Omarosa's Legal Troubles: Did She Break Any Laws?

Omarosa Manigault Newman, a former White House aide, has been at the centre of several controversies, including allegations of breaking the law. One notable incident involved her secretly recording conversations with White House staff, including her firing by Chief of Staff John Kelly in the White House Situation Room. While this raised security concerns and potentially violated administrative rules, legal experts debated the applicability of criminal laws to this situation. Newman also faced a federal lawsuit from the DOJ for allegedly violating ethics laws by failing to file a financial disclosure report after her departure from the White House. She has also been accused of breaching a secrecy agreement with the Trump campaign.

Omarosa's secret recordings of Trump and Kelly

In August 2018, Omarosa Manigault Newman, a former aide to President Donald Trump, released secret recordings of her conversations with Trump and his chief of staff, John Kelly. The recordings included one of Kelly firing her in the White House Situation Room in December 2017, and another of Trump expressing surprise that she had been ousted.

Manigault Newman shared the recordings as part of her promotional tour for her new book, "Unhinged", which offers a scathing account of life in the West Wing and claims that Trump is a "racist" who has used racial epithets. In the recordings, she also described the way her exit interview was handled, saying she felt threatened by Kelly.

The secret recordings have been seen as a security breach and raised questions about the security culture in the Trump administration. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders stated that Manigault Newman's actions showed a "blatant disregard for our national security." However, the question of whether Manigault Newman could face prosecution for making the recordings in the Situation Room or recording the president without his knowledge remains unclear.

While some legal experts have suggested that Manigault Newman's actions may have violated administrative rules or committed a "technical crime", others have noted that there is no obvious criminal liability for recording a conversation in the Situation Room. According to Mark Zaid, an attorney specializing in national security cases, it is not likely a legal matter, but it is definitely a major security violation.

Manigault Newman has defended her actions, saying that she recorded the conversations because she feared for her safety and wanted to have proof of what happened. She also admitted that she made a mistake by being "complicit with this White House deceiving this nation."

Violation of the Ethics in Government Act

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 to the public, stating 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 her actions sparked debate about the legality and ethical implications, the focus here is on the potential violation of the Ethics in Government Act.

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is a United States federal law enacted in the aftermath of the Nixon Watergate scandal and the Saturday Night Massacre. Its primary objective was to combat corruption within the government. The Act mandates public disclosure of financial and employment information for public officials and their immediate families. It also imposes restrictions on lobbying activities by public officials after leaving office and establishes the United States Office of Government Ethics to oversee federal ethics programs.

While Omarosa's secret recording of her firing may have violated administrative rules and raised security concerns, the discussion here centres on potential violations of the Ethics in Government Act. The Act requires public officials to disclose financial information, including sources and amounts of income, gifts, reimbursements, property holdings, liabilities, and certain financial interests of spouses or dependents. Omarosa, as a former White House aide, would likely be subject to these disclosure requirements.

However, the specific details of Omarosa's financial situation and disclosures, if any, are not publicly available. Without this information, it is challenging to determine conclusively whether she violated the Ethics in Government Act. It is important to note that the Act's requirements are comprehensive and apply to a wide range of public officials, including those in the Executive Branch, such as White House aides.

In conclusion, while Omarosa Manigault Newman's secret recording of her firing by John Kelly may have raised ethical and legal questions, a definitive conclusion regarding a violation of the Ethics in Government Act cannot be made without detailed knowledge of her financial disclosures. The Act's comprehensive nature underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in public service, and any non-compliance would be a serious matter.

Breach of a secrecy agreement

A secrecy agreement, also known as a confidentiality agreement, is a contract that protects a company's trade secrets and ensures that employees, partners, suppliers, and contractors maintain confidentiality regarding any information connected with their work for the company. This includes both oral and written material, as well as any other knowledge about the company's business, products, or services that is deemed confidential.

In the case of Omarosa Manigault Newman, who secretly recorded her firing by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly in 2017, the question of whether she breached a secrecy agreement arises. While it is legal in the District of Columbia to record a conversation as long as one party is aware of the recording, bringing unsecured electronic devices into the White House Situation Room is a violation of administrative rules.

Mark Zaid, an attorney specializing in national security cases, stated that knowingly making a recording in a secured area is an administrative violation but is unlikely to be a legal matter. He further noted that intentionally recording in such an area would be a major security violation. However, he mentioned that he had not seen a criminal law that could be reasonably applied to this situation.

The potential breach of a secrecy agreement by Omarosa mainly lies in the violation of administrative rules regarding bringing recording devices into a secure area. While this may not result in legal consequences, it highlights the importance of adhering to confidentiality and security protocols, especially in sensitive locations like the White House Situation Room.

Violation of administrative rules

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. The Situation Room is considered one of the most secure rooms globally and is classified as a "sensitive compartmented information facility." Staffers are required to leave their cell phones or any other unsecured electronic devices outside the room to ensure security.

Bringing in a device that can record conversations in the Situation Room is a violation of administrative rules, but not a crime. Mark Zaid, an attorney specializing in national security cases, stated that while doing so accidentally could result in losing one's security clearance, doing so knowingly is a significant security violation. However, Zaid also noted that he had not seen any applicable criminal laws in such a situation.

An administrative violation occurs when an individual or entity breaks a regulation of an administrative agency. These agencies are tasked with enforcing statutes and creating rules to achieve legislators' goals. They can pursue formal legal action for alleged violations of rules, regulations, or statutes, which may be administrative or involve civil court suits. While administrative rules may not prescribe criminal penalties, they can be incorporated into penal laws, making violations of the rules a crime.

In the case of Omarosa, her actions may have constituted a "technical crime," as noted by former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, but it is unlikely that prosecutors would choose to pursue charges.

Violation of the Espionage Act

In 2018, former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman 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 that 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."

Some have suggested that Omarosa may have violated a federal statute (18 U.S.C. §793) that addresses "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information." This law applies to defense-related or national security-related information. However, legal experts have stated that Omarosa's recording of her firing would not likely fall under the category of national security.

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas who specializes in national security and constitutional law, told Vox that if Omarosa had recorded classified material, it would be a different matter. He stated:

> "It's a crime to record or share sensitive information that you're not legally authorized to have, and so there's no doubt that a recording of a discussion of information that is classified would violate the Espionage Act. But there's no evidence, as of now, that this has happened here."

Mark Zaid, an attorney who specializes in national security cases, echoed this sentiment, saying that while Omarosa's actions were a "major security violation," he had "not seen anyone identify a (criminal) law that can reasonably and practically be applied to this type of situation."

Therefore, while Omarosa's secret recording may have violated administrative rules and potentially constituted a "technical crime," it is unlikely that she violated the Espionage Act, as the content of the recording does not appear to be related to national defense or classified information.

Frequently asked questions