Did Omarosa Break The Law?

In 2018, Omarosa Manigault Newman, a 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 released the tape, saying she recorded it because she feared for her safety and to have evidence to support her claims. While the legality of her actions is unclear, some legal experts argue that she may have committed a technical crime and violated national security regulations. Others maintain that while it was a violation of administrative rules, it does not constitute a criminal offence. This incident sparked debates about the legality and ethical implications of secret recordings in secure government facilities.

Omarosa Manigault Newman's secret recordings of conversations with Donald Trump and John Kelly

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. Manigault Newman says she secretly recorded Kelly firing her in the White House Situation Room in December 2017. She played the recording on NBC's Meet The Press and released another recording, aired on NBC's Today program, in which Trump appears to express surprise at her dismissal.

The recordings were shared as part of a promotional tour for her new book, Unhinged, which includes claims that Trump has used racial epithets. Manigault Newman said she recorded the conversations because she feared for her safety and to have evidence as "no one in America would believe me" otherwise.

The secret recordings have been seen as a security breach and raised questions about the security culture in the Trump administration. Juliette Kayyem, a former assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs in the Department of Homeland Security, noted that Trump has "essentially mocked" the idea of a security culture.

Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer, said that while there might not be "obvious criminal liability" for the recordings, the violation would likely be enough to deny Manigault Newman a security clearance if she ever seeks federal government employment in the future. The White House press secretary, Sarah Sanders, also criticised Manigault Newman, stating that her actions showed a "blatant disregard for our national security".

While some have suggested that Manigault Newman's recordings violate a federal statute related to "gathering, transmitting or losing defence information", legal experts note that her firing is unlikely to fall under the category of national security. However, it is worth noting that knowingly making a recording in a secured area is considered an administrative violation.

Legality of recording in the White House Situation Room

The legality of recording in the White House Situation Room is a complex issue that has been the subject of debate among legal experts. The Situation Room is a highly secure facility located in the basement of the White House, classified as a "sensitive compartmented information facility" or SCIF. Security protocols strictly prohibit external devices such as smartphones or recorders to prevent foreign enemies or spy services from accessing sensitive information.

In the case of Omarosa Manigault Newman, a former White House aide, the act of secretly recording her firing by Chief of Staff John Kelly in the Situation Room in December 2017 has raised legal questions. While Omarosa has not disclosed the recording device used, speculation suggests a recording pen or a cellphone in her pocket or purse.

Some legal experts argue that Omarosa's actions may have been a violation of administrative rules rather than a criminal offence. Mark Zaid, a Washington attorney specializing in national security cases, notes that while accidentally bringing a device into the Situation Room could result in losing security clearance, intentional recording constitutes a "major security violation." However, Zaid also states that identifying a specific criminal law applicable to this situation would be challenging.

On the other hand, former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance and Stephen Vladeck, a law professor specializing in national security and constitutional law, suggest that Omarosa may have committed a "technical crime." They emphasize that recording and releasing sensitive information without authorization could potentially violate the Espionage Act, but only if classified material was involved.

The White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, strongly condemned Omarosa's actions, stating that they showed a "blatant disregard for national security."

In summary, while the legality of Omarosa's recording in the White House Situation Room remains a subject of debate, it undoubtedly highlights the importance of maintaining the security and integrity of sensitive information within the White House.

Violation of national security regulations

In August 2018, Omarosa Manigault Newman, a 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. The Situation Room is a highly secure facility in the basement of the White House, classified as a "sensitive compartmented information facility" or SCIF.

While the act of recording itself was likely legal, as the District of Columbia allows "one-party consent" on recordings, bringing an electronic device into the Situation Room is a violation of administrative rules. All staffers entering the area must leave their cell phones and other insecure electronic devices outside.

Mark Zaid, an attorney specializing in national security cases, stated that bringing a device into the Situation Room is a violation of administrative rules and a major security breach, but not a crime. However, he noted that using a recording device in a secured area is a more serious violation and "ratchets up the level significantly".

