Trumps legal revenge against Omarosa

[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.

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

It's hard to believe that anyone can possibly be as fucking stupid as you are, but you make the case quite well.

It's nonenforceable, and won't be enforced. There's a reason why dotard wants to sue in arbitration instead of a court, because he would be open to disclosure, and would get his ass handed to him, on top of being publicly embarrassed by having his punk ass kicked by a black woman.

Better buckle up snowflake, because those recordings are going to keep coming, and there isn't anything dotard can do to stop it, and nothing he can do about it.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

So now up to what? Like 4?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Prison time for breaking what law exactly? Last I checked embarrassing Trump is not against the law yet.

 

[Syriusly]

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!

The OP is one of the dumbest things I have read on USMB- and no- I don't want to display your idiocy.

 

[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!

The OP is one of the dumbest things I have read on USMB- and no- I don't want to display your idiocy.

And you're one of the dumbest motherfuckers on this forum. So fuck off.

Saying the public owns what the president says in the White house. You are a stupid mother fucker. No, that's an insult to stupid mother fuckers. You're a bit worse than that.

 

[Syriusly]

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!

The OP is one of the dumbest things I have read on USMB- and no- I don't want to display your idiocy.

And you're one of the dumbest motherfuckers on this forum. So fuck off.

Saying the public owns what the president says in the White house. You are a stupid mother fucker. No, that's an insult to stupid mother fuckers. You're a bit worse than that.

LOL
I am not the one who started this idiotic thread claiming that Omarosa broke the law by illegally recording....well something......that would be you- you fucking idiot.

So far you have revealed not only your ignorance about the tapes she has revealed, you have displayed a deep ignorance of the law.

But what I find most amusing of all is that in this whole thing about there possibly being a recording of Trump using the word 'n*gger'- what offends you the most is that you think that Omarosa illegally recorded Trump saying that.

The OP is one of the dumbest things I have seen on USMB- but your subsequent posts sure give it a run for the money as being the most ignorant and stupid.

 

[airplanemechanic]

And where is the recording of Trump saying the N word?

We got the one of Obama saying it, and the left was SILENT.

We got the bitch saying Trump is not racist on video.

 

[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.

To sort of quote General Kimsey; Do we have a “Until we get secondary, independent, verification”, I don’t believe it.

Nonsense. You believe your own pseudo-legal theory backed by nothing. We've shown you the one consent laws in the USC. The actual citations. You've ignored them. You can cite no law that makes recording non-classified conversations you're a part of a crime in DC.

You just insist it must be so. Um....because.

What happened to 'secondary, independent, verification'? Because right now its just you, citing yourself. Which verifies nothing.

 

[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.

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!

The OP is one of the dumbest things I have read on USMB- and no- I don't want to display your idiocy.

And you're one of the dumbest motherfuckers on this forum. So fuck off.

Saying the public owns what the president says in the White house. You are a stupid mother fucker. No, that's an insult to stupid mother fuckers. You're a bit worse than that.

Dude, you've got nothing but you SAYING a law has been violated. Yet you can't back that up, can't verify anything, can't even name the law supposedly violated.

There's no law about recording in the situation room. There's a law against recording classified information. But nothing in any of the recordings Omarosa has presented includes classified info. But instead, PR and marketing info.

Which isn't classified.

And Omarosa has been party to every conversation she's recorded. Satisfying the one-party consent laws.

Your claims simply didn't hold up.

 

[Skylar]

And where is the recording of Trump saying the N word?

We got the one of Obama saying it, and the left was SILENT.

We got the bitch saying Trump is not racist on video.

So now a subject change? If you've abandoned your own claims about Trump's 'legal revengage about Omarosa', then just admit you're done.

 

[candycorn]

No, I heard the phone convo between two women.

Trump is a pussy.
He's not a woman.

 

[Skylar]

No, I heard the phone convo between two women.

Trump is a pussy.
He's not a woman.

You are what you....grab?

 

[candycorn]

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.

Nonsense. You believe your own pseudo-legal theory backed by nothing. We've shown you the one consent laws in the USC. The actual citations. You've ignored them. You can cite no law that makes recording non-classified conversations you're a part of a crime in DC.

