Trump long has relied on nondisclosure deals to prevent criticism. That strategy may be unraveling.
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by JudyM (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: Washington Post
For decades, Donald Trump has relied on broadly worded nondisclosure agreements as a powerful weapon against anyone who would say something critical of him. Among those who have signed agreements are a porn star, two ex-wives, contestants on The Apprentice, campaign workers and business associates.
But this key element of Trumps corporate and political strategy has shown signs of unraveling, even as his campaign spends heavily to enforce such agreements. He and his allies recently have lost initial rounds in legal battles to stop damaging books by former top White House officials and his niece Mary L. Trump.
Now, in one of the most sweeping efforts by a former associate to undo nondisclosure agreements, the Trump campaigns former Hispanic outreach director last week filed her latest effort in a class-action suit to void all such campaign contracts. She says they are so broad that they deny individuals their First Amendment right to say anything critical of the president even as he routinely takes to Twitter to mock and deride his critics.
In a motion for summary judgment in the case, the former campaign worker, Jessica Denson, said the campaign sought a $1.5 million claim against her for violating an NDA. She said that came after she filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination by campaign officials. (That separate case is ongoing.)
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-nda-jessica-denson-lawsuit/2020/08/06/202fed1c-d5ad-11ea-b9b2-1ea733b97910_story.html
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)and make all NDA's now illegal and must be disclosed?
brooklynite
(93,868 posts)KPN
(15,587 posts)Yeah, this is a matter better handled by the courts and/or legislation ... if at all. Though I do think elected officials should be prohibited from the use of NDAs related to administering the duties for which they are elected, including regarding any elected official activity, conduct, behavior, etc., that has a logical nexus.
brooklynite
(93,868 posts)NDAs have been previously determined to be unenforceable in the Government. The lawsuit in question regards a private NDA.
KPN
(15,587 posts)The Mouth
(3,123 posts)change my mind.
More harm than good; for every trade secret there are 10 exploited women or victimized employees who have to keep quiet.
Rule 'em unconstitutional I say.
tinrobot
(10,848 posts)Many of those "NDA"s are already unenforceable. You can't NDA criminal behavior, including harassment and bad employment practices.
The real problem is trying to bankrupt victims by hiring expensive lawyers. Perhaps we need to put people in jail for attacking others with frivolous lawsuits. Or maybe disbar a few lawyers for engaging in those sorts of attacks.
The NDAs aren't necessarily the problem. It's the lawyers.
Wounded Bear
(58,440 posts)It's both. Trump is a prime example of exploiting legal services and the justice department for personal gain.
Illumination
(2,458 posts)Stop propping up someone who is useless!
JudyM
(29,122 posts)After review by forum hosts, for being analysis rather than important breaking news. Please repost in GD, though, if youd like!