Trumps legal revenge against Omarosa

[rightwinger]

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.

It is not illegal to record people
It happens all over the country......what do you think all those phones do?

Omarosa knee she was recording....that is one party

 

[Syriusly]

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 ***** saying Trump is not racist on video.

a) Don't know- don't even know if it exists- but you sure seem convinced that it exists and that it must be illegal.
b) A black man using the word n*gger- and the left was silent. If you don't understand the difference to a white man referring to blacks as 'n*ggers' and a black man referring to his own people that way- well frankly there is little hope for you.
c) 'the *****'- I despise Omarosa- but I think you calling a woman a '*****' - now- just because she is attacking Don the Con says a lot about you and your view of women.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

What dollars are you thinking you are talking about?

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Not really. The President, and Omarosa, work for us. So he can't enforce a NDA during her time in the White House. He may have been able to do that when he was CEO of Trump Co but not now. Sorry.

Now we know the Trump administration lies at every turn. So you can stop crying about Hillary's 1995 lie. I find it amazing you Republicans have the balls to call her a liar when you have the king of all liars sitting in the white house now

Kelly reportedly said at the time of her firing that the president had signed off on dumping her, yet the recording suggests otherwise. Pierson had claimed no such meeting about the N-word tape ever took place, yet the recording says otherwise. For years there have been rumors about a tape in which Trump says the N-word, and Manigault Newman’s account — no matter how muddy — has pushed the White House into a corner where they won’t deny that it exists.

It’s typical behavior. When you shake them white folks, they will come for your character, and when that doesn’t work, they will try to take everything from you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not really. The President, and Omarosa, work for us. So he can't enforce a NDA during her time in the White House. He may have been able to do that when he was CEO of Trump Co but not now. Sorry.

The charges filed for arbitration are not based on a government employee NDA, it's based on an NDA signed in 2016 when she (a private citizen) worked for the Trump Campaign (a private organization). That NDA - supposedly - included clauses limiting ANY future negative comments or release of information about Trump, Trumps Family, or any of the Trump Organizations.


Trump campaign files complaint against Omarosa, says she breached confidentiality agreement


.>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Not really. The President, and Omarosa, work for us. So he can't enforce a NDA during her time in the White House. He may have been able to do that when he was CEO of Trump Co but not now. Sorry.

The charges filed for arbitration are not based on a government employee NDA, it's based on an NDA signed in 2016 when she (a private citizen) worked for the Trump Campaign (a private organization). That NDA - supposedly - included clauses limiting ANY future negative comments or release of information about Trump, Trumps Family, or any of the Trump Organizations.


Trump campaign files complaint against Omarosa, says she breached confidentiality agreement


.>>>>

I think that's going to be a hard one to enforce given that Trump is president of the United States. The most public of public figures.

Also, what happened to the outrage about 'free speech' from the right? Facebook bans Alex Jones for violating their terms of service and the right loses their shit. Trump tries to silence a critic with an NDA, and they're completely cool with it.

 

[Syriusly]

Not really. The President, and Omarosa, work for us. So he can't enforce a NDA during her time in the White House. He may have been able to do that when he was CEO of Trump Co but not now. Sorry.

The charges filed for arbitration are not based on a government employee NDA, it's based on an NDA signed in 2016 when she (a private citizen) worked for the Trump Campaign (a private organization). That NDA - supposedly - included clauses limiting ANY future negative comments or release of information about Trump, Trumps Family, or any of the Trump Organizations.


Trump campaign files complaint against Omarosa, says she breached confidentiality agreement


.>>>>

I look forward to all of the Conservatives who are appalled by how Facebook has treated some figures on the Right to all rush forward to defend the free speech rights of Omarosa.

Don't you?

 

[Skylar]

Not really. The President, and Omarosa, work for us. So he can't enforce a NDA during her time in the White House. He may have been able to do that when he was CEO of Trump Co but not now. Sorry.

The charges filed for arbitration are not based on a government employee NDA, it's based on an NDA signed in 2016 when she (a private citizen) worked for the Trump Campaign (a private organization). That NDA - supposedly - included clauses limiting ANY future negative comments or release of information about Trump, Trumps Family, or any of the Trump Organizations.


Trump campaign files complaint against Omarosa, says she breached confidentiality agreement


.>>>>

I look forward to all of the Conservatives who are appalled by how Facebook has treated some figures on the Right to all rush forward to defend the free speech rights of Omarosa.

Don't you?

Yeah, and Alex Jones is still speaking and sharing his views with millions of viewers on his website. Trump wants to prevent Omarosa from sharing her views.....at all. In any format.

