Omorosa's Actions: Federal Law Violation?

In 2018, Omarosa Manigault Newman, former aide to President Donald Trump, released a book about her time in the White House, titled 'Unhinged'. In it, she alleges that she was offered a $15,000 per month campaign position in exchange for keeping quiet about her time in the White House. She also released recordings of her firing by White House chief of staff John Kelly, and of conversations with Trump and Kelly. While some sources claim that she broke the law, others disagree, stating that she merely broke administrative rules.

Omarosa Manigault Newman secretly recorded her firing in the White House Situation Room

In 2018, Omarosa Manigault Newman revealed that she had secretly recorded White House chief of staff John Kelly firing her in the White House Situation Room, considered one of the most secure rooms on the planet. Parts of her conversation with Kelly were played on NBC's "Meet the Press" to promote her new book, "Unhinged," which was released the following week.

Manigault Newman said 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." She also said she viewed Kelly's comments as a "threat."

The Situation Room is a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), where the nation's most consequential foreign policy decisions are made, and staff are not permitted to bring in cell phones or other recording devices. Bringing recording devices into the Situation Room is a violation of administrative rules but not a crime. However, doing so intentionally is considered a major security violation.

Some have suggested that Manigault Newman's recording violated a federal statute (18 U.S.C. §793) related to "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information." However, legal experts note that this law applies to defense-related or national security-related information, and Manigault Newman's firing likely does not fall under this category.

While Manigault Newman's recording may not have broken any laws, it sparked anger and drew criticism from allies of the president, national security experts, and White House officials, who tried to discredit her book.

She also recorded conversations with Donald Trump and John Kelly

In August 2018, Omarosa Manigault Newman, former aide to President Donald Trump, revealed that she had secretly recorded conversations with Trump and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly. The recordings included audio of her firing, which took place in the White House Situation Room, as well as a phone call with Trump, in which he expressed surprise and disappointment about her departure.

In the recording of her firing, Kelly cited "serious integrity violations" as the reason for her dismissal. However, in the phone call with Trump, the former president claimed to have no knowledge of the decision, stating, "Nobody even told me about it... I don't love you leaving at all."

Manigault Newman defended her decision to covertly record the conversations, stating that she feared for her safety and believed that no one would believe her without the recordings. She also claimed that she recorded the conversations as a form of protection, interpreting Kelly's comments about potential "difficulty in the future relative to your reputation" as a threat.

The White House did not immediately respond to questions about the tapes but attempted to discredit Manigault Newman and her book, "Unhinged," with White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders calling it "riddled with lies and false accusations." Trump himself labelled Manigault Newman a "lowlife."

While Manigault Newman's secret recordings raised questions about White House security, legal experts debated the legality of her actions. In the District of Columbia, it is legal to record a conversation as long as one party is aware of the recording. However, bringing recording devices into the Situation Room violates administrative rules, even if it may not constitute a criminal offence.

Mark Zaid, an attorney specialising in national security cases, stated that while accidentally bringing a device into the Situation Room could result in the loss of security clearance, doing so knowingly would be a major security violation. However, he noted that he had not identified a specific criminal law that could be applied in this situation.

The recordings were a security breach and a violation of administrative rules

In 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. These recordings included audio of her firing, which took place in the White House Situation Room, as well as discussions about an alleged recording of Trump using a racial slur.

While the recordings did not violate federal law, they were a security breach and a violation of administrative rules. Staffers are required to leave their cell phones and other unsecured electronic devices outside the Situation Room, a "sensitive compartmented information facility" (SCIF) with stringent security protocols. Bringing a recording device into the Situation Room is a violation of these protocols and a major security risk.

Mark Zaid, an attorney specializing in national security cases, stated that while accidentally bringing a device into the Situation Room could result in the loss of security clearance, doing so knowingly and making a recording would be a significant security violation. Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer, noted that the use of a recording device presented counterintelligence risks, as foreign agencies could potentially hack the device and access all conversations, not just those Omarosa chose to record.

The White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, also emphasized the security breach, stating that Omarosa's actions showed a "blatant disregard for our national security" and a "lack of character and integrity."

In addition to the security implications, there were also legal questions surrounding Omarosa's actions. The Trump administration filed an arbitration action against her, alleging that she breached her nondisclosure agreement from 2016 by releasing the secret recordings. While experts suggested that Omarosa did not violate any security laws, the arbitration case highlights the potential legal consequences of her actions.

Omarosa was sued by the DOJ for allegedly violating ethics law

Omarosa Manigault Newman, a former aide to President Donald Trump, was sued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for allegedly violating the Ethics in Government Act. The civil lawsuit, filed in June 2019, claimed that Omarosa failed to submit 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.

Omarosa's attorney, John M. Phillips, denied the allegations, stating that the White House withheld necessary documents and that the lawsuit was an act of retaliation. He claimed that Omarosa had requested an extension until the documents were returned but did not receive them until May. Phillips characterised the lawsuit as "premature and retaliation".

The complaint alleged that Omarosa had been informed of her obligation to file the financial disclosure report when she left the White House and had received multiple reminders via email. It also stated that ethics attorneys from the White House counsel's office had made repeated attempts to contact her about the overdue report. Omarosa did respond to one ethics attorney by phone but failed to subsequently file the report.

Omarosa Manigault Newman's high-profile departure from the White House in December 2017 was marked by controversy. She secretly recorded her firing by then-chief of staff John Kelly and later released the tape, along with other recordings from her time in the Trump administration. She also wrote a tell-all book, "Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House," and appeared on "Celebrity Big Brother," where she discussed her time working for the president.

In addition to the ethics lawsuit, Omarosa faced legal action from the Trump campaign for allegedly breaking a 2016 nondisclosure agreement. The arbitration case was filed in response to Omarosa's release of secret recordings and her book, which revealed private conversations and alleged that Trump tried to buy her silence with a $15,000 per month campaign position.

Legal experts disagree on whether she broke federal law

In August 2018, Omarosa Manigault Newman, former aide to President Donald Trump, released a series of secret recordings of her conversations with Trump and his chief of staff, John Kelly. This sparked debate over whether she had broken federal law.

Legal experts disagree on whether Manigault Newman broke the law by recording her conversations with Kelly and Trump. In the District of Columbia, it is legal to record a conversation as long as one person involved is aware that it is being recorded. However, bringing recording devices into the White House Situation Room—where the conversations took place—is a violation of administrative rules, though not a crime.

Some experts argue that Manigault Newman's actions were a security risk and a breach of protocol. Mark Zaid, an attorney specialising in national security cases, said that "knowingly making a recording in a secured area is certainly an administrative violation". He also pointed out that there is a law against misappropriating a government "record", and the recording could be considered a "record" under this law.

Others, such as national security lawyer Bradley Moss, argue that as long as classified information wasn't discussed, recording a conversation in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) isn't a crime. Moss stated that there is no real obvious criminal liability in this case.

In addition to the debate over the legality of the recordings, there is also discussion of whether Manigault Newman broke the law by accepting "hush money" from the Trump campaign. Manigault Newman claimed that she was offered a $15,000 per month campaign position in exchange for keeping quiet about her time in the White House. Legal experts disagree on whether such an agreement could have prevented her from discussing her time in public service. While "hush money" contracts are not unlawful in principle, legal precedent says that ex-federal employees cannot be required to promise silence on non-classified matters.

Frequently asked questions