

Like I said- you don't know whether the recording actually exists, or who recorded it but you insist she must have broken the law.

But if there is such a recording of Trump saying n*gger repeatedly- what you want everyone to be concerned about Omarosa secretly recording Trump saying n*gger- not that Trump actually was caught on tape saying n*gger.

I find your priorities unshockingly Trumpkinlike.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Recording Phone Calls and Conversations | Digital Media Law Project

Yeah, that situation room issue is probably going to bite her in the ass. Whoever was in charge of security should probably also consider a different career. As that's a *major* collapse of security procedures. That's supposed to be the secure room in the White House.

It is a breach that should not have happened, but the Trump admin has cared not, regarding standards of security....they have been loose as a goose!

Regardless, Omarosa did not have any classified security clearance and was never a part of classified information.... if classified information was being discussed with her in the room, then THOSE discussing the classified information in front of her, are the ones who have committed a crime....or broken the gvt protocol for classified information handling..

 

[WorldWatcher]

I am wondering if previously it was just assumed that anyone allowed in that room would have been properly vetted and screened.

As someone that has worked in a SCIF before I can tell you that not everyone that steps food in a SCIF is "vetted and screened". That's not the standard.

Other personnel can be escorted into a SCIF for a specific reason, however it must be known about in advance and any classified material properly packed away. (Which of course may only take a few minutes notice.)

One would think that the White House Chief of Staff would be one of those persons that would be permitted to escort someone who might not have access on their own into such a facility.

Remember this isn't her just walking in and making a random recording, this is the COS escorting her into a room for a closed door conversation. My question is since this was an Human Resources related discussion - why did Kelly take her to the situation room and not use another conference room in the WH?


.>>>>

 

[Skylar]

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.

Recording Phone Calls and Conversations | Digital Media Law Project

Yeah, that situation room issue is probably going to bite her in the ass. Whoever was in charge of security should probably also consider a different career. As that's a *major* collapse of security procedures. That's supposed to be the secure room in the White House.

It is a breach that should not have happened, but the Trump admin has cared not, regarding standards of security....they have been loose as a goose!

Regardless, Omarosa did not have any classified security clearance and was never a part of classified information.... if classified information was being discussed with her in the room, then THOSE discussing the classified information in front of her, are the ones who have committed a crime....or broken the gvt protocol for classified information handling..

Yup.

 

[Syriusly]

I am wondering if previously it was just assumed that anyone allowed in that room would have been properly vetted and screened.

As someone that has worked in a SCIF before I can tell you that not everyone that steps food in a SCIF is "vetted and screened". That's not the standard.

Other personnel can be escorted into a SCIF for a specific reason, however it my be known about in advance and any classified material properly packed away.

One would think that the White House Chief of Staff would be one of those persons that would be permitted to escort someone who might not have access on their own into such a facility.

Remember this isn't her just walking in and making a random recording, this is the COS escorting her into a room for a closed door conversation. My question is since this was an Human Resources related discussion - why did Kelly take her to the situation room and not use another conference room in the WH?


.>>>>

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

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.


.>>>>

 

[Skylar]

I am wondering if previously it was just assumed that anyone allowed in that room would have been properly vetted and screened.

As someone that has worked in a SCIF before I can tell you that not everyone that steps food in a SCIF is "vetted and screened". That's not the standard.

Other personnel can be escorted into a SCIF for a specific reason, however it must be known about in advance and any classified material properly packed away. (Which of course may only take a few minutes notice.)

One would think that the White House Chief of Staff would be one of those persons that would be permitted to escort someone who might not have access on their own into such a facility.

Remember this isn't her just walking in and making a random recording, this is the COS escorting her into a room for a closed door conversation. My question is since this was an Human Resources related discussion - why did Kelly take her to the situation room and not use another conference room in the WH?


.>>>>

My guess? Soundproofing. If Omarosa lost her shit at being fired, it wouldn't disturb the rest of the white house.

 

[Skylar]

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Recording devices are forbidden in the situation room. Case closed.

Which law? Hint: there is none.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because she SAID she has this recording. Now if she doesn't and she's lying, then she's a liar like I always thought she was.

Let me ask you this. Had someone snuck a recording device into the situation room and recorded Obama saying he was from Kenya would you be covering for them to this degree saying they didn't break the law? Of course not.

So get your fucking Trump hating partisan hack ass out of here.

You are projecting your own character there. What law was violated, please tell us?

 

[Skylar]

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.

 

[bodecea]

Recording devices are forbidden in the situation room. Case closed.

So...why isn't Omarosa in jail on charges right now? If this is such a clear case of something being recorded in the situation room. I can't see General Kelly just letting that slide.

 

[busybee01]

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.

Who brought her to Washington. She didn't fall of the turnip truck. Trump brought her with him. She apparently learned her trade well from the slime ball dog called Donald Trump. NDA's are likely unenforceable in government positions.