MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Are Omarosa's White House Recordings Even Legal?

The answer is not likely to please President Trump.

|||Carlo Allegri/REUTERS/NewscomCarlo Allegri/REUTERS/NewscomDrama on this season of the White House has doubled in size thanks to revelations from Omarosa Manigault Newman, former director of communications for the Office of Public Liaison and star of President Trump's Celebrity Apprentice. After finding herself fired by Chief of Staff John Kelly in December, Manigault Newman exacted her revenge on the Trump administration with damning revelations about the administration in her new tell-all, UNHINGED. But her use of audio recordings in the book have raised legal questions.

Manigault Newman claimed that she recorded conversations in the White House, even a few with the president. Armed with the recordings, she said she had proof that Trump used the n-word on the The Apprentice, despite Trump's numerous proclamations that he is the "least racist person" one could ever meet.

On Tuesday, CBS played audio of high-profile Trump campaign staffers, like former spokeswoman Katrina Pierson, figuring out ways to spin the potential release of a recording that possibly features the president using the racial slur. In one recording, Pierson allegedly says, "He said it. No he said it. He's embarrassed."

As the public reacts to the news of the potential tape, questions of the legality of Manigault Newman's recording loom. As The Daily Beast reported, the White House conversations Manigault Newman claims to have are conversations that include herself. This small detail is important when taking into account wiretapping law in the District of Columbia.

According to D.C. Code § 23-542, D.C. is a one-party consent state. This means that only one person in a conversation needs to consent to being recorded—the participant can be the recorder or can give permission to another person to record. If Manigault Newman was, in fact, part of the conversations she recorded, she would be well within the confines of the law. If for some reason Manigault Newman recorded conversations that she was not part of without consent from those involved, she would be in violation of the law.

As details of the latest White House scandal come out, the Trump campaign has explored other legal actions to take against Manigault Newman. Earlier, she claimed to have refused $15,000 in hush money from the campaign. Records from the campaign reportedly confirmed that other former staffers were offered the same amount of money in exchange for their silence. Whether or not she took the money, the Trump campaign announced on Tuesday that it would be taking her to court for breaching a non-disclosure clause in the campaign contract she signed in 2016.

Actor Tom Arnold once said that he was in possession of a tape on which Trump said "every bad thing ever, every offensive, racist thing ever." He said the comments were made during outtakes of The Apprentice and included him "saying the N-word, saying the C-word, calling his son a retard, just being so mean to his own children."

Photo Credit: Carlo Allegri/REUTERS/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Ken Shultz||

    So . . .um . . . did you guys here that there's gonna be another Korean summit in September?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So the media is not going to make a big deal about that one either?

    Trump did get 55 boxes of remains from MIA US Servicemen from the Korean War from North Korea. Barely a peep from the media. It was only servicemen, so sexist I guess.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Or perhaps he got 55 boxes of indistinct mixed remains that might include some servicement mixed in with the remains of political executions or random death. This is North Korea, after all, I'm not trusting their bureaucratic competence of keeping track of who was buried where.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Theyre doing DNA tests to determine who the remains belong to.

    The media is barely covering the progress, so who knows for sure at this point.

    NK turning over nonAmerican remans would infuriate Americans against NK and I dont think Rocketman wants that.

  • Agammamon||

    Doing DNA tests - on remains where there won't be a DNA sample to compare to?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Well, obviously you couldn't do it for any servicemen who were the result of spontaneous generation of life. The rest of them should have surviving relatives.

  • Happy Chandler||

    http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9708/04/korea/#remains

    I'd be more impressed if he could have gotten people into North Korea to supervise exhumation. Clinton did!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In exchange for nuclear power plants that NK used to help their nuke weapons program.

    Thanks Bill!

  • The Last American Hero||

    There won't be a Korea by September. Or so I was told when Trump got elected.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    The funniest thing about Trump's tweets about her today is how he seems to be the last person in America to understand she's fairly ugly and quite a bit crazy.
    I mean, the original Apprentice aired, what, 10 years ago?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Is anyone not going to say the obvious, Omorosa was the token black chick.

    Michelle Obama was Barack's token black chick.

