Trump made senior staff sign nondisclosure agreements

[Valerie]

"Getting to the bottom of what happened was always going to include taking a look at Trump Organization business records, because so many of the people involved worked for Trump. Potentially, Russian operatives made payoffs or were paid off to or through the Trump Organization. We know Trump lawyer Michael Cohen has been a focus of the investigation, not because he played bag man for Stormy Daniels, but because of his shady land dealings. But Stormy Daniels is relevant (sadly) because thanks to her, we know that lawyers working for the Trump Organization have been involved in payoffs before.

This investigation was ALWAYS going to include business records from the Trump Organization. Ty Cobb knew that was coming. Even the Trump Organization knew that was coming. Anybody who is not an idiot knew that was coming.

...

But now that we’re here, I feel like it’s important to tighten up the breathlessness around this subpoena, which we only know about because of a leak to the New York Times. I mean, for Robert Mueller’s job security if nothing else, let’s do a close, lawyer read on the actual news broken by the Times:


The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has subpoenaed the Trump Organization in recent weeks to turn over documents, including some related to Russia, according to two people briefed on the matter…

The breadth of the subpoena was not clear, nor was it clear why Mr. Mueller issued it instead of simply asking for the documents from the company, an umbrella organization that encompasses Mr. Trump’s business ventures.

Here’s what I picked up on:

• Recent weeks: The subpoena was already issued. Arguably the Trump Organization is either already in the process of complying, or already fighting it in non-public hearings. If a “red line” was crossed, it was crossed, and acceded to, weeks ago.
• The breadth of the subpoena was not clear: I’ve already seen people reporting that Mueller subpoenaed “all documents relating to Russia.” That’s NOT what happened. That would be ridiculous and overbroad, and nothing Mueller has done has suggested that he’s a drooling idiot. Most likely the subpoena was targeted request. These subpoenas are coming near the end (we think) of the investigative process, or at least we’re not at the beginning. I think it’s unlikely that this is a fishing expedition. Mueller wants to know something specific.
• Instead of simply asking for the documents: The fact that the Trump Organization wouldn’t hand over these documents willingly could be very significant. Mueller could be honing in on one actor or one set of transactions that Trump Organization lawyers perceive as a real threat to the company. The Trump Organization, as far as we know, has been cooperating this whole time. For them to not roll over, on these particular documents, well hell, now I want to see them too.
• Mr. Trump’s business ventures: Folks, this isn’t necessarily bad for Donald Trump. Rarely does a CEO get tagged for all the shadiness that happens at his company. We’ve seen from previous indictments that the concept that Trump people were unwitting morons is well considered by Mueller’s team. For all we know these requested documents could directly speak to how Russia pulled off and paid for this attack on America, while at the same time exculpating Trump himself from any direct knowledge. Mueller’s trying to find what he’s looking for, and that might not at all be what you’re looking for.

If you believe that President Trump has known about the subpoenas for weeks, understands that they are of limited scope, wants to uncover how the Russians attempted to influence our election, and has nothing to hide because he’s been acting in good faith all this time, then the Mueller subpoenas aren’t really a big new turn in the Russia investigation. They’re just something that was always going to happen and, if anything, herald us getting closer to the end of this process.

If, on the other hand, you believe that President Trump only learned of the subpoenas when somebody mentioned it on Fox News, that his company is less like an “umbrella organization” and more like a rock protecting an army of cockroaches, and that Trump knows he’s guilty and will use whatever power at his disposal to hang onto his office for as long as he can draw breath… well sure, red lines have been crossed, red phones are ringing, red rum is being scrawled in lipstick across the Lincoln bedroom."

 

[Care4all]

I've had to sign NDA's with a few corporation's but NONE of them had anything to do with the staff or the President or the CEO of the corporation....

It was always about keeping the company business secrets and proprietary information about the company's creations secret, which lasted a year after I or any director or manager, left the company.....but as long as they wanted me to keep my mouth shut or they prevented me from going to work for another competitor corp, they had to pay me...even if I were let go.