Some have argued that Omarosa's actions constitute a violation of national security regulations. Juliette Kayyem, a former assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs in the Department of Homeland Security, pointed to a lack of "security culture" in the Trump administration. Kayyem, along with national security lawyer Bradley Moss, also raised concerns about counterintelligence risks, suggesting that foreign agencies could potentially hack the recording device and access all conversations, not just the one Omarosa chose to record.

In response to the incident, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders stated:

> "The very idea a staff member would sneak a recording device into the White House Situation Room shows a blatant disregard for our national security. And then to brag about it on national television further proves the lack of character and integrity of this disgruntled former White House employee."

While the legality of Omarosa's actions is still debated, the incident highlights the importance of maintaining secure procedures and the potential risks associated with recording devices in highly sensitive areas.

Misappropriating a government record

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. Manigault Newman also revealed that she had secretly recorded Kelly firing her in the White House Situation Room in 2017.

The White House Situation Room is considered one of the most secure rooms on the planet. It is a "sensitive compartmented information facility," or a SCIF, and security in the area is stringent. Staffers are required to leave their 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.

Some have argued that Manigault Newman's actions constitute a violation of a law against misappropriating a government "record." In this case, the recording would be the "record." However, it is unlikely that the government would pursue legal action.

In law, misappropriation is the unauthorized use of another's property or discoveries without that person's permission, resulting in harm to that person. It can refer to the intentional and illegal use of property or funds, particularly by a public official.

In criminal law, misappropriation is the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person for one's own use or other unauthorized purposes, especially by a public official or a person with a fiduciary duty. Depending on the jurisdiction and value of the property, misappropriation may be a felony, a crime punishable by imprisonment, fines, probation, and a permanent criminal record.

In California, for example, misappropriation of public funds is a crime for a public officer or a trustee of public funds to misuse the funds for improper use. A conviction can lead to a felony, fines, and permanent disqualification from holding public office.

The legal definition of misappropriation of public funds depends on the specific section of the law that has been violated. Some common ways in which a person can commit the crime of misappropriation of public funds include:

• Appropriating public funds without authority: Using public funds for one's own use or the use of another person without legal authorization.
• Loaning, profiting from, or misusing public funds without authority: Making unauthorized loans or using public money for a purpose not authorized by law.
• False accounts or fraudulent alterations or destruction of accounts: Knowingly keeping false accounts or making false entries, or altering, concealing, or destroying accounts with the intent to defraud.
• Refusing to pay or transfer public funds: Willfully refusing to pay or transfer public funds when presented with a draft or order by a competent authority, or failing to pay money received to an authorized person.

While the specific consequences of misappropriating a government record may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the record, it is clear that such actions can have serious legal implications and may result in criminal charges.

Administrative and/or criminal violations

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. Manigault Newman says she secretly recorded Kelly firing her in the White House Situation Room in December 2017.

Violation of administrative rules

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. Bringing in a device that can record what goes on in the room is a violation of administrative rules, but not a crime. However, some sources claim that this is only the case if the meeting is unclassified.

Loss of security clearance

Mark Zaid, an attorney who specialises 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. Manigault Newman has already lost her security clearance, and it is unlikely she will ever reapply for one.

Intentional recording in a secured area

Zaid also stated that "knowingly making a recording in a secured area is certainly an administrative violation, but is still not likely a legal matter". He added that "it's a major security violation for sure".

Violation of national security regulations

Rudy Giuliani, Trump's lawyer, said he thinks Manigault Newman "may have broken the law by recording Kelly when he fired her late last year during a locked-door meeting in the super-secure Situation Room". He added that she is "certainly violating national security regulations, which I think have the force of law".

Espionage Act violation

Some have suggested that Manigault Newman violated a federal statute (18 U.S.C. §793) that addresses "gathering, transmitting or losing defence information". However, this law applies to defence-related or national security-related information, and Manigault Newman's firing would not likely fall under this category.

Misappropriation of a government "record"

Zaid 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 pursue such a case.

"Technical crime"

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. Vance said that "there is likely a technical crime or two that’s been committed here" and that Manigault Newman "probably should get herself a lawyer and be in consultation".

Frequently asked questions