  • JesseAz||

    I thought Susan was.

  • JWC||

    That is just not true about Michelle. If we learned nothing else from Roseanne's downfall, we learned that Valerie Jarrett is black. Who knew?

  • JesseAz||

    Hot chicks like to have one fat friend ... Just saying.

  • Ken Shultz||

    So I guess the question running through progressive circles now is whether the Republic can survive the use of a racial slur?

    Has the whole world lost its fucking mind?

  • Cathy L||

    whether the Republic can survive the use of a racial slur

    No, the question is whether the deplorables will abandon Trump after hearing a recording of him saying the n word. And the answer is no.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You don't think Mueller's investigation should be expanded to include whether Trump used the n-word?

    You don't think the Democrats will use this, when they take the House, to initiate impeachment proceedings?

  • TuIpa||

    When the option is destruction a few words seem fairly trivial.

  • Sevo||

    "No, the question is whether the deplorables"

    No, the question is when the assholes will recover from TDS.

  • Paulpemb||

    If recordings existed of Trump saying anything like this, they would have already been released. Freaking Tom Arnold says he's heard them, so where are they?

    Just like if his tax returns showed anything suspicious, a 'rogue agent' in Obama's IRS would have already leaked them during the campaign.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    His tax returns will be public in a few months unless Republicans manage to hold the House.

    Racist tapes, sketchy tax returns, Manafort's pre-sentencing deliberations on testifying in exchange for leniency, Mueller's drip-torture, the expanding trade war (and its effects on Americans) . . . Trump's tweeter should get quite a workout.

  • Paulpemb||

    His tax returns will show that he's a rich guy (though maybe not as rich as he claims to be) who uses every legal loophole his accountants can find to avoid paying taxes as much as he possibly can. The Democrats won't release his tax returns, because as long as people don't know exactly what's in them, they can pretend that they would totally show that he was accepting Russian payoffs or something, and people like you will continue to fall for it.

  • Sevo||

    The asshole to whom you're responding does not care about any facts; unless he gets to whine "TRUMP!!!!", it is all irrelevant.

  • Agammamon||

    His tax returns will be public in a few months unless Republicans manage to hold the House.

    What must be endlessly frustrating for you is knowing, that if this comes to pass, that it will be irrelevant - because Trump is already President and not even a revelation that he's leveraged up to the eyeballs with debt will change that.

    Nor would it have.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The more time and effort Trump and the Republicans must devote to dodging or experiencing consequences, the less right-wingers can accomplish. That list offers the prospect of plenty of consequences.

  • Agammamon||

    They weren't going to accomplish anything anyway. Nobody likes Trump. Not even his own party.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    So, what are you suggesting? A Democratic House would somehow repeal IRS privacy laws? Or they'd just illegally leak the returns?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Abandon him? The bigots will love it! Did you forget the 'they are bigots' part?

  • Sevo||

    And here's one of the asshole TDS victims right on time.

  • JesseAz||

    Does the tape exist? Bill Clinton was said to have used it daily in Arkansas...

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "Has the whole world lost its fucking mind?"

    Lefties have, indubitably.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "As the public reacts to the news of the potential tape, questions of the legality of Manigault Newman's recording loom."

    One of the things that matters less than news of the potential tape is questions of the legality of the recording.

  • Horny Lizard||

    You are now the worst.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No he's not.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I can't imagine anything in the world more important than verifying that over ten years ago, on a recording, the president said 'nigger'.

  • The Last American Hero||

    In reference to Omarosa no less. Given what I saw of her on that show, Donald wouldn't have been the only one to lose his cool and cut loose with a few choice expletives.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    In light of new @KatrinaPierson @LynnePatton statement, here's what Pierson says on taped phone call: "OK, well Frank Luntz knows what it is, apparently heard it...I'm trying to find out at least the context it was used in to help us maybe try to figure out a way to spin it."

    Frank Luntz
    Verified account

    @FrankLuntz
    I'm in @Omarosa's book on page 149. She claims to have heard from someone who heard from me that I heard Trump use the N-word.

