Omarosa's Secret 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. The tapes included one of Kelly firing her in the White House Situation Room, considered one of the most secure rooms globally. While Manigault Newman admitted to secretly recording her firing, the legality of her actions is unclear. In the District of Columbia, it is legal to record a conversation if one participant is aware, but bringing recording devices into the Situation Room is a violation of administrative rules. While some claim Manigault Newman broke the law, legal experts argue it was an internal rule violation rather than a criminal act.

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

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. The recordings were made in the White House Situation Room, considered one of the most secure rooms on the planet. This act was a significant security breach and sparked concerns about the lack of "security culture" in the Trump administration.

Manigault Newman's decision to secretly record in the Situation Room was met with strong criticism from White House officials and allies. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders called it a "blatant disregard for our national security". Despite the serious nature of the breach, legal experts debated whether Manigault Newman's actions were illegal or simply a violation of administrative rules and security protocols.

Mark Zaid, an attorney specialising in national security cases, stated that while bringing a recording device into a secured area is a major security violation, it is not likely a criminal matter. Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, agreed, noting that it would only become a violation of the Espionage Act if classified or sensitive information was involved, which did not appear to be the case.

However, some argued that Manigault Newman may have violated federal statutes related to defence information (18 U.S.C. §793) and restricted buildings (18 U.S.C. §1752). Ultimately, the secret recordings by Manigault Newman highlighted a concerning lack of security awareness and protocol adherence within the Trump administration.

Newman's recording was made in the White House Situation Room, one of the most secure rooms in the world

The White House Situation Room is considered one of the most secure rooms in the world. It is a "sensitive compartmented information facility", or SCIF, and security in the area is stringent. The complex is 5,500 square feet and is divided into seven rooms. It is staffed primarily by the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS), with five "watch teams" of five to six people each, monitoring international events 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

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

Omarosa Manigault Newman recorded her conversation with John Kelly in the Situation Room, where he fired her from her role as White House aide. She did not reveal how she made the recording, but some assume it was made by cell phone, perhaps in a purse or pocket, while others suspect she used a pen that records audio.

Newman's actions were a violation of administrative rules and a security breach, but legal experts suggest it is unlikely that she broke the law.

Newman's actions were a violation of administrative rules, but not a crime

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 says she secretly recorded Kelly firing her in the White House Situation Room in December 2017. She also released another recording in which Trump appears surprised that she had been ousted.

Newman's actions were a violation of administrative rules but not a crime. Staffers are required to leave cell phones or any other unsecured electronic devices outside of the Situation Room to ensure the security of the room. Bringing in a device that can record what goes on in the room 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. While knowingly making a recording in a secured area is an administrative violation, Zaid said it is still not likely a legal matter. He stated that it is a "major security violation" but that he has "not seen anyone identify a (criminal) law that can reasonably and practically be applied to this type of situation."

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas who specializes in national security and constitutional law, agreed that Newman's actions were not illegal. He noted that it would only become a violation of law if Newman had taped conversations involving classified materials. It is important to distinguish between breaking the rules and committing a crime.

Newman's actions sparked concerns about the security and ethics of recording in the Situation Room, which is considered a highly secure area. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders called Newman's actions a "blatant disregard for our national security."

Newman's recording was legal because she was a party to the conversation

In the District of Columbia, it is legal to record a conversation as long as one of the participants is aware that the conversation is being recorded. Omarosa Manigault Newman was a participant in the conversation with John Kelly, and she was aware that she was recording it. Therefore, her recording was legal.

Newman's recording of her conversation with Kelly was made in the White House Situation Room, considered one of the most secure rooms on the planet. 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. Newman's use of a recording device presented counterintelligence risks, as foreign agencies could have hacked it and accessed all conversations, not just the ones she chose to record. However, the violation is unlikely to be considered a criminal act, and Newman's action is more likely an administrative violation.

Newman's recording was part of a promotional tour for her new book, *Unhinged*, which includes claims that former US President Donald Trump used racial epithets. Newman says she recorded the conversation because she feared for her safety and because "If I didn't have these recordings, no one in America would believe me."

Newman's recording did not contain classified information

In August 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. The recordings included one of Kelly firing her in the White House Situation Room, considered one of the most secure rooms in the world, and another of Trump expressing surprise at her dismissal.

Newman's recordings did not contain classified information. However, her actions were seen as a security breach, with White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders stating that they showed a "blatant disregard for our national security". Newman defended her actions, saying she recorded the conversations because she feared for her safety and wanted to protect her reputation.

While Newman's recordings did not contain classified information, legal experts noted that recording in the Situation Room presented counterintelligence risks. Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer, pointed out that all it would take was for a foreign agency to hack the recording device for all conversations to become "accessible to foreign entities".

Despite the security concerns, legal experts suggested that Newman's actions were unlikely to be criminal. Stephen Vladeck, a law professor specialising in national security and constitutional law, stated that it would be a crime if Newman had recorded classified material, but there was no evidence that this had happened. Mark Zaid, an attorney specialising in national security cases, agreed that it was a major security violation but was not likely a legal matter.

Frequently asked questions