Kinda funny and the last paragraph was actually somewhat prophetic.

Apprentice' Omarosa storms off 'Jimmy Kimmel Show' after seeing lie detector

By Wade Paulsen, 04/23/2004 

Is truth stranger than fiction? When it comes to Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth, the lying villain of NBC's The Apprentice, the answer seems to be yes.

On the night of April 22, Omarosa was scheduled to appear on ABC's The Jimmy Kimmel Show. She didn't. Why? Because she saw a lie-detector on the show's set.

On April 14, Omarosa's nemesis Ereka Vetrini, whom Omarosa accused of using the 'n-word' toward her (a charge denied by both Ereka and the show's producers), took a lie-detector test on the Howard Stern Show and, in her words, "passed with flying colors." The TV newsmagazine Extra! reported that Omarosa refused to answer questions about Ereka's test and walked off when the reporter persisted. Said Ereka, "She doesn't want to talk about my lie detector test because she's lying."

When Omarosa saw the lie detector, she became convinced that the Jimmy Kimmel Show intended to use it on her, in a counterpoint to Ereka's test. She ranted that she would refuse to go on the show unless the lie detector was removed from the set. Her mother and her new publicist, who were accompanying her, also became upset and combative, even though the show's production staff explained that the lie detector was intended for use in a skit with Jimmy's "Uncle Frank," who was strapped into it the entire show -- a joke tied to the Quentin Tarantino-guest star show on April 19 and the Tarantino-directed show on April 20. (Apparently, Uncle Frank had told Tarantino, falsely, that he liked Tarantino's Kill Bill Vol. 2.)

Finally, the crew thought they had reached a compromise with Omarosa: they would do the lie-detector bit with Uncle Frank at the start of the show, then remove it and introduce Omarosa. Instead, she stormed off the set ... and never came back. As a result, Omarosa and her lying became the butt of Jimmy Kimmel's jokes for most of the evening.

We applaud Omarosa for being unafraid to burn the bridges in front of her as well as the ones behind her. Let's see: her lying makes her unemployable, her notoriety cost her an advertising job, and her arrogance may keep her off TV talk shows. We look for an announcement shortly that Omarosa is returning to the only venue friendly to arrogant, unpopular, unemployable liars: politics.

https://www.realitytvworld.com...ie-detector-2514.php

Omarosa is BSC (bat-shit crazy).
She's nothing but trouble.

I am Confused, should this Crazy B**** be charged with her actions for taping someone without their knowing in a secure area of the White House? I'm sure if I did that I would be in Jail right now!

I agree, if shes taping without permission, especially POTUS thats a problem, IIRC there is a confidentiality agreement she signed re Trump, His businesses etc, so she may have breached that agreement, if so his lawyers should tie up any earnings she's received or going to receive on her book, which this is all about, getting press using Trumps name to sell her book...

Re: “On April 14, Omarosa's nemesis Ereka Vetrini, whom Omarosa accused of using the 'n-word' toward her (a charge denied by both Ereka and the show's producers)…”

She’s fond of accusing folks of using the 'n-word'.

She's a very intelligent psychopath.

I wonder what Trump was thinking hiring her in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:
She's a very intelligent psychopath.

I wonder what Trump was thinking hiring her in the first place.

Indeed. She's diabolical. Though I believe she'll come to regret these things she's doing right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:
She's a very intelligent psychopath.

I wonder what Trump was thinking hiring her in the first place.

Indeed. She's diabolical. Though I believe she'll come to regret these things she's doing right now.

I hope so. Betcha The NY Times hires her next.

From what I have read, Trump has had some good results hiring intelligent, ambitious people even with unconventional backgrounds and giving them responsibility, to succeed or fail. Some fail, occasionally spectacularly.

One criticism that I have of Trump is that he hired her in the first place. Bad move - and he should have known better. She's nothing but conniving, self-serving and evil. She sure had no business being in the White House.

Total agree. I was really wondering if his hiring of her was some sort of publicity stunt.

He should have applied the "if there is any doubt, then there is no doubt" rubric...

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:
One criticism that I have of Trump is that he hired her in the first place. Bad move - and he should have known better. She's nothing but conniving, self-serving and evil. She sure had no business being in the White House.

I think you can tape a conversation as long as you're present. I seem to remember an explanation that it is considered electronic note taking. But if
you leave the area and you're no longer part of the gathering but you are continuing to record it then
you're in trouble.

Poli Viejo

quote:

Originally posted by Horn:
I think you can tape a conversation as long as you're present. I seem to remember an explanation that it is considered electronic note taking. But if
you leave the area and you're no longer part of the gathering but you are continuing to record it then
you're in trouble.

Poli Viejo

Depends on the state. Most of the commie states require notifying everyone involved of the recording.

But with DC I’d say it is probably legal as much stuff that have surfaced over the years.

DC is a one party state. Some states are two party, iow everyone has to consent to taping.

This is what got the gal who taped Monica Lewinski in trouble.

quote:

I think you can tape a conversation as long as you're present.

Many states require two party consent. If a person is in a single party consent state and phones someone in a two party state, it would be illegal. And if the taping was done inside the WH, especially within a SCIF, it could rise to the definition of espionage.

Linda Tripped up? That what you’re saying?

The area she recorded her firing by John Kelly is a SCIF and ANY sort of device like a phone or voice activated recorder in there is strictly forbidden.

In a addition to suing her, I hope the Trump administration go after her for this too. Bury this crazy, scheming bitch!

^^^^
It want to know why the FBI hasn't raided her place. She recorded things in a secure area and released them to the public. She claims to have more tapes. They easily could contain classified info. They need to be confiscated and examined, and she needs to be charged. I don't give a fuck what the press says she is violating national security and should be dealt with harshly. If nothing happens to her this will happen again and again and eventually it will lead to harm due to something that gets released.

Imagine if someone released a recording of the Obama whitehouse? Brennan would be water boarding their family members looking for tapes.