Jump to content

Omarosa probably needs to be prosecuted


AUDub

Recommended Posts

What a publicity hound. Recording in the situation room. What she did was outrageous and a grave security risk. 

At the same time, I can't help but wonder what else she has. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Not sure if y'all are just being sarcastic....but if not, I agree.    .  Wonder how many laws she violated with this?     

BUT....likely nothing will happen since she has made every possible effort to embarrass the current administration since she got the boot,  which will find favor with most of the national media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Not sure if y'all are just being sarcastic....but if not, I agree.    .  Wonder how many laws she violated with this?     

BUT....likely nothing will happen since she has made every possible effort to embarrass the current administration since she got the boot,  which will find favor with most of the national media.

No sarcasm.  She made recordings in the White House situation room.  No matter who the POTUS is, that's an egregious error that needs to be punished.  Who knows what else she may have recorded and could be a national security risk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AU64 said:

Not sure if y'all are just being sarcastic....but if not, I agree.    .  Wonder how many laws she violated with this?     

BUT....likely nothing will happen since she has made every possible effort to embarrass the current administration since she got the boot,  which will find favor with most of the national media.

Not snarking. Even in a presidency where we ignore established norms with regularity, this was way out of bounds.

It is fair to ask what business she had in that room, however. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, AUDub said:

It is fair to ask what business she had in that room, however.

Read somewhere back when she got "fired" that she was a low level aid who had the knack for bluffing or talking her way into gatherings that did not actually involve her.   ...building her resume or something .    https://nypost.com/2017/12/13/omarosa-is-leaving-the-white-house/   

Pretty obvious she did not have any business in the that room but my question is .....who let her have the run of the place?    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

Not snarking. Even in a presidency where we ignore established norms with regularity, this was way out of bounds.

It is fair to ask what business she had in that room, however. 

Kelly was firing her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Kelly was firing her.

True, but she seemed to make it a practice to snoop around (and apparently tape conversations) where she was not supposed to be.  

Hoping she does not get away with this just because some folks might be embarrassed about what she caught on her recordings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

True, but she seemed to make it a practice to snoop around (and apparently tape conversations) where she was not supposed to be.  

Hoping she does not get away with this just because some folks might be embarrassed about what she caught on her recordings. 

I'm sure she's not the only one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, alexava said:

I would want to hear what violations she committed to be fired. He would not tell her anything. Interesting though...

Abuse of her position.....using a government car as her personal taxi, brought her wedding party to the WH apparently without security clearance and more.   She was just someone flashing her "connections" and creating problems for the staff....and drawing a government check for not doing much apparently.  

Lots of stuff on the net about her outrageous behavior if you are really interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AU64 said:

Abuse of her position.....using a government car as her personal taxi, brought her wedding party to the WH apparently without security clearance and more.   She was just someone flashing her "connections" and creating problems for the staff....and drawing a government check for not doing much apparently.  

Lots of stuff on the net about her outrageous behavior if you are really interested.

...being an a**hole

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

...being an a**hole

? That's putting it succinctly ….thanks...

 

PS...and seeing how she conducted herself, expect she knew she was gonna get fired and was hoping to lure Kelly into saying something she could use to make some money.  Didn't get much but still finding a way to profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AU64 said:

? That's putting it succinctly ….thanks...

It never made sense to have her in the administration and the only reason she was there is that first, she (was) loyal and Trump values loyalty over everything else, including decency, competence, experience or knowledge.  Second, she's black.  The End.  She was a prop being used to try and blunt accusations of racial insensitivity.  That she thought she had any value beyond that only shows that everything you learned about her watching The Apprentice was everything that was important to know about her.  She is who we thought she was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It never made sense to have her in the administration and the only reason she was there is that first, she (was) loyal and Trump values loyalty over everything else, including decency, competence, experience or knowledge.  Second, she's black.  The End.  She was a prop being used to try and blunt accusations of racial insensitivity.  That she thought she had any value beyond that only shows that everything you learned about her watching The Apprentice was everything that was important to know about her.  She is who we thought she was.