You just insist it must be so. Um....because.

What happened to 'secondary, independent, verification'? Because right now its just you, citing yourself. Which verifies nothing.

I brought it up in post 68...

Uhhh...Omarosa...known self-serving loser/reality show personality (just like Trump) says that the recording was made in the Situation Room. I'm unaware of any corroborating evidence. I don't trust Trump any further than he can walk without getting winded and sure as hell don't trust Omarosa any further than that. When there is secondary, independent confirmation, I'll believe it. Until then...standing on the words of this hack? No thanks

 

[Skylar]

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.

Nonsense. You believe your own pseudo-legal theory backed by nothing. We've shown you the one consent laws in the USC. The actual citations. You've ignored them. You can cite no law that makes recording non-classified conversations you're a part of a crime in DC.

You just insist it must be so. Um....because.

What happened to 'secondary, independent, verification'? Because right now its just you, citing yourself. Which verifies nothing.

I brought it up in post 68...

Uhhh...Omarosa...known self-serving loser/reality show personality (just like Trump) says that the recording was made in the Situation Room. I'm unaware of any corroborating evidence. I don't trust Trump any further than he can walk without getting winded and sure as hell don't trust Omarosa any further than that. When there is secondary, independent confirmation, I'll believe it. Until then...standing on the words of this hack? No thanks

It was brought up in post 15 and linked to in post 20. And several times after, including your own.

AirMech pretty much ignored them all.

 

[tigerred59]

Let me tell you something about a black female don't give a fuck version of Trump.....you get TRump revoking security clearances the next day..... he knows this bitch is crazy like his orange ass.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Nonsense. You believe your own pseudo-legal theory backed by nothing. We've shown you the one consent laws in the USC. The actual citations. You've ignored them. You can cite no law that makes recording non-classified conversations you're a part of a crime in DC.

You just insist it must be so. Um....because.

What happened to 'secondary, independent, verification'? Because right now its just you, citing yourself. Which verifies nothing.

I brought it up in post 68...

Uhhh...Omarosa...known self-serving loser/reality show personality (just like Trump) says that the recording was made in the Situation Room. I'm unaware of any corroborating evidence. I don't trust Trump any further than he can walk without getting winded and sure as hell don't trust Omarosa any further than that. When there is secondary, independent confirmation, I'll believe it. Until then...standing on the words of this hack? No thanks

It was brought up in post 15 and linked to in post 20. And several times after, including your own.

AirMech pretty much ignored them all.

I agree the recordings are not criminal. Not sure if they would be "admissible".

Essentially, I wouldn't trust a word Omarosa says...the content of the recordings? Sure.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Nonsense. You believe your own pseudo-legal theory backed by nothing. We've shown you the one consent laws in the USC. The actual citations. You've ignored them. You can cite no law that makes recording non-classified conversations you're a part of a crime in DC.

You just insist it must be so. Um....because.

What happened to 'secondary, independent, verification'? Because right now its just you, citing yourself. Which verifies nothing.

I brought it up in post 68...

Uhhh...Omarosa...known self-serving loser/reality show personality (just like Trump) says that the recording was made in the Situation Room. I'm unaware of any corroborating evidence. I don't trust Trump any further than he can walk without getting winded and sure as hell don't trust Omarosa any further than that. When there is secondary, independent confirmation, I'll believe it. Until then...standing on the words of this hack? No thanks

It was brought up in post 15 and linked to in post 20. And several times after, including your own.

AirMech pretty much ignored them all.

I agree the recordings are not criminal. Not sure if they would be "admissible".

Essentially, I wouldn't trust a word Omarosa says...the content of the recordings? Sure.

And

Who knows. And I don't trust Omarosa either. She's an unreliable narrator.

The recordings, much more reliable. It was hilarious to watch Trump aides insist that there were no conversations about how to spin a recording of Trump saying the N word.

......23 minutes before Omarosa released a recording of those SAME aides having a conversation about how to spin a recording of Trump saying the N word.

This White House is so spectacularly corrupt that those kind of blatant lies aren't even a blip on the radar now.

 

[candycorn]

To sort of quote General Kimsey; Do we have a “Until we get secondary, independent, verification”, I don’t believe it.

