Whatever one might think about the ethical and legal implications of Omarosa Manigault Newman recording members of the White House staff, campaign workers for Trump and President Trump himself, she has inflicted real damage on the Trump presidency. It started with Omarosa releasing the tape of chief of staff John Kelly telling her she was fired, and then Trump expressing his total ignorance of how the firing came about. Trump said he would "love" to have her stay in her job.
What these two recordings reveal is that Trump either doesn't have control over his own staff on matters that are important to him, or he ordered the firing and is lying to Omarosa to placate her, and avoid nasty recriminations from her. Then there is the matter of how Omarosa was able to do recordings in areas that were subject to high levels of security.
The audio of Trump's daughter-in-law Lara Trump negotiating payment to Omorosa upon leaving her senior adviser position with the Trump administration is curious, to say the least. Lara has no official position in the administration, so the only reason she is arranging employment terms with Omarosa is apparently because she is part of the extended Trump family.
Lara asks Omarosa if $15,000 a month would be satisfactory to her, as it would equal her salary as a senior adviser. For that generous payment, she wouldn't need to do hardly anything, except that if she is called on to help Trump at any point, she will be expected to be positive in her response. I note here that $180,000 a year is more than three times what half of U.S. households have in income. Also, the public has learned through this published audio that the former personal bodyguard to Trump is also being paid $15,000 a month. Since he is not doing any duties for Trump, the thin cover story is that he may be on hold for a future position in President Trump's possible campaign for reelection.
It is unclear as to who is funding what seem to be "hush" payments. Is it the taxpayer? Is it the Trump Organization? Is it the campaign contributors? Is it from the Michael Cohen slush fund?
The tape made by Omarosa of herself and three others discussing whether or not Donald Trump used the "N" word in a take-out tape from "The Apprentice" reality show is burdened by story changes by two of the other three participants.
#Katrina Pierson originally said that the phone conversation never took place, but later changed her story to say that she was just humoring Omarosa, and trying to placate her, because Omarosa was obsessed by the taping.
#Pierson and Lynne Patton later put out a joint statement claiming that there were "multiple" conversations about the tape in question.
#Pierson says: "He said. No. He said it." --"it" meaning using the "N' word -- but "He is embarrassed by it."
# Pierson is heard at another point saying they should "maybe try to find a way to spin it."
#Patton says she discussed the tape with Donald Trump and he asked her: "How do you think I should handle it?"
#The story of the call gets muddied up by the claim that the call was actually about whether of not the Republican pollster, Frank Luntz, ever heard Trump use the "N" word.
Omarosa Manigault Newman has succeeded in unhinging President Trump. He has gone from praising her to the skies, to calling her a "crazed, crying low-life," and even "a dog." He has framed the hiring of Omarosa as a magnanimous act on his part in giving a chance to this "crazed, crying low-life," and she blew it. Besides his harsh denigration of a person he once held in high esteem, Trump has opened a window into his bad judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment