home

Omarosa and the Tapes

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 10:31:54 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The only thing that's changed about Omarosa since her days on the Apprentice is she's learned how to modulate her voice a bit, so she isn't always screaming at the top of her lungs.

Here's a smither of her taped call with Trump and another with John Kelly.

As for the big taped call no one has heard that she now claims she has heard (since her book was printed), it's a tape that has been talked about for years. I remember an Apprentice employee claimed to have heard many of them on seasons I and 2. Mark Burnett threatened to sue any employee for $5 million if any Apprentice tapes were released. Media Matters offered to pay the $5 million in damages if he'd release it to MM, but he got no takers. [More..]

Tom Arnold (former spouse of Roseanne) has been claiming to have heard them for years. In this interview, he claims to have one of the tapes.

Who has the outtakes? MGM acknowledged in 2016 that it owned the tapes, having purchased Mark Burnett Productions the year before. MGM says it can't release them due to "various contractual and legal requirements.”

< Open Thread: Returning From Off the Grid | Stephen Miller's Uncle Calls Him Out on Immigration >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Omarosa and the Tapes | 34 comments (34 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    These people are a friggin' clown car. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 03:42:46 PM EST
    Yesterday's cringe-worthy 22-minute "Meet the Press" interview with Omarosa Manigault-Newman represented a new low for NBC News and show host Chuck Todd. I was left with two questions afterward:
    • Why was Omarosa Manigault-Newman even employed at the White House?
    • Why is she inexplicably dominating the news cycle, since she's not saying anything we don't already know about Trump?

    That's all I have to say on this subject.
    I can answer one part of your questions (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Peter G on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 04:12:17 PM EST
    Q1: Why was she hired? Because Republicans think they have to decorate their grift-hiring scheme with a few dark-skinned faces, and do not think that qualifications matter at all while doing so, since they -- at least not this gang -- don't believe that nonwhite people have anything real to contribute. Democrats, on the other hand, believe in affirmative action, that is, consciously seeking out well-qualified individuals of all backgrounds, even if they are not part of your immediate social and business circle.

    Parent
    They all (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by CST on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 03:58:48 PM EST
    Deserve each other.  Not sure about the rest of us.

    So is it criminal (none / 0) (#1)
    by smott on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 11:17:13 AM EST
    To record inside that SCIF room?
    How much trouble is she in?

    The other question is (none / 0) (#2)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 12:02:08 PM EST
    exactly how incompetent is this White House that she was able to record there in the first place?

    Parent
    Well I've read (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by smott on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 12:11:37 PM EST
    That it's an "honor system" inner the SCIF facility.
    Of course, with this admin, the notion of honor seems rather ridiculous.

    Parent
    And, (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 12:28:55 PM EST
    Even more so, to hire her for an important White House position, in the first place. Only the best people, from reality tv.

    Parent
    Generally, it is not a crime to record (none / 0) (#7)
    by Peter G on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 02:40:00 PM EST
    in person a conversation in which you are a participant, even without the knowledge and consent of other participants. It is not a form of wiretapping, as no "wires" (phone call, computer transmission, etc.) are involved. It is not eavesdropping, if you are a participant. According to the Supreme Court, even if a government agent or informant does it, there is no Fourth Amendment issue, as we all (supposedly) assume the risk that those we speak with face-to-face may have excellent memories and credibility about what was said, and that a recording of the conversation is no different. (Not saying I agree, but that's what the Supreme Court has said on this subject, at least since the early '70s.) What particular regulations may apply inside the White House, or in particular parts of the White House, I have no idea.

    Parent
    California (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 03:20:05 PM EST
    requires consent of all present


    Parent
    Yes. Need to check indiv state law (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 06:53:50 PM EST
    b/4 turning on the recording device.

    Parent
    Is a crime (none / 0) (#9)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 03:25:36 PM EST
    Cal. Penal Code section 632. Any illegal recording inamissible into Evidence.

    Parent
    Not in the District of Columbia (none / 0) (#11)
    by Peter G on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 03:43:57 PM EST
    according to this well-regarded state-by-state guide from the Reporters Committee on Freedom of the Press.

    Parent
    Or, in New York (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 06:44:29 PM EST
    One party consent jurisdictions do exist.

    But not everywhere.   It is really bad for you here. Mucho bad karma.

    So, yes, it would appear in DC, it is oaky to tape record, setting aside Federal Regulations and the like.

    Just setting forth an important caveat on what some could have taken as  blanket statement.    

    Parent

    I am only guessing (none / 0) (#16)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 04:14:13 PM EST
    but I would imagine that DC law has no bearing on what happens inside the White House.

    I work for a defense contractor. You cannot take pictures or record anyone anywhere with or without their permission. PA state law does not apply. Every bit of information at my workplace is export controlled and thus subject to a variety of federal laws that regulate defense information.

    Parent

    Makes perfect sense, ChuckO. That's why (none / 0) (#18)
    by Peter G on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 04:38:10 PM EST
    I included the last sentence in my comment #7.

    Parent
    I am only guessing (none / 0) (#17)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 04:14:13 PM EST
    but I would imagine that DC law has no bearing on what happens inside the White House.

    I work for a defense contractor. You cannot take pictures or record anyone anywhere with or without their permission. PA state law does not apply. Every bit of information at my workplace is export controlled and thus subject to a variety of federal laws that regulate defense information.

    Parent

    Suprising to me (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 12:21:35 PM EST
    at least this story seems to have shook them. I guess it is because since Omarosa has tapes they just don't know of who saying what.

