George Conway Shreds Omarosa’s Claim That Trump Called Him a Racial Slur

George Conway was quick to squash a story being spread by former Apprentice contestant and ex-White House adviser, Omarosa, who claims in her new book that President Trump used racial epithets in addressing him.

Conway, who is the husband to White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, has somewhat differing political views and is certainly not a straight-line fan of the President.

He has been critical of Trump on social media, calling some of his behavior “absurd” and more recently defended Robert Mueller’s Constitutional authority in the Russia investigation.

take our poll - story continues below

Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?

  • Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?  

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

Trending: This tweet from anti-gun demagogue David Hogg literally jumps the shark on gun control

Conway also expressed criticism of Trump’s travel ban.

As such, Conway doesn’t mince words when it comes to expressing his opinion on something, especially when it comes to critiquing the President.

What he also doesn’t tolerate is when somebody allegedly makes up a story on his behalf.

In her book, Omarosa writes that Trump referred to Conway in derogatory terms when discussing a column he had penned.

“Would you look at this George Conway article?” she suggests the President said. “F***ing FLIP! Disloyal! F***ing Goo-goo.”

Both flip and goo-goo are slurs in the Filipino community.

Conway, however, said the entire aspect of the story involving him is “absurd,” “ridiculous,” and “not credible.”

Reuters columnist Alison Frankle followed up his tweet by suggesting it might have occurred during the time he criticized the President over his travel ban.

“CNN, WaPo and others published articles in June 2017 about your tweets criticizing the travel ban. Is it possible Omarosa heard Trump reacting to one of those articles?” Frankel asked. “She was still in the White House in June 2017.”

Conway suggested there was no chance and called Omarosa’s claims “preposterous.”

Omarosa also claimed that President Trump has used the n-word and there are tapes of him uttering the reprehensible term.

These claims are highly suspicious considering the source. Omarosa’s credibility is already suspect, and her book feels like a cheap effort to capitalize on her role in the White House while exacting revenge against the administration after her firing last December.

Our colleague Jim E writes, “we know that Omarosa has a vendetta against Trump since she was unceremoniously let go from her role at the White House for abusing her authority.”

Of course she does.

Is she telling the truth? If there are tapes, there are tapes, and that will certainly change the dynamic behind her claims. But you’d think she would have them already prior to making these allegations and that they’d be out there as a means to boost her book and the claims lying within.

Until then, it’s difficult to take her book seriously.

Cross-posted with Mental Recession

Related:

If you haven’t checked out and liked our Facebook page, please go here and do so.  You can also follow us on Twitter at @co_firing_line and be sure to check out our MeWe page here and our new PatrioticSpace group here.

If you appreciate independent conservative reports like this, please go here and support us on Patreon.

And while you’re at it, be sure to check out our friends at Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative front-page founded by ex-military!

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.