Justice Department says Omarosa Manigault Newman didn’t file financial disclosure report | TribLIVE.com

Justice Department says Omarosa Manigault Newman didn’t file financial disclosure report

The Washington Post
The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman, alleging she failed to file a legally-required financial disclosure after she was fired from her post.

The Justice Department on Tuesday filed a civil complaint against Omarosa Manigault Newman, accusing the former reality TV show contestant who served as an aide to President Trump of not filing a required financial disclosure report after she left the White House.

The six-page complaint alleges that Manigault Newman — who had a significant falling out with Trump and last year released a book depicting him as an unqualified racist — violated the Ethics in Government Act when she did not file the report within 30 days of leaving her position. It asks a federal judge to compel her to file one and to impose a civil penalty of “up to $50,000.”

A lawyer for Manigault Newman did not return a phone message seeking comment.

Manigault Newman rose to prominence on the first season of Trump’s TV show “The Apprentice,” playing a villain who would undercut her competitors to win. She did not win but earned the admiration of Trump.

When he campaigned to be president, Manigault Newman was one of the few prominent blacks to support him, and early in his administration, she served as the White House’s director of communications for the Office of Public Liaison. But in government — as on TV — she developed a reputation as a brash, polarizing figure and was ultimately pushed out by then-Chief of Staff John Kelly.

After departing, Manigault Newman published an incendiary book, “Unhinged: An Insider’s Account of the Trump White House,” offering an unflattering account of what it was like to work in the administration and saying she was offered a $15,000-a-month contract from Trump’s campaign to stay silent after being fired. The White House said at the time that the book was riddled with falsehoods.

The Justice Department’s complaint says Manigault Newman received a briefing in December 2017 telling her she had to file a “termination financial disclosure report” by Jan. 18, 2018, and an ethics attorney in the White House Counsel’s Office followed up with an email just before the end of the year reminding her of the obligation. The complaint, signed by lawyers in the Justice Department’s Civil Division, says Manigault Newman did not respond.

On Jan. 3, 2018, an ethics attorney in the White House Counsel’s Office sent her another email, according to the complaint, and on Jan. 12, an attorney followed up to see whether she had questions.

When Jan. 18 passed without Manigault Newman filing the financial disclosure report, a White House attorney emailed to say she might face a $200 late filing fee, according to the complaint.

The complaint says the White House Counsel’s Office followed up in the ensuing months, and in March 2018, Manigault Newman called to discuss the matter. The complaint does not detail what each side said, but it alleges that later that day, Stefan Passantino, then-deputy counsel to the president, wrote to tell her she had to file the report. According to the complaint, she still has not done so.

The Executive Office of the President at some point referred the case to the Justice Department, and the complaint’s filing was authorized March 17, 2019.

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.