    I read (none / 0) (#6)
    by smott on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 02:21:19 PM EST
    That it seems she had a pen that could record.
    She really should be in trouble. Is the DOJ going to go after her?

    Parent
    I doubt (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 05:56:44 PM EST
    they will go after her because it would expose Trump and the GOP more than they already have been exposed.

    Parent
    Why not? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 03:44:03 PM EST
    After all, they just fired Peter Strzok from the FBI.

    Parent
    Go after her for what? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Peter G on Mon Aug 13, 2018 at 03:55:29 PM EST
    See comments #7 - #11.

    Parent
    These are not normal times, Peter. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 14, 2018 at 04:51:37 AM EST
    These people have made it perfectly clear that governing norms do not apply to them, and that they'll do what they damned well please. If they want to prosecute Omarosa, they'll find a way to do it. And if you want to complain about their flouting of the rule of law, so friggin' what? You can stand in line behind all the others who complain about violations of ethics, the emoluments clause, insider dealing, &etc., and wait your turn.

    Think Worcester v. Georgia and how that ultimately played out. Because that's where we're headed, if we're not just about there already. The Trump administration is already in violation of the order to reunite all separated immigrant children with their families. You see any officials in the Dept. of Homeland Security being held for contempt of court?

    The rule of law is only as effective as the will to enforce it. Conversely, if you're in power today and are willing to pervert the law for your own ends, then the law can be whatever you say it is. So, if they want to use the law and law enforcement agencies to intimidate you, they'll do so without so much as a second thought otherwise. And honestly, at the end of the day, who's going to stop them -- Messrs. Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch? Think Trump v. Hawaii. And in the immortal words of the great Scoobie-Doo, "Rotsa Ruck."

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I cannot think of a single time (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 14, 2018 at 09:15:15 AM EST
    that this "administration" has brought criminal charges against someone who embarrassed them publicly or anything else similar to what you are suggesting I am naive for overlooking. (I can cite examples in the Obama Administration, sadly.) Of course the people in charge of our government at the moment are terrible, and their policies and conduct show it. But try to keep your wits about you and maintain your honesty.
       The immigration litigation is important and frustrating, but again, has the ACLU moved for a contempt citation against anyone and had it denied? What basis do you have to suggest that judge is in the DoJ/HHS's pocket? I do not believe you know better than the national ACLU immigration project attorneys how to use that litigation to maximize its beneficial impact on the separated kids and their parents.

    Parent
    An added thought: (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 14, 2018 at 09:41:17 AM EST
    given the current and future SCOTUS, Judge Sabraw is making his decisions with the aim of reuniting all the minors with their parents/guardians b/4 SCOTUS is involved.

    Parent
    What an awful (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 15, 2018 at 04:59:54 AM EST
    Leadership crisis the US is in.

    Soon enough to become (none / 0) (#26)
    by smott on Wed Aug 15, 2018 at 02:28:07 PM EST
    Constitutional I fear. Trump will place himself above the law, and Kavanaugh (who the Dems do not seem to be fighting ) will support him.


    Parent
    Yes, looks like this is where we (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 15, 2018 at 04:28:02 PM EST
    Are headed. Our friends from Warsaw are visiting right now. They ARE in the midst of a Constitutional crisis. The similarities to what their President and what ours is doing are unmistakable.

    If anyone tries to sell that it can't happen to us, they are wrong or complicit.

    Parent

    I watched the 2018 election returns (none / 0) (#28)
    by CST on Thu Aug 16, 2018 at 09:44:57 AM EST
    With some friends from Turkey.

    We were far more shocked than they were.

    Parent

    The US used to hold a lot of sway (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 17, 2018 at 02:57:42 AM EST
    Over the concepts and protection of global democracy. I remember in past years doubting how important our democracy was to the rest of the world. I will never do that again. Our friends are just as desperate for Trump to leave as we are. As long as Trump is getting away with murder the world over it is hard for them to imagine they will one day soon get rid of their version of Trump, brought to them via Russian Facebook propaganda also.

    Parent
    I didn't mean to imply (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CST on Fri Aug 17, 2018 at 09:13:03 AM EST
    They weren't affected by it, or didn't care.  In some ways they were more likely to be impacted by it than us, as they're here seeking political asylum.

    It was more that they weren't as shocked by the concept that people would vote for a wanna-be fascist.

    Parent

    I'm sorry if I sounded touchy (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 18, 2018 at 07:46:01 AM EST
    I'm just heartsick/heartbroken, or maybe that's a panic attack. I went a couple of days without reading news, took the proverbial break. That wasn't so great in the end. Catching up is like getting punched in the stomach.

    Parent
    It is not true that Dems are not fighing (none / 0) (#29)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 16, 2018 at 01:27:57 PM EST
    what can they actually do to prevent this since they don't have control?


    Parent
    As an example (none / 0) (#30)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 16, 2018 at 02:54:13 PM EST
    Twitter Link

    Since Republicans have chosen secrecy over transparency, Democrats issued a FOIA request to the National Archives, seeking the full gamut of Kavanaugh's records, including from his time as Staff Secretary.

    We stand ready to sue the Archives for his full records, if necessary



    Parent
    Where is my spittle flecked Murtha (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 17, 2018 at 03:02:04 AM EST
    Right now?

    Where is my roaring Kennedy?

    Paul Wellstone would have hollared so much he would have maybe had a mild seizure.

    I've got Michael Avenatti now?

    Parent

    Omarosa and the Tapes | 34 comments (34 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment