Poll of the Day > Do you believe it was wrong for omarosa to make those recordings?

(+) Yeah! (+)

do you? this is making huge news
---

Yeah, but that doesnt excuse whats on the tapes.
---

Did she record the radio onto a cassette tape?
---

wuht?
---

If the government is always spying on us, we have the right to spy on them
---

ninja_lootz posted...

Did she record the radio onto a cassette tape?

What is this, 1978?
---

Did she record herself playing the recorder and then sell those records on Fat Wreck Chords?
---

Of course not. Im in favor of transparency no matter who is involved.
---

Far-Queue posted...

ninja_lootz posted...

Did she record the radio onto a cassette tape?

What is this, 1978?

Well, people do keep saying "tapes" when it comes to this stuff...
---

Yeah.

Omarosa is one of those people in the administration who are probably worse than Trump. I don't like her at all.
---

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, there's some sort of tape (which apparently has not been uncovered) of aides discussing what to do IF Trump said the n-word?

So he hasn't actually said it that we know of, but we're up in arms?
---

Smarkil posted...

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, there's some sort of tape (which apparently has not been uncovered) of aides discussing what to do IF Trump said the n-word?

So he hasn't actually said it that we know of, but we're up in arms?

We dont have the tape of him saying it, it was allegedly years ago during filming of The Apprentice. It would be surprising to no one though that he used language like that.

He is already on tape bragging about the kind of sexual assault that has ended dozens of careers. He has a completely unhinged base that would support him regardless of how despicable he reveals himself to be.
---

Mead posted...

He is already on tape bragging about the kind of sexual assault

Groping willing participants isn't assault.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Groping willing participants isn't assault.

Whew lads.

knivesX2004 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Groping willing participants isn't assault.

Whew lads.

"and they let you." - Drumpf
---

So these are the recordings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNXkC0_xQc" data-time="

She broke a long standing rule so she could record her boss calmly firing her. All I'm getting from this is she seems like a self serving piece of shit and completely untrustworthy.
---

ninja_lootz posted...

So these are the recordings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNXkC0_xQc" data-time="

She broke a long standing rule so she could record her boss calmly firing her. All I'm getting from this is she seems like a self serving piece of shit and completely untrustworthy.

You realize she has released more than just that tape?
---

Mead posted...

ninja_lootz posted...

So these are the recordings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNXkC0_xQc" data-time="

She broke a long standing rule so she could record her boss calmly firing her. All I'm getting from this is she seems like a self serving piece of shit and completely untrustworthy.

You realize she has released more than just that tape?

Well I watched four videos about this on Youtube and that's all I found.
---

ninja_lootz posted...

Well I watched four videos about this on Youtube and that's all I found.

That's because she's trying to get press to sell her dumb book. She'll drop more tapes when she starts to slip off the front page.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

knivesX2004 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Groping willing participants isn't assault.

Whew lads.

"and they let you." - Drumpf

Because he fuckin uses his mob connections to ruin your life. Even in 2018 people still don't believe victims first. Imagine what it's like with no outside help (he often bribed his accuser's lawyers) and everyone is against you. Of course they didn't fight back.
Jesus.

MrMelodramatic posted...

Yeah, but that doesnt excuse whats on the tapes.

Basically this.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

knivesX2004 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Groping willing participants isn't assault.

Whew lads.

"and they let you." - Drumpf

Please tell me you don't think "she's not fighting back, so..." actually qualifies as consent. Because that's disgusting on multiple levels.
---

DoubleOSnake posted...

do you? this is making huge news

Yet you include no links to any such news, which, for those not keeping track, there are *still* no tapes of Trump using the n-word. There were a bunch of recordings Omarosa released where she taped herself in conversations with Trump and various staffs. One of these videos -- which I haven't heard and DOS hasn't linked -- allegedly has Trump staffers discussing the possibility of a tape existing and what to do if it got out, a conversation allegedly initiated by Omarosa herself who supposedly did things like that on a routine basis:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/14/omarosa-tapes-aides-discuss-donald-trump-using-racial-slur/984933002/

Patton said she has never denied meetings about rumors of a racist tape, but she never confirmed its existence.

"Nice try, @OMAROSA," Patton tweeted. "We never disputed we had multiple conversations about the alleged Apprentice tape b/c you were obsessed with it."

