New Audio Of Lara Trump Offering Omarosa A $15,000/Month in Hush Money

[PLizzy]

That has to be the consent of the other person, not the one secretly recording. Sorry, she broke the law.

No, she didn't.

DC is a one party consent state.

Omarosa is a bitch, but that doesn't mean she broke the law 'just because'.

 

[jnug]

I am waiting for her to slip up and release classified recordings.

That would be a slip up I would not hold my breath for.

She is ruthless, unscrupulous scum IMO. But Omorosa and Trump are two peas in a pod. Unfortunately something like this should have been expected given Trump SOP. In fact, there is likely even more of this going on than just Omarosa recordings with this crowd.

 

[veritas1]

It is a fact but it's a fact employed to excuse lying. What was your intent in claiming that all politicians lie? What does that have to do with Trump being caught fabricating a claim that U.S. Steel is planning to build six new plants?

My intent was to show that Trump is another politician. I could make the same charges against you for defending Obama's untruths but I don't go around saying people support dishonesty when I know what they mean is that they support their party and their ideological brethren, even when they are quite a bit less than forthcoming.

 

[calamity]

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

My intent was to show that Trump is another politician. I could make the same charges against you for defending Obama's untruths but I don't go around saying people support dishonesty when I know what they mean is that they support their party and their ideological brethren, even when they are quite a bit less than forthcoming.

But I don't agree that Obama lied. In another post, you made the distinction between campaign promises and lies.

I showed you Trump lying about U.S. Steel building six new plants. I asked you if you believe Trump lied. You refused to answer and instead pointed to Obama as if that was in any way relevant.

If Obama intentionally and deliberately lied, I would disavow him. I have never seen any evidence that he did.

We have absolute proof of Trump lying. Are you willing to disavow a politician who intentionally and deliberately lies to you?

 

[Crosscheck]

My concern is that if we end up with a corrupt Democrat version of Trump, Democrats will just point to Trump and excuse everything. Trump has set a new standard. It's OK to be totally corrupt if you have enough support.

I don't know what any future president could do to compare to the depravity of the Trump fiasco.

I guess with the exception of a president fornicating a girl scout on the front lawn of the White House anything goes.

 

[veritas1]

But I don't agree that Obama lied. In another post, you made the distinction between campaign promises and lies.

I showed you Trump lying about U.S. Steel building six new plants. I asked you if you believe Trump lied. You refused to answer and instead pointed to Obama as if that was in any way relevant.

If Obama intentionally and deliberately lied, I would disavow him. I have never seen any evidence that he did.

We have absolute proof of Trump lying. Are you willing to disavow a politician who intentionally and deliberately lies to you?

OK, since you refuse to acknowledge the Obamacare untruth, Obama also said over and over that he wouldn't issue an EO for the dreamers because "I'm not a king." (ie. it wasn't constitutional) Then, he did it anyway. Was that lying? If not, why not?

 

[veritas1]

I don't know what any future president could do to compare to the depravity of the Trump fiasco.

I guess with the exception of a president fornicating a girl scout on the front lawn of the White House anything goes.

Hey, Bill Clinton just got aroused.:lol:

 

[Slingshot Bob]

No, she didn't.

DC is a one party consent state.

Omarosa is a bitch, but that doesn't mean she broke the law 'just because'.

If she recorded classified info, she did. As tapehappy as she is and given free roam at the WH, that is very likely.

 

[jnug]

If she recorded classified info, she did. As tapehappy as she is and given free roam at the WH, that is very likely.

And she is likely ruthlessly self-aggransizing enough to have erased those tapes if she has recorded classified material just to keep from making such a mistake as releasing one. I would not be surprised if she has recordings numbering over a hundred and maybe hundreds, cataloged and cross referenced. She needs classified recordings like she needs a hole in the head.

 

[mike2810]

It was what is known as a sinecure--a do nothing job. It's a common form of bribery in politics. It's clear in the audio that she would asked to do nothing but give a few speeches for $180k / year after being fired from the White House. Why would you fire someone and then hire them in a do nothing job? We all know the answer. It's a bribe to silence her. More Trump hush money.

Do you deny this?

You would have to ask the people doing the hiring on why they would offer her a job. For me to answer would be speculation.
Interesting she shared this tape but not the one with Trump using the "n" word.


Trump is no saint. It is interesting how much Trump is being scrutinized by the press.

 

[jnug]

You would have to ask the people doing the hiring on why they would offer her a job. For me to answer would be speculation.
Interesting she shared this tape but not the one with Trump using the "n" word.


Trump is no saint. It is interesting how much Trump is being scrutinized by the press.

She does not claim to have the N-word recording, only to have heard it. Whether she had it or not, it is obvious that she is releasing these as she can capture people in lies or misstatements. She is not releasing them sequentially or in any other way than tactically. She is going to squeeze them out one at a time in the very same manner.

 

[Slyfox696]

That has to be the consent of the other person, not the one secretly recording. Sorry, she broke the law.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That's the stupidest excuse I've ever heard. "Single consent recording is only legal if all parties consent".