Its almost like their outrage at Facebook banning Alex Jones was manufactured bullshit meaning nothing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think that's going to be a hard one to enforce given that Trump is president of the United States. The most public of public figures.

Also, what happened to the outrage about 'free speech' from the right? Facebook bans Alex Jones for violating their terms of service and the right loses their shit. Trump tries to silence a critic with an NDA, and they're completely cool with it.

I don't disagree.

Just pointing out that many people are making a wrong assumption. The NDA the filing was under was not as a government employee, it was from being part of the campaign.


.>>>>

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

It isn't illegal to record yourself talking to another person if you are in a single consent state, which DC is one of them. Omarosa was one of the two parties being recorded, so her taping of the conversations is legal.

As far as the tape of Trump saying the N word? Omarosa didn't say she had that one, she just said that she knows it exists. Matter of fact, she said that one of the reasons she was fired from the WH is because she was getting close to getting a copy of that tape.

Omarosa: I was fired because I was 'this close' to finding a recording of Trump using the N-word

Omarosa Manigault Newman, the former White House official currently promoting a tell-all book about her time in the administration, claims she was likely fired from the White House because chief of staff John Kelly knew she was close to obtaining an alleged audio recording of President Trump using the N-word.


Manigault Newman said in her book "Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House" that Kelly gave her the news that she was being fired last December in the White House situation room.


She said Kelly only cited "significant integrity issues" as the reason for her firing, but wrote that she believed it traced back to her attempts to find the recording of Trump using the racial slur.

 

[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.

It isn't illegal to record yourself talking to another person if you are in a single consent state, which DC is one of them. Omarosa was one of the two parties being recorded, so her taping of the conversations is legal.

As far as the tape of Trump saying the N word? Omarosa didn't say she had that one, she just said that she knows it exists. Matter of fact, she said that one of the reasons she was fired from the WH is because she was getting close to getting a copy of that tape.

Omarosa: I was fired because I was 'this close' to finding a recording of Trump using the N-word

Omarosa Manigault Newman, the former White House official currently promoting a tell-all book about her time in the administration, claims she was likely fired from the White House because chief of staff John Kelly knew she was close to obtaining an alleged audio recording of President Trump using the N-word.


Manigault Newman said in her book "Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House" that Kelly gave her the news that she was being fired last December in the White House situation room.


She said Kelly only cited "significant integrity issues" as the reason for her firing, but wrote that she believed it traced back to her attempts to find the recording of Trump using the racial slur.

He does now. Which is why he's abandoned his entire OP.

Now he's complaining that Omarosa violatred the NDA. Which is a civil matter. Not a criminal one.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Not really. The President, and Omarosa, work for us. So he can't enforce a NDA during her time in the White House. He may have been able to do that when he was CEO of Trump Co but not now. Sorry.

The charges filed for arbitration are not based on a government employee NDA, it's based on an NDA signed in 2016 when she (a private citizen) worked for the Trump Campaign (a private organization). That NDA - supposedly - included clauses limiting ANY future negative comments or release of information about Trump, Trumps Family, or any of the Trump Organizations.


Trump campaign files complaint against Omarosa, says she breached confidentiality agreement


.>>>>

I look forward to all of the Conservatives who are appalled by how Facebook has treated some figures on the Right to all rush forward to defend the free speech rights of Omarosa.

Don't you?

She can run her head as much as she like as far as I am concerned, it's quite amusing.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

It isn't illegal to record yourself talking to another person if you are in a single consent state, which DC is one of them. Omarosa was one of the two parties being recorded, so her taping of the conversations is legal.

As far as the tape of Trump saying the N word? Omarosa didn't say she had that one, she just said that she knows it exists. Matter of fact, she said that one of the reasons she was fired from the WH is because she was getting close to getting a copy of that tape.

Omarosa: I was fired because I was 'this close' to finding a recording of Trump using the N-word

Omarosa Manigault Newman, the former White House official currently promoting a tell-all book about her time in the administration, claims she was likely fired from the White House because chief of staff John Kelly knew she was close to obtaining an alleged audio recording of President Trump using the N-word.


Manigault Newman said in her book "Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House" that Kelly gave her the news that she was being fired last December in the White House situation room.


She said Kelly only cited "significant integrity issues" as the reason for her firing, but wrote that she believed it traced back to her attempts to find the recording of Trump using the racial slur.

He does now. Which is why he's abandoned his entire OP.

Now he's complaining that Omarosa violatred the NDA. Which is a civil matter. Not a criminal one.

