Omarosa better have a solid foundation of evidence before she barks up the wrong tree and ends up as just another irrelevant old bitter useless backstabbing friend who used to work in the White House; someone that Trump used to know. Is this just another part of her reaching for publicity to sell her book, or does Omarosa Manigault-Newman actually have information on President Trump that is true? What did she do now? Omarosa just dropped a bombshell claim about President Donald Trump and his connections to Wikileaks and Hillary’s email scandal. If you didn’t know yet, then you should know now that Omarosa was recently fired from her kush job in the White House. She is now releasing a book and all of this media attention she’s receiving could be suspiciously tied to the fact that 1) she has no job, and 2) she needs to sell books. Is she just making up fake news to get some cheap book sales (I’m not buying it), or does she really have something that would damage the reputation of President Trump? If Bill Clinton can do what he allegedly did in the White House, then whatever Omarosa has better be good. If not, then she’s going to look like a dunce.

What is Omarosa’s scandalous claim this time? She’s making allegations that President Trump knew about the email scandal involving Hillary Clinton before Wikileaks smashed the world with that revelation. There are two things to consider, mostly because I enjoy using lists today. 1) Is she kidding or serious, and 2) Does it matter? If Trump knew about the Hillary scandal before everyone else, then what exactly does that matter? If someone hacked Hillary and found out she was doing some shady things with her own server, but Trump knew before you or I did, then how does that affect anything at all? Am I the only one who does not even care about Hillary or her emails anymore? She’s old news. Gone. Not president. We’ve moved on from paying her any mind. She should probably be investigated and perhaps even locked up (I’m no judge or jury), but I’m more focused on the person who’s actually IN the White House, not the one falling down steps in foreign countries or dressing in a muumuu.

Trending: BILL CLINTON ACCUSER Records Stunning Phone Call To Dem Senator Schumer Asking Him To “Believe” Her: ”Unlike Ms. Ford, I Do Have Proof and Witnesses”

Omarosa claims she’s going to expose the corruption in the White House and during the campaign. OK, great. Isn’t that what many of us voted for Trump to do in the first place? Is Omarosa trying to steal Trump’s thunder? Does she think she can “drain the swamp” better than Trump can? Hate to break it to her, but Omarosa is part of the swamp. According to Trump’s choice of wording, she might be the “dog” that’s out in the middle of the swamp with nowhere left to swim.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to 100PercentFedUp.com updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The Hill chimed in on this major story involving Wikileaks, Trump, and bringing back the muumuu queen known as Hillary Clinton. They stated: “Former White House aide Omarosa Manigault-Newman claimed Tuesday that President Trump knew about the hacked Democratic emails obtained by WikiLeaks before they were released during the height of the 2016 election campaign.

She made the allegation during an interview that aired on MSNBC Tuesday afternoon, saying that Trump “absolutely” knew about the emails before they were released by WikiLeaks. She also said campaign officials were instructed to bring up the emails at every point they could during the end of the campaign.

U.S. officials have linked the hacked emails to a broader plot by Russia to interfere in the election.

When asked by the reporter whether she was implying Trump had a back channel to WikiLeaks, Omarosa replied, “I didn’t say that, you did.”

“I will say that I am going to expose the corruption that went on in the campaign and in the White House,” Manigault-Newman added.

WikiLeaks released troves of emails stolen from Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers and the personal inbox of John Podesta, then Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

The U.S. intelligence community says that officials belonging to Russia’s GRU military intelligence unit were responsible for the hacks and passed the stolen material to WikiLeaks. Last month, special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers for launching cyberattacks against the DNC and systems involved in the U.S. electoral process.”

On Tuesday, Manigault-Newman would not say whether Stone could have passed Trump information about the WikiLeaks releases, but she said that Mueller has “rightfully” zeroed in on Stone in his probe.

There has been broad speculation about whether individuals in Trump’s orbit knew about the emails before they were released by WikiLeaks. Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to Trump who briefly worked on the campaign, has attracted scrutiny for his links to WikiLeaks. Stone has claimed publicly that he communicated with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during the 2016 campaign, though he maintains that it was done through an intermediary.

Stone also sent a series of tweets during the campaign that appeared to hint at forthcoming releases of emails from WikiLeaks before they occurred. Still, Stone has denied having advance knowledge of the emails before their release.

Moreover, court documents released last October indicate that George Papadopoulos, a former foreign policy adviser to Trump’s campaign, was told by a Russia-linked professor that Moscow had “thousands” of emails containing dirt on Hillary Clinton in April 2016 — before WikiLeaks released hacked emails publicly. Papadopoulos is cooperating in Mueller probe. ”

Let’s put this question out there. Is it OK for presidential candidates to dig up dirt on each other in order to use that as a tool to talk down their opponent? Doesn’t just about every candidate do that and then make cheesy commercials out of the info? You know when there’s a local election and you see those negatively-toned commercials talking down about politicians? Isn’t this in the same realm as that?

If I was a politician, then I would dig up every spec of dirt on every opponent of mine and air it out like a fresh batch of laundry.

If Trump knew about the Hillary emails before we did, then I’m OK with that. Either way, it doesn’t affect the truth about what Hillary was up to.

If anything, it just provides information.

Julian Assange might want to hide for a bit if anything extra comes out of this!


Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.