Omarosa says Trump is a racist who uses N-word – and claims there's tape to prove it

[JonC]

Jon, you know better than that.

Yep.

 

[carpro]

NPR Host Calls Out Omarosa Over Discrepancy In Trump Racism Allegation


NPR HOST CALLS OUT OMAROSA OVER DISCREPANCY IN TRUMP RACISM ALLEGATION


In an interview Friday, former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman contradicted a claim in her forthcoming book that she heard a tape of President Trump using the “n-word.”

Manigault Newman insisted in an NPR interview that she heard Trump utter the pejorative in an audio file recorded on the set of “The Apprentice.”

“Hearing it changed everything for me,” Manigault Newman told NPR host Rachel Martin.

“I heard the President of the United States use, not only the ‘n-word,’ but as Bill Pruitt described during that interview, other horrible things during the production of ‘The Apprentice,'” she continued. Pruitt is a former “Apprentice” producer who claimed before the 2016 election that tapes existed of Trump making racial comments about black people.


But as Martin noted in the interview, Manigault Newman wrote in her book, “Unhinged,” that she was merely told of the tape. She does not suggest in the tell-all that she has actually heard Trump’s voice.

In the book, due out Tuesday, Manigault Newman wrote that she spoke by phone about the tape to a person who she refuses to name.

________________________________________________________

Long story short...Omarosa is a liar.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

NPR Host Calls Out Omarosa Over Discrepancy In Trump Racism Allegation


NPR HOST CALLS OUT OMAROSA OVER DISCREPANCY IN TRUMP RACISM ALLEGATION


In an interview Friday, former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman contradicted a claim in her forthcoming book that she heard a tape of President Trump using the “n-word.”

Manigault Newman insisted in an NPR interview that she heard Trump utter the pejorative in an audio file recorded on the set of “The Apprentice.”

“Hearing it changed everything for me,” Manigault Newman told NPR host Rachel Martin.

“I heard the President of the United States use, not only the ‘n-word,’ but as Bill Pruitt described during that interview, other horrible things during the production of ‘The Apprentice,'” she continued. Pruitt is a former “Apprentice” producer who claimed before the 2016 election that tapes existed of Trump making racial comments about black people.


But as Martin noted in the interview, Manigault Newman wrote in her book, “Unhinged,” that she was merely told of the tape. She does not suggest in the tell-all that she has actually heard Trump’s voice.

In the book, due out Tuesday, Manigault Newman wrote that she spoke by phone about the tape to a person who she refuses to name.

________________________________________________________

Long story short...Omarosa is a liar.

My, what a surprise

 

[TCassidy]

#Sad

It is sad that Salty would refuse to give credence to lying gossip? Typical politics of destruction coming from the Socialist Left.

 

[TCassidy]

No, unless there there was evidence they had repented and cleaned up their life, just like I would do if someone had a history of alcoholism or drug abuse.

So you would discriminate against all non-Christians applying for secular employment? I thought you were a champion of civil rights!

 

[KenH]

So you would discriminate against all non-Christians applying for secular employment? I thought you were a champion of civil rights!

Someone with a history of drug abuse, alcoholism, or sexual abuse, etc., and haven’t cleaned up their act? You betcha.

 

[TCassidy]

I try to not compartmentalize life.

So you are admitting you would discriminate against non-Christians thus violating their civil rights?

 

[KenH]

So you are admitting you would discriminate against non-Christians thus violating their civil rights?

I wouldn't hire someone with that background of drug abuse, etc., regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Would you?

 

[TCassidy]

Someone with a history of drug abuse, alcoholism, or sexual abuse, etc., and haven’t cleaned up their act? You betcha.

More deflection. The subject is not drug abuse alcoholism or sexual abuse. The subject which YOU framed was "repentance" of past sins.

 

[TCassidy]

I wouldn't hire someone with that background of drug abuse, etc., regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Would you?

More deflection. You framed the discussion as "repentance" from past sins. Then, when called on your bigoted denial of basic civil rights you ran and hid behind your constant deflection.

 

[KenH]

If someone has cleaned up their act, then obviously they have turned from those activities and gone forward in a different direction.

 

[TCassidy]

If someone has cleaned up their act, then obviously they have turned from those activities and gone forward in a different direction.

But that is not what you said. More deflection.

 

[KenH]

But that is not what you said.

Then what DID I say? Or maybe what did you THINK I said?

 

[TCassidy]

Then what DID I say? Or maybe what did you THINK I said?

You said: (post 12)

So if you were an employer and were thinking of hiring someone and you found out he had used this kind of language 5-10 years ago, then you would have no problem hiring such a person?

The topic under discussion was having used language which included the "n" word 5 or 10 years ago.

Then you said: (Post 17)

No, unless there there was evidence they had repented and cleaned up their life, just like I would do if someone had a history of alcoholism or drug abuse.

You assert that repentance is required before you would hire the person. And you added, as more deflection "alcoholism or drug abuse" which was never part of the discussion.

Then Salty said:

Also you use the word "repented" I see that as a spiritual decision

As do all the rest of us, but you continue to deflect.

 

[KenH]

Sorry, but I am lost as a ball in high weeds as to what you don't understand about what I have written in this thread. I don't think any reputable business would hire someone if their background check turned up awful language having been used, say on Twitter or Facebook, and they did not show that they have cleaned up their act.

 

[TCassidy]

Sorry, but I am lost as a ball in high weeds as to what you don't understand about what I have written in this thread. I don't think any reputable business would hire someone if their background check turned up awful language having been used, say on Twitter or Facebook, and they did not show that they have cleaned up their act.

1. There is no evidence President Trump used the "n" word years ago when still on TV. Only gossip.

2. The woman who claims he used the "n" word wrote in her book that she was not present but somebody who was present told her he used the word.

3. The person in question came forward and said he never told her any such thing and that he never heard President Trump use that word.

4. The women then changed her story and tried to say she heard him in person say it even though she had previously admitted she was not present.

5. As the preponderance of the evidence shows that the report is gossip and untrue, there is nothing regarding that issue to clean up his act about.

So, are you a gossip monger or a man of integrity?

 

[KenH]

I never said Trump used the word, but considering the language he has used in the past, even as president, it would not surpise me if he has. I suggest you contact Omarosa and discuss your cocnerns with her since you are worked up over her allegation.

 

[TCassidy]

Ken, please. You titled the thread "Omarosa says Trump is a racist who uses N-word – and claims there's tape to prove it."

Then you have spent the last three pages trying to defend your posting the link:

Omarosa says Trump is a racist who uses N-word – and claims there's tape to prove it

 

[KenH]

Nope. I used the title race on the website. I suggest you contact the website and discuss it with them since you are so worked up about it.

 

[TCassidy]

Nope. I used the title race on the website. I suggest you contact the website and discuss it with them since you are so worked up about it.

So now you are saying that the link you posted leads only to lying slander and is without factual support?