Never saw even one edition of the show and never heard of her until she got fired.   But somehow people like her seem to get hired into cushy government jobs in every administration...because they know or are related to someone important.   and yet we can't cut the federal budget because of all the people it will hurt....:dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It never made sense to have her in the administration and the only reason she was there is that first, she (was) loyal and Trump values loyalty over everything else, including decency, competence, experience or knowledge.  Second, she's black.  The End.  She was a prop being used to try and blunt accusations of racial insensitivity.  That she thought she had any value beyond that only shows that everything you learned about her watching The Apprentice was everything that was important to know about her.  She is who we thought she was.

I can think of nobody who admires her on either side of the aisle. Trump was probably correct that she is a lowlife but that’s what he rolls with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

I'm sure she's not the only one.

Very true. I'd be gobsmacked if these sort of breakdowns on security weren't routine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me start by saying that I have always maintained that Omarosa is a horrible person. She is clearly one who is a user in the worst sense. I've always thought that Trump liked her because he saw many of her qualities to be the same ones he possesses.

However, so far, I haven't seen anything to suggest she broke the law. It is protocol not to bring recording devices into the SitRoom. And had she released tapes with any classified material, then that would be in violation of the law. Discussions about her firing are not classified in any way. I am in no way defending what she did-- it's really terrible and a major breach of trust-- likely explaining why she was fired in the first place.

Edited to add: this summary from Jonathan Swan sums up this whole thing nicely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, channonc said:

I've always thought that Trump liked her because he saw many of her qualities to be the same ones he possesses.

Who is making this statement ?   And why should we take it with more than a grain of salt?    Someone who does not like DT and found another way to show it. 

JMO but as I noted earlier, these kind of people are in every administration.....recall Houma and several other "characters" from HRC's posse who floated all over the government being advisors or something...and yet with no apparent responsibilities but getting paid six figures. .   

This is how politicians seem to pay off folks who are perceived to have been helpful during an election.  Most are not snakes like this woman, and when they get cut loose they just hang around waiting on their "sponsors" to get back in power though a few might write a book or something.....which seems to be her goal too. .    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

Who is making this statement ?   And why should we take it with more than a grain of salt?    Someone who does not like DT and found another way to show it. 

I took it as channoc making the statement.  It's his own opinion.  Hence him saying "I've always thought..."

And to Omarosa possessing many of the same qualities that Trump himself has, I can't say she's really wrong.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I took it as alexava making the statement.  It's his own opinion.  Hence him saying "I've always thought..."

And to Omarosa possessing many of the same qualities that Trump himself has, I can't say alex is really wrong.

 

 

Channonc 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, channonc said:

However, so far, I haven't seen anything to suggest she broke the law. It is protocol not to bring recording devices into the SitRoom. And had she released tapes with any classified material, then that would be in violation of the law. Discussions about her firing are not classified in any way. I am in no way defending what she did-- it's really terrible and a major breach of trust-- likely explaining why she was fired in the first place.

Edited to add: this summary from Jonathan Swan sums up this whole thing nicely

She didn't break the law only because she was lucky.  One of the reasons SCIFs are off limits for recording devices is that by their very nature the expectation in such areas or rooms is that you can discuss matter that falls under the highest levels of security clearance and it's a safe zone to do so in.  Omarosa didn't know what Kelly would say in that meeting.  What if he'd gone into specifics on classified information when detailing to her the reasons she was in trouble?  That would be on the recording and would be illegal, and depending on the sensitivity of the information, dangerous.

So in my mind, it's more serious than just a breach of trust even if it's not technically illegal.  And at a bare minimum, she should be barred from ever obtaining a government security clearance of any level the rest of her life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, channonc said:

Let me start by saying that I have always maintained that Omarosa is a horrible person. She is clearly one who is a user in the worst sense. I've always thought that Trump liked her because he saw many of her qualities to be the same ones he possesses.

I found this funny. "...because she only said GREAT things about me..."

A sycophant par excellence. 

Quote

However, so far, I haven't seen anything to suggest she broke the law. It is protocol not to bring recording devices into the SitRoom. And had she released tapes with any classified material, then that would be in violation of the law. Discussions about her firing are not classified in any way. I am in no way defending what she did-- it's really terrible and a major breach of trust-- likely explaining why she was fired in the first place.

Edited to add: this summary from Jonathan Swan sums up this whole thing nicely

It depends on if she was present in any other meetings and the nature of what was recorded, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...