    Not only is this flat-out false (I've never heard such a thing), but Omarosa didn't even make an effort to call or email me to verify. Very shoddy work.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Omarosa's Claim that Trump Used N-Word Falling Apart
    Perhaps most tellingly, NPR reports that Omarosa contradicted herself when talking about the supposed tapes of Trump using the N-word.

  • Microaggressor||

    Makes no difference.

    She's using the Michael Wolff playbook because it's an easy way to part idiots from their money.

  • Nardz||

    Yep.
    And Zuri Davis, along with Reason, have decided to run an article today omitting Luntz's statements from last night.
    This is CNN level standards.
    Well Zuri and Reason, you've now tied your credibility to Omarosa.
    "Virtue" signalled.

  • TuIpa||

    Release the tape. I don't care about the rest of it, put up or shut up.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The Katrina Pierson episode is instructive with respect to effective use of recordings.

    Let her entrap herself, then release the recording that depicts her as a lying blowhard.

    So far, Omarosa demonstrates ability to manage the recordings appropriately. This evokes the old Milton Berle-Clint Eastwood story . . . show only enough to win 'this time.'

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Hicklibs are impressed by the ol' shuck-and-jive.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Fitting that Trump and his band of bigots are positioned to be tormented by a black woman.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tormented? I find her amusing, in a kind of pathetic way.

  • Tezos||

    Why pick on "Hicklibs"?

    Trump hired her four times. He too was impressed by her shuck-and-jive.

    What does that tell you about Trump's intelligence?

  • DJF||

    """""Armed with the recordings, she said she had proof that Trump used the n-word on the The Apprentice, despite Trump's numerous proclamations that he is the "least racist person" one could ever meet.""""

    So saying Nebraska is racist?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    You ever been to Nebraska? So. Many. White people. Gotta be the result of racism. /sarc

  • EscherEnigma||

    Um, yes, actually. People to statehood the army forcibly removed the Indians, and this about the same time as Bleeding Kansas. And of course homesteading was never as available to black folk as white folk, even after the Civil War.

    And just because of the way people move and migrate, that meant that the racist start left an impact long after all those folks were dead that makes black folk still not move there in significant numbers (Nebraska is about 4.5% black, compared to the national average of 16%).

    So yeah. Like Oregon, Nebraska is disproportionally white because of racism.

    Which, mind you, says nothing about the people *currently* living there. Just that history often can explain long-term demographic trends.

    That said, black folk in Nebraska have done from 3.6% in 1990 to 4.5% in 2010, so the historical trend might be listening it's hold, but we won't really know for a few decades.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    You're fairly ignorant for sounding smart.

    Look at where the former decent paying manufacturing jobs were, and you will see concentrated African American migration. Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago. There were never manufacturing jobs in Nebraska, Kansas, Oregon, Seattle (Boeing as the exception, and they are debatable as low skilled).

    It's job availability so much more than any perceived systematic racism.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Yes. Job availability. And back when the state was being settled in the mid-1800s, those opportunities were not require opportunity. Hence why the state was mostly settled by white folk, which has consequences still being felt today.

    Or are you really going to try and claim that black people in 1850 had the same opportunities as white people?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Or are you really going to try and claim that black people in 1850 had the same opportunities as white people?

    Fuckin' LOL at your confusion between 1850s Nebraska with The Great Migration.

  • Horny Lizard||

    Not saying it didn't happen but we'll need LoveCon to check out your story.

  • BYODB||

    It's just known that black people haven't been allowed to move since the 1800's, after all, right Enigma?

    Not that you're wrong that history can explain some demographic trends, obviously, but rather you have thin evidence for this claim in particular. Everywhere was racist at that point, so it's dubious to say that 'racism' directly caused this migration (or lack thereof) in particular.

    For something a little more concrete, check out the effects of Islam on Pakistani genetics. Turns out marrying your first cousin has long-term effects when everyone does it.

  • EscherEnigma||

    What is known is that y'all have a weird habit of taking offense to history.

    Yes, pretty much everyone in the 1800s was racist. That this directly affected immigration patterns really shouldn't be controversial.

  • BYODB||

    It's not taking offense to history, as I said essentially everyone was racist at the time (including black people, of course). Your claims, however, are a bit dubious.

