Summations Only

Paul Krugman, columnist for the New York Times and winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics, has been talking about this since the beginning of the year. From Feb. 27:From Jul 9:

I can't believe how little is being made of how negatively the recording of John Kelly firing Omarosa reflects upon him. I'd embed the audio in this message, but I haven't yet found it in a form that allows me to do that. The full recording can be found on this webpage: Omarosa Releases Tape Of John Kelly Firing Her In White House Situation Room. Scroll down just a little to where you see a video that has the word "EXCLUSIVE" in the upper right. That's the full audio.A full transcript can be found at John Kelly firing Omarosa in the situation room.Here are my comments on the interaction between Kelly and Omarosa:

quote:

---

KELLY: I'm only going to stay for a couple of minutes. These are lawyers. We're going to talk to you about leaving the White House. It's come to my attention, over the last few months, that there's been some pretty, in my opinion, significant integrity issues related to you and use of government vehicles and some other issues. And they'll, they'll, they'll walk you through the legal aspects of this. But there is some, from my view, there's some money issues and other things, but from my view, the integrity issues are very serious. I'm stuck with my past experience and that is, when we hold people accountable in the military, I would, I compare what I see here at the White House and other issues that I've had to deal with and say what would I do to this, in this case if I was in the Pentagon dealing with a Marine or a soldier or something like that? And the issue that you may or may not have a full appreciation for, but I think you do, this would be a pretty high level of accountability, meaning a court-martial. We're not suggesting any legal action here.

---

Kelly has just accused Omarosa of the civilian equivalent of an offense worthy of court martial. He does not say what the offense is.

quote:

---

OMAROSA MANIGAULT NEWMAN: That I -- that I did?

​

JOHN KELLY: Just stay with me, just stay with me. Yep. That it would be a a pretty serious offense.

---

Kelly still doesn't say what Omarosa did.

quote:

---

JOHN KELLY: So with that I'm just going to ask you -- these gentlemen will explain it. We'll bring a personnel person in after after they talk to you. But just to understand that I'd like to see this be a a friendly departure. There are pretty significant legal issues that we hope don't develop into something that, that'll make it ugly for you.

---

Kelly is pretty unambiguously threatening Omarosa with legal action if she doesn't make this a "friendly departure."

quote:

---

JOHN KELLY: But I think it's important to understand that if we make this a friendly departure we can all be, you know, you can look at, look at your time here in, in the White House as a year of service to the nation. And then you can go on without any type of difficulty in the future relative to your reputation.

---

Kelly repeats the threat, this time to her reputation. So first he threatens her legally, then he threatens defaming her character.

quote:

---

JOHN KELLY: But it's very, very important I think that you understand that there are some serious legal issues that have been violated. And you're, you're open to some legal action that we hope, I think, we can control, right? So with that, if you would stay here with these gentlemen they'll lay this thing out —

---

Kelly is threatening Omarosa legally again.

quote:

---

OMAROSA MANIGAULT NEWMAN: Can I ask you a couple questions? Does the president -- is the president aware of what's going on?

​

JOHN KELLY: Don't do -- let's not go down the road. This is a non-negotiable discussion.

​

OMAROSA MANIGAULT NEWMAN: I don't want to negotiate. I just, I've never talked -- had a chance to talk to you General Kelly so if this is my departure I'd like to have at least an opportunity —

​

JOHN KELLY: No.

​

OMAROSA: --to understand.

​

JOHN KELLY: We can, we can talk another time. This has to do with some pretty serious violat -- integrity violations. So I'll let it go at that. So the the staff and everyone on the staff works for me, not the president. And so after your departure I'll inform him if he gets interested on, on where you may be. So with that I'll let you go and if gentlemen you could take it.

​

MALE VOICE: Thanks. Yep. I'm really sorry we're here.

---

So that's it, and we're left wondering what Omarosa did. Since they're obviously unaware of her recording activity, it wasn't that. And since Omarosa is making all this public, she evidently isn't cowed by any legal threat. Her publishers legal department (Gallery Books) has probably assisted her in vetting how much she can make public.A little Googling says that the supposed offense was using the White House car service for office pick-up and drop-off. This is not a severe integrity issue. This is a "Hey, cut it out" type of offense, and that's it.I also don't believe the reports that Omarosa tried to "storm the White House residence to appeal to Trump, according to one of the officials, accidentally tripping an electronic Secret Service wire that monitors entry and egress from the residence." That's from Politico. Reason I don't believe it? I think guards are stationed at the entries and exits from the residence. I doubt the doors are just open with only "an electronic Secret Service wire."--Percy

The truly distressing part about the Omarosa thing is that she was in the White House at all. Arguably the least qualified person (next to Trump himself)(OK, and his relatives) in the place.Assuming tokenism, how would you feel as a black person if that was your token representative?