I'm not sure that you can enforce an NDA for someone who works for the government. Transparency and all that stuff.

And, one of the dumbest statements I've heard Sanders make is when she tried to say that a security clearance and an NDA are the same thing. No, they are two totally different things.

An NDA says that you won't talk about anything that you do at work or the place that is having you sign it.

A security clearance is special authorization for you to look at classified material if you have a need to know.

Neither have anything to do with the other. But, if Sanders wasn't so busy trying to justify what Trump spews out, she would have known that.

 

[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.

It isn't illegal to record yourself talking to another person if you are in a single consent state, which DC is one of them. Omarosa was one of the two parties being recorded, so her taping of the conversations is legal.

As far as the tape of Trump saying the N word? Omarosa didn't say she had that one, she just said that she knows it exists. Matter of fact, she said that one of the reasons she was fired from the WH is because she was getting close to getting a copy of that tape.

Omarosa: I was fired because I was 'this close' to finding a recording of Trump using the N-word

Omarosa Manigault Newman, the former White House official currently promoting a tell-all book about her time in the administration, claims she was likely fired from the White House because chief of staff John Kelly knew she was close to obtaining an alleged audio recording of President Trump using the N-word.


Manigault Newman said in her book "Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House" that Kelly gave her the news that she was being fired last December in the White House situation room.


She said Kelly only cited "significant integrity issues" as the reason for her firing, but wrote that she believed it traced back to her attempts to find the recording of Trump using the racial slur.

He does now. Which is why he's abandoned his entire OP.

Now he's complaining that Omarosa violatred the NDA. Which is a civil matter. Not a criminal one.

I'm not sure that you can enforce an NDA for someone who works for the government. Transparency and all that stuff.

This is a private NDA from candidate Trump. Its still unlikely given thats designed to prevent political speech which is generally the most protected kind.

 

[sealybobo]

Not really. The President, and Omarosa, work for us. So he can't enforce a NDA during her time in the White House. He may have been able to do that when he was CEO of Trump Co but not now. Sorry.

The charges filed for arbitration are not based on a government employee NDA, it's based on an NDA signed in 2016 when she (a private citizen) worked for the Trump Campaign (a private organization). That NDA - supposedly - included clauses limiting ANY future negative comments or release of information about Trump, Trumps Family, or any of the Trump Organizations.


Trump campaign files complaint against Omarosa, says she breached confidentiality agreement


.>>>>

Yea they said last night he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell enforcing that.

But typical of Republicans. When someone speaks out, trash them. If that doesn't work, ruin them.

 

[Skylar]

Not really. The President, and Omarosa, work for us. So he can't enforce a NDA during her time in the White House. He may have been able to do that when he was CEO of Trump Co but not now. Sorry.

The charges filed for arbitration are not based on a government employee NDA, it's based on an NDA signed in 2016 when she (a private citizen) worked for the Trump Campaign (a private organization). That NDA - supposedly - included clauses limiting ANY future negative comments or release of information about Trump, Trumps Family, or any of the Trump Organizations.


Trump campaign files complaint against Omarosa, says she breached confidentiality agreement


.>>>>

Yea they said last night he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell enforcing that.

But typical of Republicans. When someone speaks out, trash them. If that doesn't work, ruin them.

Silencing critics with threats and intimidation is very Trump. And now, very Republican.

 

[Syriusly]

Not really. The President, and Omarosa, work for us. So he can't enforce a NDA during her time in the White House. He may have been able to do that when he was CEO of Trump Co but not now. Sorry.

The charges filed for arbitration are not based on a government employee NDA, it's based on an NDA signed in 2016 when she (a private citizen) worked for the Trump Campaign (a private organization). That NDA - supposedly - included clauses limiting ANY future negative comments or release of information about Trump, Trumps Family, or any of the Trump Organizations.


Trump campaign files complaint against Omarosa, says she breached confidentiality agreement


.>>>>

I look forward to all of the Conservatives who are appalled by how Facebook has treated some figures on the Right to all rush forward to defend the free speech rights of Omarosa.

Don't you?

Yeah, and Alex Jones is still speaking and sharing his views with millions of viewers on his website. Trump wants to prevent Omarosa from sharing her views.....at all. In any format.

Its almost like their outrage at Facebook banning Alex Jones was manufactured bullshit meaning nothing.

Oh I think it is a fine display of Trumpkin hypocrisy- and a great demonstration that it isn't that they want 'free speech' protected- they just object to any restrictions on their favorite far right loons.