    Drawing a line between 'everyone was racist' and 'this directly affected immigration patterns' is a claim without any particular evidence on your part. In fact, it doesn't even logically flow since if everyone and everywhere was racist, why then did black people move at all which (by the way) we know they did. Usually we'd call this begging the question, or at the very least circular reasoning.

    Fact is, maybe dying in an Indian raid just wasn't their bag. One might also ask why they would move to Nebraska when Oklahoma was very literally giving land away at that very moment. *shrug*

  • EscherEnigma||

    Most violent conflicts were between the army and Indians, but homesteaders and Indians.

    Oklahoma don't open up until *after* the Civil War.

    And again, at no point was homesteading equally available to white and black citizens.

  • WoodChipperBob||

    In addition to saying nothing about the people *currently* living there, it says nothing about the people *previously* living there. Nebraska being white as a result of racism on the part of people who allowed and encouraged white settlement does not provide any evidence either for or against Nebraska being racist, which is the original comment that CA's sarcasm was directed toward. But don't feel bad, lots of people make the same mistake and assume that residing in an overwhelmingly white area is evidence of racism on the part of the residents or their forebears.

  • EscherEnigma||

    That's not a mistake I made, actually.

    Something can be the result of racism without the beneficiaries being racist.

  • BYODB||

    Like affirmative action, right?

  • LynchPin1477||

    I'm surprised there aren't special laws against recording conversations in the White House without authorization regardless of who was doing it, based on national security grounds.

  • Rich||

    Strange fruit of the poisoned tree?

  • Pooneil||

    I wonder if she had some sort of security clearance that would legally put her in jeopardy of an espionage charge? I'm reallly surprised the E word hasn't come up yet!

  • Cynical Asshole||

    former director of communications for the Office of Public Liaison

    I'm not entirely sure what the "director of communications for the Office of Public Liaison" does (probably nothing important, certainly nothing that would justify the position's existence), but it doesn't sound like the kind of job that would require access to classified information. So I'd be really surprised if she had a clearance.

  • Cathy L||

    Haha then I guess you hadn't heard she made a bunch of her alleged recordings in SCIFs.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Not sure if sarcasm or not, but if not:

    I've managed to avoid this idiotic non-story until now, so no, I hadn't heard anything about that. If true, then that's a violation of security procedures at the very least. Had I done that I would have been fired, lost my security clearance, and never allowed to have one ever again. Maybe even sent to prison depending on what was on the recording.

  • Sevo||

    "Not sure if sarcasm or not, but if not:"

    In Cathy's case, assume stupidity or dishonesty, and you'll nearly always be right.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Indoubetably!

  • EscherEnigma||

    Eh. It would certainly lead to her losing her security clearance and being fired, but unless she releases something that's classified she's probably safe from espionage charges.

  • steve sturm||

    Not a lawyer, but as the alleged recordings took place on federal property (presumably the White House), would DC law even apply?

  • DJK||

    Both DC and federal law only require the consent of one party to the conversation.

  • CE||

    DC is federal property.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    See, I think this story, and the one about McCain not being sufficiently honored on a bill that spent a fuckton of money, really goes to what is really wrong with the media. It isn't political bias per se, although that is one part of it. It's really about producers' decisions to focus on drama and conflict, rather than analysis and so-called "straight reporting". The former generates ratings, but the latter, while more important from a civics point of view, is a lot more boring. So CNN will always go with stories like this Omarosa story over ones that are far more relevant, such as the continuing implosion of Turkey for instance.

    Ultimately it comes back to the lack of gatekeepers to tell us all what we "should" be watching, and instead have news media driven by ratings and advertising, which is us the viewers telling them what we demand to see. We the viewers aren't demanding boring analysis. We the viewers are demanding clickbait and drama.

    Now, having lack of gatekeepers is a good thing. I don't want my information funneled through a cabal of people who may or may not have my best interests at heart. But I would like there to be a market niche for a place where people can get "real news" and not this Omarosa drama bullshit.

  • ||

    Rage against the dying of the light, jeff.