From the Guardian: Republican politicians can no longer count on the support of their familiesThe headline may be overstating things; it only gives a couple of instances of candidates' families (the son of one, the parents of another) publicly donating money to the opponents' campaigns as well as one or two instances of family members openly disagreeing with policy decisions; nothing to indicate that it's a widespread problem for Republicans. But maybe good for an lol.The last paragraph is interesting, though:

Stephen Miller is one of Trump's senior advisors, so in case you didn't already see this one: Stephen Miller’s Uncle Calls Him a Hypocrite in an Online Essay. Here's the essay: Stephen Miller Is an Immigration Hypocrite. I Know Because I’m His Uncle.--Percy

Yeah, Omarosa lacked qualifications.For me, though, Kelly comes off as bullying and dishonest. Whether Omarosa was qualified or not, the interaction reads to me like him railroading her out. After cutting her off he says, "We can talk another time," like there's ever going to be an opportunity for her to talk to him after she's out of the White House. And if I have this right, according to Omarosa this was her first meeting with Kelly.The public needs these glimpses, even from people we don't like (that might just be me - independent of her competence, I just don't like Omarosa), into the inner workings of this presidency of a corrupt and repugnant man.Sean Spicer must have signed one of those NDAs Omarosa talks about. It explains the insipid fawning untruthfulness of his book. How can you trust anything anyone who worked in the Trump administration says when they've signed an NDA that has clauses like this (link to NDA):

2. No Disparagement. During the term of your service, and at all times thereafter, you hereby promise and agree not to demean or disparage publicly, in any form or through any medium, the Campaign, Mr. Trump, Mr. Pence, any Trump or Pence Company, any Trump or Pence Family Member, or any Trump or Pence Family member Company or any asset any of the foregoing own, or product or service any of the forefoing offer, in each case by or in any of the Restricted Means and Contexts. To avoid any doubt, you agree that this shall survive the termination of this agreement pursuant to Paragraph 10.

There's been some discussion in the press about this NDA being unenforceable because it is overly broad (in the case of the the White House version of the NDA) and because it seeks to restrict information about a candidate for public office (in the case of the Trump Election Committee version of the NDA). Omarosa says she signed an NDA while working on the apprentice, and another NDA while working for the Trump campaign, but not when she started working in the White House.--Percy

No argument here. When you're talking about the pile under the outhouse, where you landed on the pile doesn't bring much distinction, and it's always wider at the bottom.

From yesterday's New York Times: Trump Appears to Admit White House Aides Signed Nondisclosure AgreementsUp to now, White House officials have been coy about whether they were required to sign non-disclosure agreements. Well, now we know. As Percy mentioned, these non-disclosure agreements are probably unenforceable; the only thing that would be enforceable is if Ms. Omarosa discloses actual national security classified information.That said, this is about the non-disclosure agreements; it is still likely that Omarosa violated the law when she recorded the conversation in a secured conference room.But what caught my eye was this: So Trump has himself made and made use of secret recordings of conversations and phone calls.

That reminds me of another US President:

The reluctance might be because it is nearly impossible to discuss the agreements in a non-disparaging way, thereby violating them. Conway spoke about them a few days ago and made the outlandish claim that every employer requires similar agreements.

To be honest, I don't see anything wrong with those NDA's. When you are working in public relations it makes sense that part of your job requirement is to not disparage your client. If one of Obama's aides had been saying disparaging things about Obama, or leaking stories which made Obama look bad, it wouldn't have surprised me if they were fired. When you sign up for a political job you are signing up for a public relations job, by default.

I would count an NDA as going beyond the threat of dismissal. The scope of it - extending to Trump and Pence companies - and the fact that it continues after leaving employment - also seems to be unusual and excessive.

I once worked for a cleaning company that made me sign a non-disclosure agreement. Thankfully, the five year period is over now and I can get rich by selling all of their cleaning secrets.

You were likely bound not to reveal trade secrets. I doubt that you signed an agreement not to reveal that your boss was a slave driving ogre.

You are describing the state of things while you are on the job. Yes, you would be fired for disparaging your boss at that point. But these agreements purport to do much more than that, and extend, apparently forever.