Omarosa may have secretly taped White House conversations: report

Everyone's clear on it now.

 

He's the greatest "CEO" of all time. He knows how to hire good people....according to him

 

It appears you are right.
Work Product of Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C.
6
LAST UPDATED
1/3/18
STATE
CONSENT
AUTHORITY
EXPLANATION/ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
District of
Columbia
One Party
D.C. Code § 23
-
542(b)(3)
An individual may record or disclose the contents of an electronic or oral
communication if they are a party to said communication or if they have received prior
consent from one of the parties.

 

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, Reality America, what a pathetic excuse of "exceptionalism". Shithole nation calling others shithole.

 

Phuck Don.

Trump Threatens Comey With Secretly Recorded “Tapes” of Their Conversations
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/12/trump-threatens-comey-secretly-recorded-tapes-conversations/

 

Thanks, I've already acknowledged that I had it wrong.

 

My interpretation of one party consent was wrong.

It's still a strange policy, but I suppose in D.C., there is some reason to see why it has been adopted.

 

Yes. It's apparent I didn't understand, and the intellectual disconnect was with me.

 

A good Lawyer will get her off and she'll make Millions exposing Trump

 

Huh. It is against the law to record a construction commissioning meeting in the general contractors conference room on a military installation, but you can record a conversation in the whitehouse?

 

I've since learned she can tape all she wants, so on the issue of secret tapes, she is in the clear, if she did that.

Of course, there is the issue of whether she signed any non-disclosure type agreements as part of her employment.

 

Would she be in violation if a recording did not contain her voice?

I'm thinking that's the line that could be crossed. Since I'm out in left field on this issue, what would you think?

 

Have you heard the alleged Wolff tapes? If they are like his book, they are trash talk conceived by Wolff.

 

How could Amarosa tape just one person in a meeting?

 

Interesting thread.

I wonder, whistle blower statutes aside, if Omarosa's status as a federal employee changes what sections of the law applies. As an agent of the government can she assume she was party to every conversation in a board room setting.

"(b) It shall not be unlawful under this section for —
(2) a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception; or

(3) a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication."

I'd be interested to see case law on this. In my experience board and committee meetings have multiple side, and private, conversations that other's present are not party too.

In this instance, are portions of conversations where Omarosa wasn't involved protected from recording?

The other question I have: was Omarosa feeding any recordings or recording at the behest of any law enforcement agency or regulatory body? If so she was acting as agent and would need a warrant.

I don't think this is as staight forward as implied in a simple recitation of DC code, a or federal statute. It's the group setting that has me questioning the legality of recording every conversation in the room. Omarosa wasn't party to them all.

Cheers

 

Was Omarosa party to every conversation in the room? I'm thinking not and recording those would be problematic.

 

That my thought as well. In a group setting many side discussions take place where not all are party to or intended to be party to the conversation.

I think past rulings on this limits the legality of recording by multiple circumstance. Group, third party, number of people involved, conference call, commercial intent (to sell, in a book or otherwise) etc.

 

So tell us the name of your good nation?

 

I doubt recording meetings within the Whitehouse is allowed by subordinates.

 

Of course you are correct if those recordings are made from conversations she was not involved in. Trump should have never brought her anywhere near the WH given how much of a drama queen she is.

 

One would think that in DC with so many Politicians, all party consent would be the law.

 

I agree. On the other hand, I suppose it would be difficult to get the other party to consent, considering what goes on in D.C..

 

LOL at this incredible shrinking anti-Trump RESISTance which is so deflated that it's pinning its hopes on f*ing Omarosa, compared to which coffee-serving Papadopoulos was a WIP and political giant. LOL now with Omarosa's help Mueller will definitely nail Trump... any day now

 

I may not have been clear. Probably wasn't.

 

If she was in any meetings, she could covertly tape them or her phone conversations without disclosing that she was taping.. What she can't do is tape other people's phone calls or meetings that she was not involved in.

I doubt she was involved in any high level meetings unless Trump is a bigger flake than I realized, so all this may be a tempest in a teapot.