    William Randolph Hearst knew blood sold newspapers in the 1890s, and even Shakespeare wrote crass jokes to amuse those in the Pit. I'm just surprised there aren't cock-n-balls alongside the animals painted on the walls of the Lascaux Cave.

    Humans seem to have always wanted clickbait and drama.

  • BYODB||

    ^ Exactly this.

    The first thing you'll learn in any media history class (yes, they exist.) is that media right up until the modern era were unethical as hell in terms of modern news standards.

    Of course, that is what 'journalism' teachers and professors have been teaching all along. Think about that for a second, and maybe you'll see the trend. And yes, I'm aware that even having people that 'teach' journalism is an incredibly recent development. Before that you'd just have rampant neopotism. This, they also 'teach' you, is no longer the case. (HAHAHA)

    It's a laugh riot that anyone thinks that 'journalist' is anything more than a synonym for 'activist', or that it will ever be anything more noble than a paid repeater of submitted public relations releases.

  • DJK||

    Apparently no one remembers the Maine?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "that media right up until the modern era were unethical as hell in terms of modern news standards."

    And continued to be so to this day, they just tried to hide it.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    We the viewers aren't demanding boring analysis. We the viewers are demanding clickbait and drama.

    So much this, unfortunately. The more time goes by, the more I think we really are descending into Idiocracy. Mike Judge had it right, he was just way off on how long it will take for us to devolve to that end state. He had it taking 500 years to get to "President Dwayne Herbert Elizondo Mountain Dew Comacho," I think we'll be there in at most 50.

  • The Last American Hero||

    What do you have against electrolytes?

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    I'd suggest Breitbart.com— it's empty of political bias.

  • ||

    Actually, if you want my advice (not that you asked), I think you would benefit from spending some time at Breitbart getting a feel for their tone and particular brand of spin, the way Open-Borders-Liberaltarian does with sites like DemocracyNow! It would make your shtick both more funny and more pointed. At the moment, you don't capture the tone or content of Trump supporters at all, really.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Shtick?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Speed Shtick. You put it under your arms.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Oh... that stuff? I put that on my dick and then think about how great Trump is. Good clean fun!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yeah.......

    That kind of crap isn't working for you.

  • DiegoF||

    He's right. I don't want to concern troll here, but you are not a good parody account. Even your name sounds like you put zero thought into it--why was it not ClosedBordersTrump-tarian or BuildThatWallTrump-tarian or something like that (if not something more clever)? It really would be fun for OBL to have a counterpart. But he needs to have one made with some effort.

  • Sevo||

    DiegoF|8.14.18 @ 3:40PM|#
    "He's right. I don't want to concern troll here, but you are not a good parody account. Even your name sounds like you put zero thought into it-..."

    Probably all the "thought" of which s/he's capable.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    I'm just a simple man thinking of all the things Trump has done for working class people like myself. You have a problem with that, sir? If so, why?

  • EscherEnigma||

    More broadly, even if you aren't attempting to parody or troll, I'd encourage all folks to make sure their regular news rotation includes some things from views you don't agree with. It probably won't persuade you, but actually understanding folks, rather than just thinking they're evil/idiots is it's own reward.

  • BYODB||

    This is something everyone should be able to agree with, at least in theory.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    It's true, and I try, though sometimes I'll get 2 sentences into something from, say, Huffpost or Vox and I literally can't read anymore.

    It's hard to take on their prospective when I find I disagree on nearly every underlying (and unexamined) premise.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I do this, though it was more fun before I got banned from a couple of left wing forums.

    Apparently mentioning Pol Pot's pyramids of skulls in a discussion of the merits of Marxism is considered similar to dumping a turd in the punch bowl, it spoils the party.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    I type Reason.com into my browser but keep getting redirected to TMZ.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I keep getting redirected to thinkprogress.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    According to D.C. Code § 23-542, D.C. is a one-party consent state.

    IANAL, so I wonder: is this relevant? Does the interior of the White House fall under D.C. jurisdiction?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The legality of the recording is utterly irrelevant. Who's going to prosecute her for it? The DC police?