But if my boss or coworker was screwing a porn star and I found out type of thing, the NDA did not cover that.... other work rules of not disparaging the company might have covered that, but it was not in the NDA.

 

[rightwinger]

unconstitutional imo....

they work for us, the American people, we pay them....

if congress questions them, they must answer, they also have to let us have all of their records from their work.....

Trump's an arse

Their work is public record

 

[pismoe]

if 'nondisclosure' agreements are legal and if The TRUMP wants them then all you words mean nothing Val . Oh , by the way , what do you think of The TRUMPS TAX Returns and other information Val ??

 

[Care4all]

I understand about not wanting them to leak, but it is already against the law for them to leak anything confidential....

kind of makes sense now on why all of thesse admin people like Bannon and hope hicks and others, refused to answer questions when under oath before congress, without the president using his executive privilege.....

I sure hope the R's in congress looks in to this....seems highly illegal....

 

[Lakhota]

Retired 4-Star Army General Calls Trump A ‘Serious Threat To National Security’

Trump is the real threat to national security. He is a clear and present danger.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Nothing says honesty like "reportedly ".

 

[Lastamender]

They’re supposed to last beyond his presidency.

Back in April 2016, when the notion of Donald Trump in the White House still seemed fanciful, The Post’s Robert Costa and Bob Woodward sat down with Trump, and Costa, at one point, raised the subject of the nondisclosure agreements for employees of which the candidate was so fond.

Costa: “One thing I always wondered, are you going to make employees of the federal government sign nondisclosure agreements?”

Trump: “I think they should. . . . And I don’t know, there could be some kind of a law that you can’t do this. But when people are chosen by a man to go into government at high levels and then they leave government and they write a book about a man and say a lot of things that were really guarded and personal, I don’t like that. I mean, I’ll be honest. And people would say, oh, that’s terrible, you’re taking away his right to free speech. Well, he’s going in.”

Reader, it happened. In the early months of the administration, at the behest of now-President Trump, who was furious over leaks from within the White House, senior White House staff members were asked to, and did, sign nondisclosure agreements vowing not to reveal confidential information and exposing them to damages for any violation. Some balked at first but, pressed by then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and the White House Counsel’s Office, ultimately complied, concluding that the agreements would likely not be enforceable in any event.

The nondisclosure agreements, said a person who signed the document, “were meant to be very similar to the ones that some of us signed during the campaign and during the transition. I remember the president saying, ‘Has everybody signed a confidentiality agreement like they did during the campaign or we had at Trump Tower?’ ”

At that time, in February or March of 2017, the source said, “There was lots of leaking, things that just weren’t true, and a lot of things that were true and should have remained confidential. The president’s point was that they [staff] would think twice about that if they were on the hook for some serious damages.”

Moreover, said the source, this confidentiality pledge would extend not only after an aide’s White House service but also beyond the Trump presidency. “It’s not meant to be constrained by the four years or eight years he’s president — or the four months or eight months somebody works there. It is meant to survive that.”

This is extraordinary. Every president inveighs against leakers and bemoans the kiss-and-tell books; no president, to my knowledge, has attempted to impose such a pledge. And while White House staffers have various confidentiality obligations — maintaining the secrecy of classified information or attorney-client privilege, for instance — the notion of imposing a side agreement, supposedly enforceable even after the president leaves office, is not only oppressive but constitutionally repugnant.

Unlike employees of private enterprises such as the Trump Organization or Trump campaign, White House aides have First Amendment rights when it comes to their employer, the federal government. If you have a leaker on your staff, the cure is firing, not suing.

“This is crazy,” said attorney Debra Katz, who has represented numerous government whistleblowers and negotiated nondisclosure agreements. “The idea of having some kind of economic penalty is an outrageous effort to limit and chill speech. Once again, this president believes employees owe him a personal duty of loyalty, when their duty of loyalty is to the institution.”

