Some years ago, I accidentally carried a tape recorder into an interview with a senior national-security official in a secure US government building. (Actually, 鈥渁ccidentally鈥� probably isn鈥檛 the best way to describe what happened. 鈥淐luelessly,鈥� or 鈥渨ithout thinking鈥� might be better descriptors.)
As a reporter, I was ushered around normal security by a media handler, which is how it happened. Upon entering the official鈥檚 office, I set my stuff down on his desk, and then peeled a newspaper off the top of the stack to reveal the offending item.
To me, the recorder was a means to accurately get down every word of an important conversation. To everyone else in the room, it was contraband of the highest order, a security breach on a floor where the trash was shredded and burned every night. They leaped back as if I鈥檇 unveiled a coiled snake.
鈥淲hoa,鈥� said the handler, after a moment鈥檚 silence. 鈥淒on鈥檛 ever tell anyone we let you bring that in here. Somebody could get fired. Probably me.鈥�
Such is the power in politics of audio (and in some circumstances, video) recording devices.
In an industry marked by dissembling and spin 鈥� and even outright lies 鈥� snippets of electronically captured moments often provide rare glimpses into a public figure鈥檚 true self, and the atmosphere in the rooms where it happens. Weapons, levers of influence, historical records: Tapes can be all these things. They can be quite useful for the person possessing them. But it鈥檚 dangerous to let records like that into the wrong hands.
Omarosa Manigault Newman is just the latest figure to try and use the tale of the tape to support her version of a Washington narrative. Indeed, this summer has been marked by a steady stream of 鈥渢ape-gates.鈥澛燡ust a few weeks back, Washington was abuzz over Michael Cohen, President Trump鈥檚 former fixer, and his tape of their discussion of buying the story of an alleged Trump mistress. More recently, GOP Rep. Devin Nunes was recorded at a closed-door fundraiser characterizing congressional Republicans as Mr. Trump鈥檚 last line of defense in the Mueller investigation.聽
This is why politicians want the 鈥渞ecord鈥� button in their own hands. Even if their words repeat things that are already largely known, the immediacy of a tape makes it all seem more credible, more real.
鈥淚t makes us think we have a window into what鈥檚 really happening,鈥� says Dr. Jennifer Mercieca, an associate professor at Texas A&M University who studies the history of American political discourse.
US presidents, of course, have been responsible for the most 鈥� and probably most consequential 鈥� secret recordings of unguarded political conversations. More on that in a moment.
But for recent effect, it is the newer developments of smart phones, social media, and partisan news organizations that have combined to weaponize a practice as old as F.D.R.
'Guns or religion' and the 47 percent
In 2008, for instance, an unpaid volunteer for a Huffington Post citizen journalist initiative went to a Barack Obama fundraiser in San Francisco and recorded the then-candidate saying of white working-class voters, 鈥淭hey get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren鈥檛 like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations.鈥�
Rival Hillary Clinton seized on the remark as a means to try and discredit Mr. Obama. They are still used by Obama鈥檚 critics as an example of what they call the former president鈥檚 elitism.
In 2012, a leaked video of a closed-door Mitt Romney fundraising event caught the then-presidential candidate dismissing 47 percent of the population as government-dependent. 鈥淢y job is not to worry about those people,鈥� Mr. Romney said.
The tape delivered Romney鈥檚 struggling campaign a roundhouse blow, as critics used it to frame the former Massachusetts governor as an unfeeling plutocrat.
As a candidate and White House occupant, Trump has proved a diamond mine for clandestine tapers. Prior to the election, many people 鈥� including some of his own aides 鈥� saw the 鈥淎ccess Hollywood鈥� tape of his vulgar talk about woman as politically fatal. It wasn鈥檛.
Trump鈥檚 former associate, Mr. Cohen, promises he has more tapes of presidential conversations. So does Ms. Newman.
But so far, Newman鈥檚 motives in releasing tapes are subtly different, says Dr. Mercieca of Texas A&M. Many tapers and leakers want to influence a particular policy, or damage an official. By releasing snippets of the discussion of her being fired, and Trump鈥檚 reaction to it, Newman is just reaffirming stuff we generally knew. The point is to bolster her credibility as her new book becomes available.
鈥淪he lacks credibility, she鈥檚 been portrayed as a villainess,鈥� says Mercieca. 鈥淭he tapes were brought out as evidence the quotations she had in her book were true.鈥�
It鈥檚 possible Newman could face legal trouble. She signed a nondisclosure agreement before taking a White House job, Trump said in a tweet. She appears to have taped chief of staff John Kelly during her dismissal conversation in the Situation Room, a supposedly secure place where personal electronics are prohibited.
But there鈥檚 also the question of why Mr. Kelly was using the Situation Room, a national security crisis management center, as a space to fire people.
鈥淭he character of the folks involved is truly the bigger point here. I don鈥檛 think Omarosa鈥檚 actions (at least those identified so far) violated criminal law,鈥� wrote national security lawyer Bradley Moss on Twitter on Monday.
Presidential recordings
As noted above, the White House itself, as an institution, has by far the most experience in semi-clandestine and completely secret taping of political conversations. Presidents pioneered the practice.
Beginning with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a string of presidents used taping equipment with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Their motives ranged from defending themselves against inaccurate news leaks (F.D.R), to help in preparing memoirs and developing political leverage. Along the way, these tapes become an invaluable historical resource, says Dr. Marc Selverstone, an associate professor in presidential studies at the University of Virginia鈥檚 Miller Center, and chair of the Center鈥檚 Presidential Recordings Program.
鈥淭hey鈥檙e an incredible and powerful window into the way power works,鈥� says Dr. Selverstone.
John F. Kennedy, a published author before becoming president, was particularly interested in taping historically important moments. It is likely he planned to use the tapes for any memoirs he planned to write, says Selverstone. His brother, Robert Kennedy, eventually used them to help write his short history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, 鈥淭hirteen Days.鈥�
Lyndon Baines Johnson was the only president to use his tapes for their intended purposes in real time, as he drew on them to produce his own memoirs. The L.B.J. tapes reveal the intentional duplicity of power, however, as he says differing things about Vietnam to different people 鈥� telling reluctant senators he sees no path to victory, and telling Pentagon officials the opposite.
L.B.J. recommended to his successor he install a taping system, and Nixon did just that. Those machines produced 3,400 hours of some key moments of the highest foreign policy successes, and lowest political failures, in American history. The famous 鈥渟moking gun鈥� tape of June 23, 1972, in which Nixon concurred with an attempt to use the CIA to get the FBI to back off the Watergate probe, ended his presidency.
Have presidents since then taped their conversations? The lesson of Nixon would loom over them. Trump has intimated there are some tapes of some matters, but then later seemed to back off.
鈥淲e assume nobody will want to repeat Nixon,鈥� says Selverstone.