    D.C. isn't a one party consent "state", not being a state in the first place. But even if it were a state, it would also be a one party state, as in totally controlled by the Democratic party. No crime against Trump would be prosecuted.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Um, he does have a Justice department. Like those inauguration protestors or the woman who laughed during Session's confirmation, they can go after her if they really want to.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All this stuff just backfires on the Lefties.

    Trump gets more popular by the hour.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    That would explain that "Giant Red Wave" the yahoos expect.

  • Azathoth!!||

    No need for a 'giant red wave', Artie. But you country bumpkins aren't known for your ability to comprehend simple arithmetic, so it's no surprise that you'd think that, since the Democrats need a big blue wave, the GOP would need a big red one.

    But no. Status quo, with a bit of GOP excitement will give the Republicans even more control.

    It's Democrats who need upsets galore to take control. Democrats in all those places you loathe.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Yeah, like the Justice department is actually working for him.

    Haven't you noticed that he's got practically no control over the DOJ? That's kind of the point of Mueller's investigation, I suspect: As long as it's going on, if he fires anybody they charge him with "obstruction of justice".

    Nobody is afraid of a President who will be charged with a crime if he fires you. Half the people working for him in that department are members of "the resistance."

  • BYODB||


    Yeah, like the Justice department is actually working for him.

    Frankly, Trump should fire Sessions for a wide variety of things but this narrow thing in particular would merit it all on it's own. Regardless of if it was the right or wrong thing for Sessions to recuse himself, now is the time to axe him and replace him with someone else that is not recused.

    It would be interesting to see Rosenstein defended as being 'in charge' of Mueller once a new boss, with no apparent conflict, was instated. Does anyone even remember the specific thing Sessions recused himself over? Thin gruel, indeed.

  • Happy Chandler||

    1) Sessions recused himself from election related issues, mostly because he got caught lying during his confirmation hearings about meetings with Russians. Which totally were fine and not illegal or unethical, he just merely forgot about multiple meetings with Russians. Totally skipped his mind, he meets with a lot of people.

    2) I can remember another president who had a pesky special counsel investigating alleged crimes during an investigation and an attorney general who wouldn't interfere with the investigation. So he fired him, and fired the deputy when he also wouldn't interfere, and finally got someone to fire the independent counsel. I think that stopped the investigation and he was able to get back to concentrating on running the country, right?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Bill clinton?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    He did not get caught lying about his meetings with the Russians. It was understood that the context was meeting with the Russians specifically as a member of the campaign. NOT running into a Russian at a diplomatic event and exchanging a few friendly words.

    Regardless, his solitary reason for recusing was that he was a potential target of the investigation, and he has long since been cleared by Mueller. His continuing recusal has no legal justification. It's long since time he either resumed doing his job, or got fired.

    Assuming his real job isn't just hobbling Trump.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    That drivel must be much more interesting than performing the legitimate research and developing a reliable conclusion.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    How would you know, hicklib?

  • Mark22||

    She may have had a security clearance and violated that.

    Also, federal property is subject to special rules.

    But why prosecute her? She does a great job making a fool of herself.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Meh, it's probably just Alec Baldwin. That guy does a pretty good Trump.

  • TGoodchild||

    His supporters stopped caring about these sideshows, out of pure spite, ages ago.

    "Leftists are just the worst kind of people."
    "Does that surprise you?"
    "I suppose not."

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    What I think we can all agree on is that Trump has appointed the most competent and drama-free administration in U.S. history. Thank God we don't have to live through the turmoil and tumult of the Obama years!

  • Mr. Dyslexic||

    Keep your shtick away from me.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Shtick?

  • DiegoF||

    "...I see your shtick is bigger than mine..."

  • Happy Chandler||

    I think you mean Schwartz

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Well, his AG hasn't secretly met with the husband of the target of a major national security investigation yet, so that's not entirely untrue.

    The Obama administration wasn't so much free of scandals, as free of any scandals the media were interested in.

  • The Last American Hero||

    He also hasn't thrown any Youtubers in jail over foreign policy failures.

    He hasn't launched a Kinetic Military Action, known as war, on anybody not bombed by his predecessor.

    He hasn't sent the IRS after Democratic fundraisers.