Of course, that's hardly the only trolling that Omarosa did in the White House. She was also alleged to have left negative news stories about Trump on his desk to rile him up.

Mead posted...

Of course not. Im in favor of transparency no matter who is involved.

Illegally recording people isn't really a "transparency issue" and this isn't so much whistleblowing as it is desperate self-promotion.

Smarkil posted...

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, there's some sort of tape (which apparently has not been uncovered) of aides discussing what to do IF Trump said the n-word?

So he hasn't actually said it that we know of, but we're up in arms?

Apparently it's important because if he said the n-word he'd automatically be forced to resign and time would magically rewind, undoing his entire presidency and going all the way back before the general election to the primaries where Bernie would instead win for some reason and then be elected president.

You know, the typical Trump hater's wet dream.

Mead posted...

He is already on tape bragging about the kind of sexual assault that has ended dozens of careers. He has a completely unhinged base that would support him regardless of how despicable he reveals himself to be.

...you mean a recording that specifically acknowledges consent even when he's trying to talk big?

knivesX2004 posted...

Because he fuckin uses his mob connections to ruin your life.

knivesX2004 posted...

Even in 2018 people still don't believe victims first

...you mean even in 2018 they ask for evidence of a claim? Perhaps you'd prefer 1690s America where women's claims were accepted without question... and dozens of men and women were locked up for witchcraft, many of whom were executed for the crime. That's your ideal world, right?

knivesX2004 posted...

Imagine what it's like with no outside help (he often bribed his accuser's lawyers)

The kind of claim you're really going to need present something for so I can provide a link to the Snopes article debunking it.
---

knivesX2004 posted...

Because he fuckin uses his mob connections to ruin your life. Even in 2018 people still don't believe victims first. Imagine what it's like with no outside help (he often bribed his accuser's lawyers) and everyone is against you. Of course they didn't fight back.
Jesus.

By that logic, every man's sexual advances can be sexual assault without their knowledge as the woman can decide that the man can exert his physical advantage at any time despite no evidence they would even want to. Someone being capable of harm isn't threat incarnate, you need a reason or you're fucking mad. You don't get to claim they forced you when no force was exerted.

darkknight109 posted...

Please tell me you don't think "she's not fighting back, so..." actually qualifies as consent. Because that's disgusting on multiple levels.

What would be a safe sign your advances are warranted? Ahegao? Any sign of approval can be construed as forced so are we supposed to assume that all sexual action between genders is a man committing sexual crimes?

We live in a society of innocent until proven guilty, so unless there's evidence the man is forcing a situation, we assume the man acted in good faith. If you don't like something, make it clear enough that a jury would see it.
---

Still waiting on these tapes

They aren't real so we are going to be waiting forever

And ever

And ever
---

I can tell youre itching for an argument Zeus, I dont really feel like biting though
---

Depends on what state she recorded it in

Some states you're allowed to record a telephone convo, others you're not

Anyway, all it is is a shot at the President before mid-terms since ya'know.. Stormy Daniels and the PlayMate legal payoff "news" didnt work nor did the restaurant thing..
---

Smarkil posted...

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, there's some sort of tape (which apparently has not been uncovered) of aides discussing what to do IF Trump said the n-word?

So he hasn't actually said it that we know of, but we're up in arms?

Well, I'd think the fact that such a discussion occurred in the first place says plenty...
---

Johnny Eagle posted...

Smarkil posted...

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, there's some sort of tape (which apparently has not been uncovered) of aides discussing what to do IF Trump said the n-word?

So he hasn't actually said it that we know of, but we're up in arms?

Well, I'd think the fact that such a discussion occurred in the first place says plenty...

Nothing we didn't already know though.

It was well publicized even before the primaries that his aids and advisers were having conversations like this ever since he was a serious contender for the nomination. All the tape does is prove that those stories were correct.
---

Johnny Eagle posted...

Smarkil posted...

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, there's some sort of tape (which apparently has not been uncovered) of aides discussing what to do IF Trump said the n-word?

So he hasn't actually said it that we know of, but we're up in arms?

Well, I'd think the fact that such a discussion occurred in the first place says plenty...

That Trump is a douchebag? Does this really change his narrative?
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

By that logic, every man's sexual advances can be sexual assault without their knowledge as the woman can decide that the man can exert his physical advantage at any time despite no evidence they would even want to.

