Omarosa's book . . .

[Sope Creek]

. . . I haven't read it and likely won't. My take regarding any allegations that she's making - whether true in whole, in part, or not at all - is that she's a product of Trump's reality TV approach to life (including the presidency) and anything Trump says in response to her or her book is just as applicable to him as it might be to her. So when he calls her a "lowlife" then he's also tagging himself with that epithet.

Another way to look at it is that she's only doing exactly what she learned from Trump, being a self-absorbed opportunist turning on the person who gave her an opportunity . . . .

 

[toastedbread]

. . . I haven't read it and likely won't. My take regarding any allegations that she's making - whether true in whole, in part, or not at all - is that she's a product of Trump's reality TV approach to life (including the presidency) and anything Trump says in response to her or her book is just as applicable to him as it might be to her. So when he calls her a "lowlife" then he's also tagging himself with that epithet.

Another way to look at it is that she's only doing exactly what she learned from Trump, being a self-absorbed opportunist turning on the person who gave her an opportunity . . . .

I think she's an even bigger snake than Trump. The python ate the mouse.

Sope, a more important point imo is that Omarosa deserves to be prosecuted. She evidently brought a cell phone inside the situation room and used it to record John Kelly. That is a total no-no. My gut tells me that the choice of venue of the situation room for that conversation by Kelly was also wholely inappropriate.

 

[UncleMark]

. . . I haven't read it and likely won't. My take regarding any allegations that she's making - whether true in whole, in part, or not at all - is that she's a product of Trump's reality TV approach to life...

If they weren't before, with a few exceptions, anyone who has been closely involved with this White House and/or administration has come out soiled.

 

[zeke4ahs]

. . . I haven't read it and likely won't. My take regarding any allegations that she's making - whether true in whole, in part, or not at all - is that she's a product of Trump's reality TV approach to life (including the presidency) and anything Trump says in response to her or her book is just as applicable to him as it might be to her. So when he calls her a "lowlife" then he's also tagging himself with that epithet.

Another way to look at it is that she's only doing exactly what she learned from Trump, being a self-absorbed opportunist turning on the person who gave her an opportunity . . . .

She was on The Apprentice while I was still watching it, while I could still stomach Trump. Anyone that watched the show would have known better than to hire her. Trump tweeted today that she was late for mettings, hard to work with , mean to people, etc. But he told Kelley to try to work it out because she said nice things about him. Basically admitting the only qualification he cares about is if you say nice things about him.

 

[DCDAVID]

I think she's an even bigger snake than Trump. The python ate the mouse.

Sope, a more important point imo is that Omarosa deserves to be prosecuted. She evidently brought a cell phone inside the situation room and used it to record John Kelly. That is a total no-no. My gut tells me that the choice of venue of the situation room for that conversation by Kelly was also wholely inappropriate.

Two crimes were committed.
1) she should be prosecuted for making a recording in the Situtation room.
2) it is also a “crime” that anyone with half a brain ever thought she belonged in the situation room under any circumstance (for that matter she should only have been anywhere near the White House if she happened to be on a tourist tour) What poor judgement.

 

[UncleMark]

2) it is also a “crime” that anyone with half a brain ever thought she belonged in the situation room under any circumstance (for that matter she should only have been anywhere near the White House if she happened to be on a tourist tour) What poor judgement.

Only the best people...

 

[alax2]

Two crimes were committed.
1) she should be prosecuted for making a recording in the Situtation room.
2) it is also a “crime” that anyone with half a brain ever thought she belonged in the situation room under any circumstance (for that matter she should only have been anywhere near the White House if she happened to be on a tourist tour) What poor judgement.

Is it a crime to take a cell phone into the situation room? I have read several articles and there seems to be a debate about that. It may be a violation of some security rules, but that only gets your clearance revoked. And, I heard a lawyer today that represents government workers who unintentionally violate this rule in other situations. Again, you can lose your clearance and your job, but unless you are recording and releasing a state secret (not a conversation about you being fired), there may not have been a "crime" for which to prosecute her.

 

[sglowrider]

Holy shit! 200 tapes.

 

[cosmickid]

Only the best people...

Rut-roh...Looks as if that extends to his legal staff as well...

"The decision came in a lawsuit filed by Jessica Denson, a former campaign staffer who filed a complaint last November that alleged she was subjected to “harassment and sexual discrimination” while she worked on Trump’s White House bid in 2016. Lawyers for the Trump campaign tried to force the case into private arbitration based on an agreement signed by staffers that included nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions. In her decision, Judge Arlene Bluth of New York State Supreme Court disclosed flaws in the wording of the agreement that she said limited its scope."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-sa...ing-confidentiality-agreements-025613573.html

 

[37Hoosier]

. . . I haven't read it and likely won't. My take regarding any allegations that she's making - whether true in whole, in part, or not at all - is that she's a product of Trump's reality TV approach to life (including the presidency) and anything Trump says in response to her or her book is just as applicable to him as it might be to her. So when he calls her a "lowlife" then he's also tagging himself with that epithet.

Another way to look at it is that she's only doing exactly what she learned from Trump, being a self-absorbed opportunist turning on the person who gave her an opportunity . . . .

Nothing in her book should shock anyone at all. Trump's moronic and childish behavior is on display daily, if not hourly, & it should be grossly apparent that he is capable of nearly any display of idiocy at any given moment.

