Omarosa's Actions: Lawful Or Federal Crime?

In 2018, Omarosa Manigault Newman, former aide to President Donald Trump, released a book titled 'Unhinged: An Insider’s Account of the Trump White House'. In the book, she alleges that she was offered a $15,000 per month campaign position by Lara Trump, the president's daughter-in-law, in exchange for her silence about her time in the White House. She also released secret recordings of conversations with Trump and his chief of staff, John Kelly, which sparked debate about whether she had broken the law.

Did Omarosa violate the Espionage Act?

Omarosa Manigault Newman, former aide to President Donald Trump, secretly recorded White House Chief of Staff John Kelly firing her in the White House Situation Room in December 2017. She later released this tape to the public, along with other recordings, texts, and emails, causing a media frenzy and raising questions about White House security.

While Newman admitted to secretly recording her firing, legal experts disagree about whether she broke the law. According to Mark Zaid, an attorney specializing in national security cases, bringing an electronic device into the Situation Room is a violation of administrative rules but not a crime. Zaid also stated that making a recording in a secured area is an administrative violation but is unlikely to be a legal matter.

Some have suggested that Newman's actions violate a federal statute (18 U.S.C. §793), which addresses the "gathering, transmitting, or losing [of] defense information." However, Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas who specializes in national security and constitutional law, stated that Newman's recording of her firing likely does not fall under the category of national security. He emphasized that it would be a different matter if she had recorded classified material, as it is illegal to record or share sensitive information without authorization.

While Newman's actions caused a security breach, legal experts suggest that she did not violate the Espionage Act, as there was no classified information discussed in the recording of her firing. However, if Newman were to release additional tapes containing classified information, that could potentially change the legal assessment.

Was it legal to make a secret recording of John Kelly?

In August 2018, Omarosa Manigault Newman, former aide to President Donald Trump, released a secret recording of White House chief of staff John Kelly firing her in the White House Situation Room. The Situation Room is considered one of the most secure rooms in the world.

Manigault Newman did not reveal how she recorded the conversation, but some assume she used a cell phone, perhaps in a purse or pocket, while others suspect she used a pen that records audio.

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. However, staffers are required to leave cell phones or any other unsecured electronic device outside of the Situation Room to ensure the security of the room. If a person brings in a device that can record what goes on in the room, it is a violation of administrative rules, but not a crime.

Mark Zaid, an attorney who specializes in national security cases, told USA Today that a person who accidentally brings in a device could lose their security clearance, and if it happens a second time, they would lose their clearance. Knowingly making a recording in a secured area is an administrative violation, but still not likely a legal matter, according to Zaid.

Zaid also pointed out that there is a law against misappropriating a government "record". The recording would be the “record” in this case, but he said it would be highly unlikely that the government would proceed with such a case.

Did Omarosa break the law?

While some sources claim that Omarosa broke the law, legal experts disagree.

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance told MSNBC that Manigault Newman likely committed a "technical crime" when she taped Kelly in the Situation Room and then released the tape when her book tour began.

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas who specializes in national security and constitutional law, told Vox that if Manigault Newman had recorded classified material, it would be a crime. However, there's no evidence, as of 2018, that this happened.

CNN security and legal analyst Susan Hennessey said that since Omarosa didn’t hold any kind of security clearance, she likely didn’t violate federal law so much as break some rules and regulations.

Did Omarosa commit a technical crime?

In August 2018, Omarosa Manigault Newman, former aide to President Donald Trump, released secret recordings of her conversations with Trump and his chief of staff, John Kelly. She also revealed that she had been offered a $15,000 per month campaign position in exchange for keeping quiet about her time in the White House.

While some sources claim that Omarosa committed a technical crime, others disagree. Here is a look at the different perspectives on whether Omarosa committed a technical crime:

Arguments for Omarosa committing a technical crime:

According to former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, Omarosa likely committed a "technical crime or two" when she taped Kelly in the Situation Room and then released the tape to the public. Vance suggested that Omarosa should get herself a lawyer and be in consultation as prosecutors can choose not to prosecute every technical crime.

