Amorosa's Taping Of Kelly: Legal Or Not?

In 2018, Omarosa Manigault Newman, a former White House aide, released secret recordings of her conversations with Donald Trump and his chief of staff, John Kelly. Newman defended her actions, saying, If I did not have this recording, people would still believe the false, incredible story that I was running around the White House. While some claim that Newman broke the law, others argue that she simply broke protocol.

Amorosa Manigault Newman's secret recording of John Kelly was a breach of security protocols

Bringing a recording device into the Situation Room was a violation of administrative rules and a major security breach. It was not, however, a criminal act. In the District of Columbia, it is legal to record a conversation as long as one person involved in the conversation is aware it is being recorded. While Manigault Newman's actions were a breach of security protocols, they did not constitute a crime.

Some have argued that Manigault Newman's actions may have violated a federal statute (18 U.S.C. §793) that addresses the "Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information." However, this statute applies to defence-related or national security-related information, which was not discussed in the recording. Additionally, Manigault Newman did not have a security clearance, which further complicates the legal implications of her actions.

While there may not have been a criminal violation, Manigault Newman's secret recording of John Kelly was a clear breach of security protocols and a threat to national security. It demonstrated a disregard for established safety protocols and the importance of maintaining the security of sensitive information.

Amorosa's actions were not illegal, but they were a violation of administrative rules

Amorosa Manigault Newman, a former White House aide, secretly recorded her firing by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly in the White House Situation Room. She later played the tape on NBC's "Meet the Press". While Amorosa's actions were not illegal, they did violate administrative rules.

In the District of Columbia, it is legal to record a conversation as long as one person involved in the conversation is aware that it is being recorded. However, bringing an electronic device into the Situation Room is a violation of administrative rules. Staffers are required to leave their cell phones or any other unsecured electronic devices outside the Situation Room to ensure the security of the room. This rule is in place to maintain the integrity of the Situation Room as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).

Mark Zaid, an attorney specializing in national security cases, stated that bringing a recording device into a secured area is an administrative violation but is not likely a legal matter. He noted that doing so accidentally could result in losing one's security clearance, and if it happened a second time, they would definitely lose their clearance. Zaid also mentioned that knowingly making a recording in a secured area is a major security violation.

Amorosa's actions sparked concerns about national security and the ethics of recording in the Situation Room. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders called it a "blatant disregard for our national security" and a lack of "character and integrity." Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel also questioned the appropriateness of secretly recording the White House Chief of Staff in the Situation Room.

While Amorosa's actions did not break the law, they did violate established security protocols and administrative rules.

Amorosa's recording was not a violation of the Espionage Act as no classified information was discussed

Amorosa Manigault Newman, a former White House aide, secretly recorded White House Chief of Staff John Kelly firing her in the White House Situation Room in December 2017. She released the recording on NBC's Meet the Press in August 2018, saying that she did so because she feared for her safety and to protect her reputation.

While Amorosa's recording of her firing was certainly a breach of White House norms and regulations, it is unclear whether it constitutes a criminal act. Some have suggested that it violates a federal statute (18 U.S.C. §793) that addresses the "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information." However, legal experts argue that for Amorosa's recording to violate this statute, it would have to involve classified or national security-related information, which does not appear to be the case.

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas who specializes in national security and constitutional law, stated that "it's a crime to record or share sensitive information that you're not legally authorized to have." He added that "there's no doubt that a recording of a discussion of information that is classified would violate the Espionage Act." However, he also noted that "there's no evidence, as of now, that this has happened here."

Mark Zaid, an attorney who specializes in national security cases, echoed a similar sentiment, stating that "it's certainly an administrative violation" but is "still not likely a legal matter." He further emphasized that "if you're recording, that is ratcheting up the level significantly because now it's intentional, so it's a major security violation for sure."

In conclusion, while Amorosa's recording of her firing may have broken internal rules and posed a significant security breach, it did not violate the Espionage Act as no classified information was discussed. The lack of classified or sensitive information in the recording means that Amorosa's actions are unlikely to be considered a criminal offense, even though they may have ethical and security implications.

Amorosa's actions could have constituted a technical crime and she may have committed a major security violation

Amorosa Manigault Newman's actions could have constituted a technical crime, and she may have committed a major security violation. While the specific circumstances of her case do not immediately suggest criminal activity, they do indicate a serious breach of security protocols.

Manigault Newman recorded her firing by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly in the White House Situation Room, one of the most secure rooms in the world. This was a clear violation of established safety protocols, as phones and recording devices are prohibited in the Situation Room for security reasons. However, the fact that the conversation did not involve classified information means it is not clear if this constitutes a criminal act or merely an internal rule violation.

Some legal experts have suggested that Manigault Newman's actions could be considered a "technical crime" or a major security violation. Mark Zaid, an attorney specializing in national security cases, stated that bringing a recording device into a secure area is a major security violation but is unlikely to be a legal matter. Similarly, while Rudy Giuliani claimed Manigault Newman was "violating national security regulations", law professor Stephen Vladeck asserted that it would take "significant legal acrobatics" to turn this incident into a prosecutable crime.

The White House and members of the GOP have strongly condemned Manigault Newman's actions, characterizing them as a "blatant disregard for national security" and a "threat to national security".

Amorosa's recording device presented counterintelligence risks

Amorosa Manigault Newman's recording device presented counterintelligence risks. Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer in Washington, noted that it was unusual for a personnel meeting to take place in the Situation Room. He suggested that the White House may have chosen the location because they suspected Amorosa might try to secretly record the meeting.

Juliette Kayyem, a former assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs in the Department of Homeland Security, pointed to Amorosa's recording device as evidence of a lack of "security culture" in the Trump administration. Kayyem noted that Trump had "essentially mocked" the idea of a security culture, pointing to instances such as White House staffers working without security clearances, Trump using an unsecured phone, and his 2017 dinner with Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe about North Korea at Mar-a-Lago.

Moss and Kayyem both highlighted the risk of Amorosa's recording device being hacked by foreign agencies. Kayyem stated that "all it takes is one foreign agency hacking [the recording device], and setting it to passive record mode." This would mean that all conversations, not just those Amorosa chose to record, would be "accessible to foreign entities." Kayyem further emphasised that the audience for these recordings included not just Amorosa and Trump, but also foreign powers such as China and Russia.

While it is unclear if Amorosa's actions were a criminal offence, security experts and former White House staffers noted that phones and recording devices are not allowed inside the Situation Room for security reasons.

Frequently asked questions