 

[UncleMark]

Holy shit! 200 tapes.

It's not like it's going to make any difference:

Some major donors to Mr. Trump were bothered by the revelations that the campaign may have been used as a slush fund to pay fired or troublesome employees, said Dan K. Eberhart, an Arizona donor and energy executive who serves as an adviser to the America First Policies group created to support Mr. Trump’s agenda.

“It’s diverting donor money that could be used to wage the midterm election battle or store resources for Trump’s re-election,” Mr. Eberhart said. “Instead, it’s an elongated hush payment.”

He added, though, that he did not believe it would dissuade donors. “They still want to win elections,” he said.​

 

[UncleMark]

In her decision, Judge Arlene Bluth of New York State Supreme Court disclosed flaws in the wording of the agreement that she said limited its scope."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-sa...ing-confidentiality-agreements-025613573.html

In an ironic twist, President Trump was personally a party to the New York case that establishes the legal principle controlling Bluth’s decision. That 1993 case, Trump v. Refco Properties, Inc., concerned a dispute among the partners who own the Grand Hyatt near Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan; it established that a party may not be forced into arbitration unless their agreement to arbitrate “expressly and unequivocally encompasses the subject matter of the particular dispute.” President Trump sought to avoid private arbitration in that case, and won the issue on appeal. Bluth specifically cited that decision in her ruling against Trump’s campaign.​

 

[Sope Creek]

In an ironic twist, President Trump was personally a party to the New York case that establishes the legal principle controlling Bluth’s decision. That 1993 case, Trump v. Refco Properties, Inc., concerned a dispute among the partners who own the Grand Hyatt near Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan; it established that a party may not be forced into arbitration unless their agreement to arbitrate “expressly and unequivocally encompasses the subject matter of the particular dispute.” President Trump sought to avoid private arbitration in that case, and won the issue on appeal. Bluth specifically cited that decision in her ruling against Trump’s campaign.​

I'd link Lennon's "Instant Karma" here . . . but I don't like Lennon all that much.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

So does this put a foundation under the fact that if you control the loop holes, tricks and slide of hand of our legal system that you can control the country? Use some fancy sounding nuance, distract and throw gorilla dust in the air, you can become president. Is this anti Trump, lawyers or system?

 

[Standard Issue]

Got to love day drinking.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

did Donald not watch the show the yr Omarosa was on.

"she is who we thought she is".

btw, does the Donald like dark meat at all?

this is a hypothetical i haven't seen brought up by anyone, and could make for an interesting tape.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

did Donald not watch the show the yr Omarosa was on.

"she is who we thought she is".

btw, does the Donald like dark meat at all?

this is a hypothetical i haven't seen brought up by anyone, and could make for an interesting tape.

Whoa...


But I like where your mind is. Kinda.

 

[Quix0te]

She evidently brought a cell phone inside the situation room and used it to record John Kelly. That is a total no-no. /QUOTE]

Hmmm, a woman in an high-level government job using a personal electronic device to violate national security regulations. Who does this remind me of?

 

[Sope Creek]

Hmmm, a woman in an high-level government job using a personal electronic device to violate national security regulations. Who does this remind me of?

Omarosa.

 

[hoot1]

Sad to admit but... I doubt anyone at the Cooler watched more episodes of Celebrity Apprentice than I did.

Omarosa was unquestionably one of Trump's favorites on the show. Being a person who favors people who are diplomatic and kind, I found Omarsa's vindictive and competitive nature to be unacceptable as a team player. Trump, on the other hand, liked competitors who would say anything about someone on his own team to avoid being fired.

Trump would describe Omarosa as a winner in contrast to someone who withheld criticism of a teammate in order to be socially correct (kissing cousin of politically correct). Those who withheld attacking others would be losers and fit to be fired by Trump.

Knowing this about Omarosa, her book attacking Trump is hardly surprising. By the same token, Trump possessing the qualities of a "winner" was bound to respond in kind.

 

[UncleMark]

Knowing this about Omarosa, her book attacking Trump is hardly surprising. By the same token, Trump possessing the qualities of a "winner" was bound to respond in kind.

Omarosa Has the White House Where She Wants It

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...wn-the-white-house.html?via=homepage_taps_top

Reality-TV folks don’t build their brands on respectability—their freedom from conventional constraints like being predictable and well-liked is their power—but they can pull off One Big Pivot in their careers. Usually, it’s where they claim that, yes, they were part of the circus, but things have finally gone too far and gotten so bad that even they must shine a light on it! Only those who’ve been in the muck know what to fix.

This was the substance of Donald Trump’s own campaign message, and now Omarosa is using it against him. On Thursday, Omarosa released to MSNBC a tape in which Lara Trump, wife of Eric Trump, appears to offer Omarosa $15,000 a month to stay quiet after her firing. It is, to the zero, what Manigault Newman had asserted without proof. It’s not the first time: Omarosa had also previously claimed that campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson had been on a conference call strategizing a response to Donald Trump’s saying the N-word. Pierson originally denied it, saying it “did not happen” and belittled Omarosa, saying it “sounds like she’s writing a script for a movie.” Omarosa—who understood perfectly well that this team was going to attack her as a liar the moment she spoke up—released the tape that confirmed her account. Pierson was left offering a weak explanation.​