Omarosa's Wiretapping: Legal Or Criminal?

In August 2018, Omarosa Manigault Newman, a former White House aide, released a secret recording of her conversation with White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, who fired her in December 2017. The recording was made in the White House Situation Room, considered one of the most secure rooms globally. While Manigault Newman admitted to the secret recording, it is unclear if she broke the law.

Legality of Omarosa's recording of John Kelly

In August 2018, Omarosa Manigault Newman, a former White House aide and reality television participant, released a recording of her dismissal by Chief of Staff John Kelly in the White House Situation Room. Omarosa claimed she made the recording to protect herself from false stories about her time in the Trump administration.

The legality of Omarosa's recording of John Kelly is a matter of debate. Some argue that she broke the law by secretly taping her firing in a secure area, while others claim that it is not illegal in Washington, D.C., as the law allows "one-party consent" on recordings.

Mark Zaid, a Washington attorney specializing in national security cases, stated that while Omarosa's actions may constitute a major security violation, he has not seen a criminal law that could reasonably be applied to this situation. Zaid also mentioned the possibility of a Watergate-era law against misappropriating government records being applied but deemed it unlikely that the government would pursue such a case.

On the other hand, Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's lawyer, believes Omarosa may have broken the law by violating national security regulations. Sean Spicer, a former White House press secretary, agreed, stating that it was an "unbelievable violation of protocol and the law." Juliette Kayyem, a former top Homeland Security official, also expressed concern, noting that external devices are strictly prohibited in the Situation Room to prevent sensitive information from being accessed by foreign enemies or spy services.

The legality of Omarosa's recording of John Kelly remains uncertain, with differing opinions among legal experts and former government officials. While some argue that she broke the law and violated national security protocols, others claim that her actions do not fall under criminal statutes and are protected by the "one-party consent" law in Washington, D.C. The debate highlights the complex nature of privacy, security, and consent in the context of recordings made in secure government locations.

Violation of espionage act

The Espionage Act of 1917 is a United States federal law that was enacted shortly after the country entered World War I. It has been amended numerous times and is now found under Title 18 (Crime & Criminal Procedure).

The act was intended to prohibit interference with military operations or recruitment, prevent insubordination in the military, and stop the support of enemies of the United States during wartime. It was also meant to prevent the sharing of sensitive information that could compromise national security.

In the case of Omarosa Manigault Newman, the former White House aide who secretly recorded conversations with Donald Trump and his chief of staff, John Kelly, the question of whether she violated the Espionage Act has been raised.

Some have suggested that Newman's actions could fall under a federal statute (18 U.S.C. §793) that addresses the "Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information." However, legal experts argue that the information she recorded, which pertained to her firing, would not likely be considered national security-related.

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor specializing in national security and constitutional law, stated that if Newman had recorded classified material, it would be a clear violation of the Espionage Act. He emphasized that it is a crime to record or share sensitive information that one is not authorized to possess.

While Newman's actions may have breached administrative rules and raised security concerns, legal experts suggest that her actions are unlikely to result in criminal charges or prosecution under the Espionage Act, as there was no evidence of classified information being recorded or shared.

Security risk of recording device

The use of a recording device, as seen in the case of Omarosa Manigault Newman, presents several security risks that cannot be ignored. While the act of recording itself may not be illegal, there are significant implications for privacy and data security.

Firstly, the unauthorised access and exposure of personal data are two primary concerns. When recording, there is a risk that someone could gain access to the content without permission, especially if the recording software or account is compromised. This could lead to sensitive information or private conversations falling into the wrong hands.

Secondly, screen recording may inadvertently capture personal data such as passwords, financial details, or private messages. If this information is not properly secured, it could lead to identity theft or result in financial losses.

Additionally, the misuse of recording devices by individuals with malicious intent is a serious concern. For example, an employee could use a recording device to capture sensitive information or intellectual property for unauthorised purposes.

Furthermore, cybercriminals may exploit vulnerabilities in recording apps to track locations, steal text messages, and record private conversations, as seen in the case of the iRecorder app on Google Play.

The security of data storage and transmission is also critical. Recorded content stored locally or on cloud servers can be targeted by hackers or unauthorised entities seeking sensitive data.

Another challenge is the lack of user awareness and consent. In some cases, individuals may be recorded without their knowledge, leading to potential legal and ethical implications, especially when privacy laws and regulations differ across jurisdictions.

To mitigate these risks, it is essential to implement robust security measures, raise awareness, obtain proper consent, and adapt privacy regulations to evolving technologies. This includes using strong authentication methods, encryption, secure storage and transmission methods, and regularly updating recording software to address vulnerabilities.

In the case of Omarosa Manigault Newman, while the legality of her secret recordings is questionable, the security risks associated with her recording device are evident. By bringing a recording device into the White House Situation Room, considered one of the most secure rooms globally, she potentially exposed the room to foreign entities and hacking, compromising national security.

Legality of recording in the Situation Room

The legality of recording conversations varies depending on the location and the number of parties involved. In the United States, the laws regarding the recording of conversations hinge on the concept of "one-party consent" or "two-party consent".

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. This is an example of a "one-party consent" law. As of 2010, there are 12 states that have "two-party consent" laws, which require the consent of all parties in a conversation to be recorded. These states include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington State.

The White House Situation Room is located in the District of Columbia, where "one-party consent" laws are in place. However, there are additional security considerations that come into play in this context. Staffers are required to leave their cell phones and other unsecured electronic devices outside the Situation Room to ensure the security of the room. Bringing in a recording device would be a violation of administrative rules and could result in the loss of security clearance. While this is not a criminal offence, it is considered a major security violation.

In the case of Omarosa Manigault Newman, who secretly recorded her firing by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly in the Situation Room, legal experts debated the applicability of federal statutes related to the gathering and transmitting of defence information and the misappropriation of government records. While some argued that her actions constituted a "technical crime", others noted that the information disclosed was not of a national security nature and that it would be unlikely for the government to pursue legal action.

Omarosa's potential legal jeopardy

In August 2018, Omarosa Manigault Newman, former White House aide, revealed that she had secretly recorded White House chief of staff John Kelly firing her in the White House Situation Room in December 2017. She later released the tape, saying that she had 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."

While the law in Washington, D.C. allows “one-party consent” on recordings, meaning that secretly recording Kelly without his permission is not illegal, the act of bringing a recording device into the White House Situation Room has been deemed a major security violation.

Mark Zaid, an attorney who specializes in national security cases, told USA Today that while a person who accidentally brings a device into the Situation Room could lose their security clearance, doing so a second time would result in losing that clearance. He also said that knowingly making a recording in a secured area is an administrative violation, but still not likely a legal matter. However, Zaid noted that there is a possibility that a Watergate-era law against misappropriating a government "record" could be applied, but it's "incredibly unlikely" that this would happen.

Some have argued that Omarosa's secret taping constituted law-breaking, including former New York mayor and Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who said that Omarosa was "certainly violating national security regulations, which I think have the force of law." Juliette Kayyem, a former assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs in the Department of Homeland Security, also pointed to Omarosa's recording as signifying the lack of “security culture” in the Trump administration.

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance told MSNBC that Omarosa likely committed a "technical crime" when she taped Kelly in the Situation Room and then released the tape when her book tour began. “There is likely a technical crime or two that’s been committed here, " Vance said. "Obviously, prosecutors don’t choose to prosecute every technical crime that’s been committed, but she probably should get herself a lawyer and be in consultation."

Frequently asked questions