Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35959526)

When has it ever been, though? In that sense, it is no different with her, just a lot more justified...

In regards to the recordings, a bunch of states have one party recording laws where they are violations unless both parties consent but that (I think) is just for phone calls not just a call spoken in person but I will have to double check / get back to you on that.

After Watergate it did lead to the WPA and what not, but the biggest issue in communication came from within the issue of whether digitized communication differed from in person. Loads of states (20+) have remedied this but at the federal level it never will be as it requires altering / defining the 4th amendment, which will never be done.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35956740)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35959554)

It’s the fact she took a recording device into the White House Situation Room, which is a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, which is an enclosed area within a building that is used to process Sensitive Compartmented Information types of classified information).

It is illegal to do so (I used to work with GCHQ and NSA, and have friends/colleagues who still do, and they have to leave their phones/tablets outside their place of work (in a secure locker)).

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35959553)

Even I have to agree calling an ex-Aide a "dog" is highly inappropriate and far from presidential, although I am not surprised that Trump is more unhinged these days, after the constant attacks from every angle and plus, he is getting over confident attacking the Russia investigation, attacking Jeff Sessions at least twice in the last few week, he if he is not careful he will give Mueller the ammunition he needs to put a case forward for Obstruction of Justice by constantly attacking the DOJ and the people involved in the investigation.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35959552)

Trump calls a lot of people dog for some reason, it's one of his phrases.

Her actions were very inappropriate. Apparently it wasn't illegal which itself is bizarre. Taping inside the situation room?! It's an egregious national security risk. Not to mention how is anyone meant to govern if they can't speak candidly just in case one of their co-workers is recording them?

She was well out of line.

Trump certainly deserves some blame too since it was never clear what on earth her credentials were to work in the White House other than she was on TV with him. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

The language of the Tweet won't be a problem for him, people are used to that. The hiring decision won't be a problem, people are used to that too. The real question is if any of these tapes exist. The racial one was rumoured in the run up to the election in 2016. However you always get these rumours during an election. In the run up to the 2012 election the internet had this big rumour of Michelle Obama using racist words which never came up.

So we'll see. At the moment the bigger story to me is the national security issue.

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35959555)

He and Don Jr both seemed concerned about that but no way does it rise to the level of collusion in any way shape or form, sorry.

Not even close.

---------- Post added at 20:55 ---------- Previous post was at 20:50 ----------



The problem is that she may not have taken a "recording device" and just a phone and ripped it off her phone...in the security room it has a notice that says "please check your phone" but that is it.

Also to be in an SCIF area you generally need a TSI or above clearance and if that is so then she either was not vetted correctly and or is in violation of her duties / or she shouldn't be in the situation room, in the first place.

(Hubby spent like a decade in national security...he couldn't just whisk me into the SR unless I was pre cleared - or so he says lol).

---------- Post added at 20:58 ---------- Previous post was at 20:55 ----------



Bingo...his mouth seems to be his own worst enemy in regards to Sessions etc.

Don't think that calling her dog is really an issue in the larger scheme of things though. If he had called her a "dawg" his detractors would have accused him of being a racist. If he said she was rabid in her words, how would that have been any different?

She is a piece of filth and has always been one.

Is it Presidential to call her a dog? Who cares.

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35959576)

To be honest with the high court vacancy with Kennedy calling it quits, Trump's nominee to the high court is incredibly important.

So for now, I don't care if he goes and eats a dog on live TV and then calls it fake news. All that matters is that we get Roe overturned.

Originally Posted by Lutherf (Post 35959579)

This story, like most others, is part of the "anything to smear Trump" media campaign. Yes, Trump says a lot of controversial stuff. He's created a whole brand around being brash and controversial. That he's US president now isn't so much a commentary on him as it is on how frustrated Americans are with professional politicians. Many Americans are simply sick and tired of typical politicians that pat you on the back with one hand and pick your pocket with the other. They generally see Trump as a "straight shooter" who, while far from diplomatic, isn't there to screw them or stab them in the back.

With specific regard to Omarosa, she's writing a book and likely planned to write a book from day one. This kind of publicity is priceless when it comes to selling that book. Maybe she'll take a slap on the wrist for recording in the Situation Room but that aspect alone is probably good for another million copies sold.

Originally Posted by Damien

Sarah Sanders today said she "can't guarantee" there is no tape of Trump saying a racial slur. Obviously she could just be protecting herself but it seems either his staff, or the lot of them, think it might be out there.

Personally I don't think it would have been kept under wraps this long. It would be amazing if such a thing existed, was in the hands of someone outside of Team Trump, and not be released before the election.

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35959744)

Yeah, I don't think it does either. That being said, the AH tapes practically got the man elected so you never know, people might be worried about this helping Trump.

With Omarosa Manigault Newman in the news again thanks to the release of her tell-all book and bizarre behavior, late night host Jimmy Kimmel is reminiscing about the time she fled the building before a scheduled appearance on his show.
In April 2004 Manigault Newman was set to sit down with Kimmel on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” However, before the host had his chance to interview her, she left the studio, he said.

“I remember thinking it’s better this way,” Kimmel recalled. “I didn’t want to have her on the show. The woman — there’s clearly something wrong with her. And the fact that Donald Trump hired her is really all you need to know about that guy and his organization.”
The host said it was preposterous for Manigault Newman to think that she was being given a surprise polygraph test, since the tests take time and analysis before results can be interpreted.
“But she stormed out of there and the show was live, so we had no guest,” he recalled. “She was very angry.”
He added: “I’m sure there was plenty that she was trying to hide.”