Trumps legal revenge against Omarosa

[Montrovant]

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.

If she recorded a private conversation of others without consent, yes, that's a crime.

 

[Skylar]

The ***** 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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Trump is petty and vindictive, truly unfit to be president.

 

[airplanemechanic]

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

 

[Skylar]

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

My concern is the state of security in the White House that a former reality star could do this. Repeatedly.

The standards of security have to be woefully low for this to happen over and over again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[koshergrl]

The ***** 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 ***** elected. I hope they eat each other alive.

P.S. Hey rubes, remember complaining about Obama’s “most transparent administration ever?” This orange ************ is having everyone in D.C. sign non disclosure agreements, demanding total opacity, and you all cheer.

If they don't like it, they don't have to do business with him.

Easy peasey.

 

[Syriusly]

The ***** 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 you think that Omarosa didn't know she was taping them?

 

[Syriusly]

The ***** 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 ***** elected. I hope they eat each other alive.

P.S. Hey rubes, remember complaining about Obama’s “most transparent administration ever?” This orange ************ is having everyone in D.C. sign non disclosure agreements, demanding total opacity, and you all cheer.

If they don't like it, they don't have to do business with him.

Easy peasey.

So much for being a 'free speech' advocate.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The ***** 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.

Please provide some more detail. It appears that from your link you are talking about a conference call with multiple persons involved.

DC is a 1 party consent jurisdiction. So if there are 3 people on the call Party A, Party B, and Party C. Then they are all part of the "conversation". As long as Party A and Party B know that Party C is on the call, and if Party C records comments from Party A directed to Party B - that doesn't mean it is "zero party consent". Party C is still part of the conversation and can provide consent for their own recording.


Now on the other hand if you are saying she planted a recording device and recorded a conversation independent of her presence or being on the call, please point out where your article says that.

.>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I have heard of three recordings that Omarosa has released- please identify which one you think she was not a party to:

1) Between herself and Kelly when he fired her
2) Between herself and Trump when he expressed surprise at her being fired.
“Nobody even told me about it,” Trump says in the recording of a phone call that Newman says is from the day after she was fired from her White House communications post in December. “I didn’t know it. I didn’t know that. Goddammit. I don’t love you leaving at all.”
3) Between herself and other Trump aides
“I am trying to find at least what context it was used in to help us maybe try to figure out a way to spin it,” Pierson is heard saying.

Patton then described a conversation she had with then-candidate Trump about making the slur.

Patton: “I said, ‘Well, sir, can you think of anytime where this happened?’ And he said, ‘no.’”

Omarosa: “Well, that is not true.”

Patton: “He goes, how do you think I should handle it and I told him exactly what you just said, Omarosa, which is well, it depends on what scenario you are talking about. And he said, well, why don’t you just go ahead and put it to bed.”

Pierson: “He said. No, he said it. He is embarrassed by it.”

 

[Syriusly]

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

Yep- absolutely.

Clearly the security standards of the Trump administration were way too lax to allow this huge breech of security.

 

[airplanemechanic]

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.

 

[bodecea]

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

So...they were incompetent.

 

[Skylar]

The ***** 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.

Please provide some more detail. It appears that from your link you are talking about a conference call with multiple persons involved.

DC is a 1 party consent jurisdiction. So if there are 3 people on the call Party A, Party B, and Party C. Then they are all part of the "conversation". As long as Party A and Party B know that Party C is on the call, and if Party C records comments from Party A directed to Party B - that doesn't mean it is "zero party consent". Party C is still part of the conversation and can provide consent for their own recording.


Now on the other hand if you are saying she planted a recording device and recorded a conversation independent of her presence or being on the call, please point out where your article says that.

.>>>>

If it was a conference call that she was a part of....then she's likely okay. However, the consent laws of the jurisdiction other parties were in applies.

For example, if she's recording a conversation with someone in say, California.....California state law applies. If the other parties were in two party consent laws, she could run into problems with those state laws.

 

[airplanemechanic]

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

 

[Skylar]

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.

I have heard of three recordings that Omarosa has released- please identify which one you think she was not a party to:

1) Between herself and Kelly when he fired her
2) Between herself and Trump when he expressed surprise at her being fired.
“Nobody even told me about it,” Trump says in the recording of a phone call that Newman says is from the day after she was fired from her White House communications post in December. “I didn’t know it. I didn’t know that. Goddammit. I don’t love you leaving at all.”
3) Between herself and other Trump aides
“I am trying to find at least what context it was used in to help us maybe try to figure out a way to spin it,” Pierson is heard saying.

Patton then described a conversation she had with then-candidate Trump about making the slur.

Patton: “I said, ‘Well, sir, can you think of anytime where this happened?’ And he said, ‘no.’”

Omarosa: “Well, that is not true.”

Patton: “He goes, how do you think I should handle it and I told him exactly what you just said, Omarosa, which is well, it depends on what scenario you are talking about. And he said, well, why don’t you just go ahead and put it to bed.”

Pierson: “He said. No, he said it. He is embarrassed by it.”

Omarosa was part of the call? Then she's covered unless Patton or Pierson were physically in two party consent states.

 

[airplanemechanic]

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'

 

[Skylar]

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

Oh, definitely. But these are procedural issues. Anyone caught with a recording device would be in breech of protocol and subject to termination or having their security clearance revoked.

But *illegal*? That's a different story.

I suppose it would depend on what she recorded. If it was top secret information, for example....she could be in a lot of trouble. If it was instructions on how to make a vegan pasta salad, not so much.

So far nothing she's revealed has been top secret communications.

 

[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.

Which law? I've reviewed the information on Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities like the WH situation room. And while bringing a recording device inside was definitely a violation of protocol and could get her ass fired, I haven't been able to find any laws associated with it.

If she recorded top secret information, she's subject to prosecution. But not simply for recording a conversation in a SCIF. I haven't been able to find any indication that that, by itself, is illegal. Grounds for termination, oh yes. But not criminal prosecution.