Lmao

Mead posted...

I can tell youre itching for an argument Zeus, I dont really feel like biting though

Given your inflammatory and largely debunked claim regarding Trump's locker room talk, I could suggest the same.

JixHedgehog posted...

Depends on what state she recorded it in

Some states you're allowed to record a telephone convo, others you're not

Yes, most liberal states are very rightly against nonconsequential recordings like that. However, apparently DC doesn't have laws against the recordings so apparently it's more illicit than illegal (although, if it was teleconferenced, it would be subject to the laws of each state involved). For the alleged Apprentice tape, I *believe* the Apprentice is filmed in NY which is a one-party-consent state (which is as rape-y as it sounds, given the gross violation of privacy). CT is a two-party consent state (for phone calls; in-person conversations are still the same disgusting one-party consent *although* supposedly they can't be used in civil cases).

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

Johnny Eagle posted...

Well, I'd think the fact that such a discussion occurred in the first place says plenty...

...except it doesn't, because Omarosa herself was the one who brought it up in the first place.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

What would be a safe sign your advances are warranted?

The woman actually agreeing to it?

This doesn't seem like all that difficult of a concept to me.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

We live in a society of innocent until proven guilty

I hate to break it to you, but no, we don't. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the standard to which criminal trials are held - nothing else. Notably, that standard doesn't even apply in all law cases, let alone to matters outside a courtroom. If a woman were to, say, sue her partner for damages, thus making it a civil matter rather than a criminal one, she would not be required to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he committed sexual assault; the legal standard in that case would be "balance of probabilities", which means she merely has to convince a judge or jury that it was more likely than not that she was assaulted.

So no, there's nothing saying we have to assume that a man acted in good faith unless a woman can prove that she made every effort to fight off an attack; that exact logic is why, if a co-worker accuses you of harassment, your employer can straight-up fire your ass without needing to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the claims are true (and if your defence when HR asks you about it was "she didn't fight back when I was kissing her", I don't think you'd even need to finish the sentence before you got tossed out the door with a pink slip stapled to your forehead).

Zeus posted...

Given your inflammatory and largely debunked claim regarding Trump's locker room talk, I could suggest the same.

All he said was that Trump boasted about being able to commit sexual assault.

Which he did. There's a recording of it. It was a pretty big deal back a couple years ago. And contrary to your claim of that recording "specifically acknowledging consent", it actually does the exact opposite, given that he states he goes straight for kissing without bothering to ask or wait for any consent on the part of the woman.
---

darkknight109 posted...

All he said was that Trump boasted about being able to commit sexual assault.

Which he did.

Which he did not. And that's overlooking Mead's added spin on the subject.

darkknight109 posted...

There's a recording of it. It was a pretty big deal back a couple years ago. And contrary to your claim of that recording "specifically acknowledging consent", it actually does the exact opposite, given that he states he goes straight for kissing without bothering to ask or wait for any consent on the part of the woman.

I can just see you on a date right now -- "May I kiss you?" "May I hold your hand?" "May I gently caress your bosom?" Seriously, have you *ever* asked permission before kissing somebody? And, if you did, were you grooming them or something?

Trump VERY specifically acknowledges consent when he talks about them "letting him do it." Even if you take the argument in its most literal form rather than the broader, more obvious implication, what happens when you lean in for a kiss and the other person isn't okay with it? They might say, "stop," they could say, "no," or they merely move away. What you seem to believe is that interactions either require verbal prompts beforehand (and, if that's the case, then a lot of women have tried to "assault" me over the years) or, more likely, that only woman are allowed to initiate contact.
---

Legally maybe morally no.
---

Broken_Zeus posted...

Seriously, have you *ever* asked permission before kissing somebody? And, if you did, were you grooming them or something?

No, but I also generally don't kiss people I just met and am not dating, nor grab them by their crotch - two things Trump stated he was free to do because of his celebrity, which you may recognize as a fairly textbook definition of sexual assault.

Broken_Zeus posted...

Trump VERY specifically acknowledges consent when he talks about them "letting him do it."

Again, someone not fighting back does not equate to consent (especially when the person initiating contact is in a position of power, which Trump was). I'm fucking astounded I still have to explain this to grown adults in two thousand fucking eighteen.
---