Arguments against Omarosa committing a technical crime:

Legal experts disagree about whether Omarosa broke the law. 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. While bringing recording devices into the Situation Room is a violation of administrative rules, it is not considered a crime.

Mark Zaid, an attorney specializing in national security cases, stated that it would be a major security violation but he had not seen anyone identify a criminal law that could be applied to this situation. Zaid also pointed out that there is a law against misappropriating a government "record", but it was highly unlikely that the government would pursue such a case.

National security lawyer Bradley Moss and former National Security Council spokesman Ned Price shared similar sentiments, stating that as long as classified information was not discussed, recording a conversation in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility is not a crime.

While Omarosa's actions may have been unethical and a violation of administrative rules, the legal implications are unclear. There is no consensus on whether she committed a technical crime, and the White House's attempts to pursue legal action against her have been unsuccessful.

Did Omarosa violate the Ethics in Government Act?

In June 2019, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a civil lawsuit against Omarosa Manigault Newman, alleging that she had violated the Ethics in Government Act by failing to file a required financial disclosure report after her departure from the White House in December 2017. The DOJ sought a fine of up to $50,000.

Manigault Newman's attorney, John M. Phillips, denied the allegations, stating that the White House had withheld documents required to complete the disclosure report. He claimed that the White House had only agreed to hand over the documents in May, and despite repeated requests, had not yet done so. Phillips characterised the lawsuit as "premature and retaliation".

The complaint, filed in federal court in Washington, DC, alleged that Manigault Newman had been informed of her obligation to file the report by January 18, 2018, and had been sent multiple reminders via email. It further stated that Manigault Newman had responded to one such email but had failed to file the overdue report. The matter was then referred to the DOJ by the president's office in March 2019.

While the specific details of the alleged violation of the Ethics in Government Act are unclear, the act itself is a federal law passed in 1978 that requires high-level government officials to disclose their personal financial interests. The law aims to promote transparency and prevent conflicts of interest by ensuring that government officials' private financial dealings are publicly available for scrutiny.

In addition to the financial disclosure report violation, Manigault Newman also faced scrutiny for secretly recording her firing by then-chief of staff John Kelly in the White House Situation Room. While this action may have violated administrative rules and security protocols, legal experts debated whether it constituted a criminal offence. Some argued that it was legal under District of Columbia law, which allows recording as long as one party to the conversation is aware of it. Others suggested it may have violated a federal statute related to "gathering, transmitting or losing defence information", though Manigault Newman's firing was unlikely to fall under national security.

Did Omarosa violate the Equal Pay Act?

In May 2019, Omarosa Manigault Newman joined a collective legal action against the Trump campaign organization for allegedly violating the Equal Pay Act. This action was instigated earlier in 2019 when former Trump campaign staffer Alva Johnson filed a lawsuit against the president in federal court and accused him of sexual assault during the 2016 presidential campaign. Johnson had also claimed that "women of color were paid less than white men" with similar or fewer professional responsibilities on the campaign trail.

Manigault Newman, in her declaration, stated that she was paid less in her role as Director of African American Outreach by the Trump campaign organization than men performing similar work. She said, "While I strongly suspected I was subjected to pay discrimination while with the Trump Campaign, I have since seen expert analysis confirming this to be true. The numbers don’t lie."

An analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission by economist Phillip Johnson showed that from May to December 2016, women staffers of the Trump campaign were paid 18.2% less than men. For example, in May 2016, while women staffers were paid an average of $3,609, men were paid $4,624.

The motion filed by Manigault Newman requests conditional certification of collective action against Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. (DJTFP) for violating the Equal Pay Act. It states that "this pay disparity was the result of a common scheme carried out by DJTFP’s male-dominated management and upheld via DJTFP’s centralized decision-making and policies."

In conclusion, while Manigault Newman's declaration and the supporting data provide evidence of a violation of the Equal Pay Act, it is ultimately up to the court to decide whether the law has been broken.

Frequently asked questions