I’ll confess to having mixed feelings about Omarosa Manigault Newman, her upcoming book, and the inherent news value of her purported experiences in Donald Trump’s White House.
On the one hand, a former high-ranking official on the president’s team is offering first-hand accounts of developments in the West Wing, while presenting rather aggressive criticisms of her former boss. Practically by definition, this seems newsworthy. On the other hand, at its core, this story is about the perspectives of two dubious reality-show personalities, neither of whom I find credible.
Trump and his allies have been quick to scoff at Newman’s latest claims, questioning her motives and trustworthiness. And while that may seem like a reasonable position, it leads to a fairly obvious follow-up question: if she’s such an unreliable joke, why did the president give her a lucrative and powerful position in the White House?
Perhaps it’s best to focus on the elements of the story that are both substantive and verifiable. It’s of legitimate interest, for example, if Trump World routinely uses hush money. The Washington Post reported over the weekend:
The Post’s Josh Dawsey has a document verifying Manigault Newman’s claim that she was offered what amounted to $15,000 per month in hush money to keep quiet about the White House. It was technically for a job with the Trump campaign, but it was premised on her signing a nondisclosure agreement that dealt with her time in the West Wing. That, notably, isn’t generally how NDAs work; they usually involve the job you are getting, not the one you previously had.
The article quoted Larry Noble, a campaign-finance lawyer and former general counsel at the Federal Election Commission, saying, “As a policy and ethics matter, this is very disturbing. If the White House is using NDAs to prohibit government employees from talking about their experiences, it potentially deprives the public from access to otherwise non-secret, non-privileged, information about the operation of the government. Such a practice would also raise serious questions about whether it was intended to prevent the disclosure of potentially illegal activity.”
A separate Post report added, “Manigault Newman does not offer evidence for some of her most explosive charges but extensively recorded her conversations in the White House. The Post has listened to several of the recordings made by Manigault Newman, which match quotations recounted in the book excerpts.”