So stupid.

 

[mike2810]

She does not claim to have the N-word recording, only to have heard it. Whether she had it or not, it is obvious that she is releasing these as she can capture people in lies or misstatements. She is not releasing them sequentially or in any other way than tactically. She is going to squeeze them out one at a time in the very same manner.

thanks for clarifying the "m" word claim.
What you say makes sense. However, for me anytime tapes are not released in order, context and is not the unedited tape, I am suspect. Remember what MSM did with a 911 call a few years back? When the full version was released, it presented the LEO in an entirely different light.

 

[veritas1]

She does not claim to have the N-word recording, only to have heard it. Whether she had it or not, it is obvious that she is releasing these as she can capture people in lies or misstatements. She is not releasing them sequentially or in any other way than tactically. She is going to squeeze them out one at a time in the very same manner.

So, so far all we have is a tape of Lara Trump offering her a job in order, apparently, to keep her from saying bad things about Trump which would be nothing more than useless, unverified claims anyway. If they suspected she was taping anything, they should have canned her at once. I'm still thinking this is a lot of blather and that she doesn't have diddly. She's simply milking a gullible press for whatever she can get.

 

[veritas1]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That's the stupidest excuse I've ever heard. "Single consent recording is only legal if all parties consent".

So stupid.

Single consent really means no consent. Of course the person doing the secret recording consents to their own recording. It's the name of the law that's stupid.

 

[Aberration]

So another big NothingBurger. Shocking.

 

[jnug]

Single consent really means no consent. Of course the person doing the secret recording consents to their own recording. It's the name of the law that's stupid.

No, single consent means single consent. It means exactly what it says. Its the reason why the UBER driver in St Louis is not in legal jeopardy for having recording mass quantities of customers in his car and even telecasting some of those recordings. They had no idea they were being recorded. The only "consent" was by the guy doing the recording. UBER has canned him based on an ethical standard but he is no legal jeopardy. It is why Cohen could get away with recording Trump at least on legal grounds. NY is a single consent environment. Cohen may be in trouble with the NY State Bar but not with the Law.

 

[veritas1]

No, single consent means single consent. It means exactly what it says. Its the reason why the UBER driver in St Louis is not in legal jeopardy for having recording mass quantities of customers in his car and even telecasting some of those recordings. They had no idea they were being recorded. The only "consent" was by the guy doing the recording. It is why Cohen could get away with recording Trump at least on legal grounds. NY is a single consent environment. Cohen may be in trouble with the NY State Bar but not with the Justice Dept.

It goes without saying that the person doing the recording "consents".

 

[jnug]

It goes without saying that the person doing the recording "consents".

Which does not help your argument one single bit. Again is the UBER driver being brought to court NOPE. Is Cohen for having recorded Trump...NOPE

I should also point out that nothing is assumed in statute.

 

[JMR]

So, following along here....first Kelly threatens her with damage to her reputation and possible legal action unless she leaves quietly....then Trump says....OH NO, I don't love this..then Lara calls and says how about you settle for $180,000, just what you were making, but no job required, but no talking either.

Funniest part so far is listening to Lara figure out just what $15,000 a month equals. Guess she forgot since offering the same deal to Trump's bodyguard. Such small numbers are easy to forget for the Trumps.

Omarosa, no dope, figures the $15,000 a month plus a signed NDA will get her about $15,000. A book...that's a different story. Gee Lara, they made you and Kelly look pretty stupid here.

 

[PLizzy]

If she recorded classified info, she did. As tapehappy as she is and given free roam at the WH, that is very likely.

Correct.

But I don't think she has a security clearance for that info anyways.

 

[PLizzy]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That's the stupidest excuse I've ever heard. "Single consent recording is only legal if all parties consent".

So stupid.

He doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

OK, since you refuse to acknowledge the Obamacare untruth, Obama also said over and over that he wouldn't issue an EO for the dreamers because "I'm not a king." (ie. it wasn't constitutional) Then, he did it anyway. Was that lying? If not, why not?

I will not do this or I will not do that is not a fact. If you tell your children youi'll buy them a toy but can't because you can't afford it that doesn't make you a liar. Only little children don't understand this.

Trump promising he won't golf and totally failing is not a lie. It's a broken promise.

The CEO of U.S. Steel called me and said they are building six new plants is a factual statement. It's either true or false. We know it's false. That's a lie.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

So, following along here....first Kelly threatens her with damage to her reputation and possible legal action unless she leaves quietly....then Trump says....OH NO, I don't love this..then Lara calls and says how about you settle for $180,000, just what you were making, but no job required, but no talking either.

Funniest part so far is listening to Lara figure out just what $15,000 a month equals. Guess she forgot since offering the same deal to Trump's bodyguard. Such small numbers are easy to forget for the Trumps.

Omarosa, no dope, figures the $15,000 a month plus a signed NDA will get her about $15,000. A book...that's a different story. Gee Lara, they made you and Kelly look pretty stupid here.

But I wonder if the $15k was coming from campaign funds.