airplanemechanic
Diamond Member
- Nov 8, 2014
- 18,277
- 13,505
- 2,415
- Thread starter
- #41
Recording devices are forbidden in the situation room. Case closed.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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'
Recording devices are forbidden in the situation room. Case closed.
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.
Recording devices are forbidden in the situation room. Case closed.
Cite the federal rule, regulation, or law, please.Yep, sneaking a recording device in there is a major violation of federal law. A huge breech of security.
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
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.
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!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.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.
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.
I am wondering if previously it was just assumed that anyone allowed in that room would have been properly vetted and screened.
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!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.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.
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.
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..
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.....
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?
.>>>>
Which law? Hint: there is none.Recording devices are forbidden in the situation room. Case closed.
You are projecting your own character there. What law was violated, please tell us?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.
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'
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.Recording devices are forbidden in the situation room. Case closed.
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.