Nonsense. You believe your own pseudo-legal theory backed by nothing. We've shown you the one consent laws in the USC. The actual citations. You've ignored them. You can cite no law that makes recording non-classified conversations you're a part of a crime in DC.

You just insist it must be so. Um....because.

What happened to 'secondary, independent, verification'? Because right now its just you, citing yourself. Which verifies nothing.

I brought it up in post 68...

Uhhh...Omarosa...known self-serving loser/reality show personality (just like Trump) says that the recording was made in the Situation Room. I'm unaware of any corroborating evidence. I don't trust Trump any further than he can walk without getting winded and sure as hell don't trust Omarosa any further than that. When there is secondary, independent confirmation, I'll believe it. Until then...standing on the words of this hack? No thanks

It was brought up in post 15 and linked to in post 20. And several times after, including your own.

AirMech pretty much ignored them all.

I agree the recordings are not criminal. Not sure if they would be "admissible".

Essentially, I wouldn't trust a word Omarosa says...the content of the recordings? Sure.

And

Who knows. And I don't trust Omarosa either. She's an unreliable narrator.

The recordings, much more reliable. It was hilarious to watch Trump aides insist that there were no conversations about how to spin a recording of Trump saying the N word.

......23 minutes before Omarosa released a recording of those SAME aides having a conversation about how to spin a recording of Trump saying the N word.

This White House is so spectacularly corrupt that those kind of blatant lies aren't even a blip on the radar now.

I doubt there is video tape from him saying the N word on the Apprentice set. Maybe a clandestine audio or I-Phone type recording but weeks of shooting are boiled down into 22 or 48 minute telecasts. And that is just the directed action with who knows how many takes, out-takes, story lines that went nowhere, etc... Much less the cutaways to monologues. I doubt that the production team would be taping the EP and the cast just for shits and giggles.... Now it has become a custom to have the "behind the scenes" on the DVDs--I think it was called "After the boardroom" on the Apprentice. Perhaps then but I seriously doubt that something that happened years ago would be bubbling under the surface and nobody else heard it, unearthed it, leaked it, etc...

If I'm wrong, I wouldn't be surprised...LOL. Trump is from that generation (as is Hillary by the way; I wouldn't believe her if she said she never used the word either).

 

[Skylar]

Nonsense. You believe your own pseudo-legal theory backed by nothing. We've shown you the one consent laws in the USC. The actual citations. You've ignored them. You can cite no law that makes recording non-classified conversations you're a part of a crime in DC.

You just insist it must be so. Um....because.

What happened to 'secondary, independent, verification'? Because right now its just you, citing yourself. Which verifies nothing.

I brought it up in post 68...

Uhhh...Omarosa...known self-serving loser/reality show personality (just like Trump) says that the recording was made in the Situation Room. I'm unaware of any corroborating evidence. I don't trust Trump any further than he can walk without getting winded and sure as hell don't trust Omarosa any further than that. When there is secondary, independent confirmation, I'll believe it. Until then...standing on the words of this hack? No thanks

It was brought up in post 15 and linked to in post 20. And several times after, including your own.

AirMech pretty much ignored them all.

I agree the recordings are not criminal. Not sure if they would be "admissible".

Essentially, I wouldn't trust a word Omarosa says...the content of the recordings? Sure.

And

Who knows. And I don't trust Omarosa either. She's an unreliable narrator.

The recordings, much more reliable. It was hilarious to watch Trump aides insist that there were no conversations about how to spin a recording of Trump saying the N word.

......23 minutes before Omarosa released a recording of those SAME aides having a conversation about how to spin a recording of Trump saying the N word.

This White House is so spectacularly corrupt that those kind of blatant lies aren't even a blip on the radar now.

I doubt there is video tape from him saying the N word on the Apprentice set.

I have no idea. We've seen from the catch and kill scenarios of organization like the Enquirer, powerful men protect their own. So if a video tape did exist, it seems a reasonable assumption that Burnett would kill it.

But I've seen nothing credible on its existence. So my opinion is....dunno.

 

[longknife]

Word has it that she won't get a single dime of that $$$$$. Between lawyer fees and what the campaign will get, she'll be luck to get anything - except what she gets on a GoFundMe scam.