I wanted to bring this to the attention of FReepers ASAP, so posted the YouTube I created rather than taking the additional time required to prepare a FinkelBlog on the matter.
You’ll see in the video that Omarosa says she’s not worried about legal jeopardy for having taped Gen. Kelly in the Situation room:
“because I have protections. The moment that I decided to blow the whistle on a lot of the corruption going on in the White House, there are protections that are afforded to me.”
Not clear what “protections” she has in mind? Is she threatening more disclosures if prosecuted?
> Not clear what “protections” she has in mind? <
I’ll bet she’s talking about the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. But she’s wrong. The Act does not shield you from criminal prosecution. And Omarosa committed a crime when she used a recording device in a secure area.
Now the only question is whether or not the Rule of Law will apply. Hillary was too far up the ladder to be prosecuted. Is Omarosa likewise safe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act
Blackmail would be the only kind of protection I can think of.
She could be referring to the Whistleblower Protection Act.
Who’s the idiot who hired her?
She is gossip mongering so far as I can tell. Has she uncovered anything illegal?
Even if Trump and Kelly were running up and down the hallways screaming the N word, that’s not illegal.
I assume she means whistleblower statutes.
“Blow the whistle” I think is the key. Sounds like she plans to be treated as a whistleblower legally. I don’t see how that would work out for her. From what I understand it is a legal status that is not that easy to use.
She needs to be prosecuted for her security violations, they need to make an example of her.