  • Curly4||

    Why did Omarosa Manigault Newman stay with Trump after she found out that every one there lied? If she found out that was what the Trump organization was doesn't it say she must have been of like kind or she would have quit much earlier?

  • BYODB||

    Wasn't she fired, rather than quit? If so it seems that would say something too. What is up to the viewer, I suppose.

  • JesseAz||

    Why are anti trump people so fucking ignorant? Unless you know everything she signed, you don't know shit. If she agreed to a clearance even at the confidential level, recording various conversations at that level can be a felony.

  • Agammamon||

    . . . she said she had proof that Trump used the n-word on the The Apprentice, despite Trump's numerous proclamations that he is the "least racist person" one could ever meet.

    1. Using 'the n-word' has nothing to do with your level of racism. *Context* is important.

    2. He may very well be the least racist person one could meet - its just that most people are pretty damned racists as a baseline. Especially those who proclaim that they're not.

  • Tony||

    Using 'the n-word' has nothing to do with your level of racism. *Context* is important.

    I realize Trump isn't a color one would call white, but unless he's black, it's the wrong context.

  • Agammamon||

    Why?

  • vek||

    Nigga please! As long as no actual black people are around it's totally fine to use N words in an ironic/funny/sarcastic way! Everybody knows this!

  • Happy Chandler||

    "Textbook definition of racism"
    Paul Ryan

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yeah right. Amd I say that as someone who dislikes Paul Ryan.

  • Mark22||

    1. Using 'the n-word' has nothing to do with your level of racism. *Context* is important.

    Not to social justice warriors.

    2. He may very well be the least racist person one could meet - its just that most people are pretty damned racists as a baseline. Especially those who proclaim that they're not.

    Depends on what you mean by "racist". If you mean that I am prejudiced against blacks, guilty as charged: I assume that 90% of them are Democratic voters and supporters of the welfare state. I hold the same prejudice against academics, grad students, teachers, artists, and urban baristas. Based on experience, I also assume that the majority of young urban black males are hostile to me as a gay white male; that assumption is life saving.

    Any black male can overcome those prejudices quickly by identifying as a gay conservative or libertarian.

  • Rob Misek||

    The fact that blacks use the n word is racist.

    They use it to unify against whites.

    Why? Slavery?

    Do you think they even know that there were thousands of black slave owners in the US?

    Do Africans treat each other so much better today in Nigeria or in Chicago?

    People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

    Oh yes, the economic vicious circle. The last time I checked the proceeds from gang crime wasn't going toward gym memberships.

    Our "community programs" will need to provide free drugs, tv's, cars and jewelry.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Don't forget sneakers. Overpriced, athlete branded sneakers. The ones black teens are known to murder each other for.

  • Rob Misek||

    Would you be my niggah?

  • The Last American Hero||

    Nigeria and Chicago are a push.

  • Old Smokin' Egg||

    May I urge the writers and copy-editors of Reason to take a stand against needless euphemism, as manifested in this article's second paragraph: "...she said she had proof that Trump used the n-word..."?

    If the word that Trump purportedly used was "nigger", say so. If Trump told someone to go fuck himself, use the actual word instead of mincing around it with circumlocations like "the F-word", or, worse yet, "the F-bomb". If Reason decides to run a belated review of Gone With The Wind, don't talk about Gable's use of "the D-word", however much seeing the actual word in print might offend Christian readers.

  • Mark22||

    May I urge the writers and copy-editors of Reason to take a stand against needless euphemism

    Nothing "needless" about it: if you merely speak the full "n-word" within earshot of a progressive, a mob of violent social justice warriors may descend on you and accuse you of being a Nazi; it doesn't matter what context you used the word in, just for it to cross your lips is enough.

  • vek||

    See, this is what you get when you hire token minorities to be around! If he'd hired nothing but awesome white men who were down for the cause, he wouldn't be having shit like this leaked!

    LOL

  • Mark22||

    The answer is not likely to please President Trump.

    Why would he care? Omarosa is coming across as a psychopath, and nobody gives a sh*t whether Trump used the n-word, or the b-word, or the c-word, or any other word that shall not be named.

  • Jayburd||

    She just signed a deal to be Ru Paul's cohost.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online