I haven’t been able to lay hands on the final agreement, but I do have a copy of a draft, and it is a doozy. It would expose violators to penalties of $10 million, payable to the federal government, for each and any unauthorized revelation of “confidential” information, defined as “all nonpublic information I learn of or gain access to in the course of my official duties in the service of the United States Government on White House staff,” including “communications . . . with members of the press” and “with employees of federal, state, and local governments.” The $10 million figure, I suspect, was watered down in the final version, because the people to whom I have spoken do not remember that jaw-dropping sum.

It would prohibit revelation of this confidential information in any form — including, get this, “the publication of works of fiction that contain any mention of the operations of the White House, federal agencies, foreign governments, or other entities interacting with the United States Government that is based on confidential information.”

As outlined in the document, this restriction would cover Trump aides not only during their White House service but also “at all times thereafter.”

More: Trump made senior staff sign nondisclosure agreements. They’re supposed to last beyond his presidency - The Washington Post

Is this even legal? Could it stand up in court? It certainly sounds unconscionable. What do you think?

Yes, we all know the man lacks taste and humility.

So what? He has the job.

Iron clad comeback.

He still has the job.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A given is that trump is a life long criminal so, this is hardly surprising. With or without it, he sues people into ruin and there's no one who doesn't know that.

Smart thing to do is a lot more than just taking notes. Carry a little tape recorder at all time. CYA

 

[HappyJoy]

They’re supposed to last beyond his presidency.

Back in April 2016, when the notion of Donald Trump in the White House still seemed fanciful, The Post’s Robert Costa and Bob Woodward sat down with Trump, and Costa, at one point, raised the subject of the nondisclosure agreements for employees of which the candidate was so fond.

Costa: “One thing I always wondered, are you going to make employees of the federal government sign nondisclosure agreements?”

Trump: “I think they should. . . . And I don’t know, there could be some kind of a law that you can’t do this. But when people are chosen by a man to go into government at high levels and then they leave government and they write a book about a man and say a lot of things that were really guarded and personal, I don’t like that. I mean, I’ll be honest. And people would say, oh, that’s terrible, you’re taking away his right to free speech. Well, he’s going in.”

Reader, it happened. In the early months of the administration, at the behest of now-President Trump, who was furious over leaks from within the White House, senior White House staff members were asked to, and did, sign nondisclosure agreements vowing not to reveal confidential information and exposing them to damages for any violation. Some balked at first but, pressed by then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and the White House Counsel’s Office, ultimately complied, concluding that the agreements would likely not be enforceable in any event.

The nondisclosure agreements, said a person who signed the document, “were meant to be very similar to the ones that some of us signed during the campaign and during the transition. I remember the president saying, ‘Has everybody signed a confidentiality agreement like they did during the campaign or we had at Trump Tower?’ ”

At that time, in February or March of 2017, the source said, “There was lots of leaking, things that just weren’t true, and a lot of things that were true and should have remained confidential. The president’s point was that they [staff] would think twice about that if they were on the hook for some serious damages.”

Moreover, said the source, this confidentiality pledge would extend not only after an aide’s White House service but also beyond the Trump presidency. “It’s not meant to be constrained by the four years or eight years he’s president — or the four months or eight months somebody works there. It is meant to survive that.”

This is extraordinary. Every president inveighs against leakers and bemoans the kiss-and-tell books; no president, to my knowledge, has attempted to impose such a pledge. And while White House staffers have various confidentiality obligations — maintaining the secrecy of classified information or attorney-client privilege, for instance — the notion of imposing a side agreement, supposedly enforceable even after the president leaves office, is not only oppressive but constitutionally repugnant.

Unlike employees of private enterprises such as the Trump Organization or Trump campaign, White House aides have First Amendment rights when it comes to their employer, the federal government. If you have a leaker on your staff, the cure is firing, not suing.

“This is crazy,” said attorney Debra Katz, who has represented numerous government whistleblowers and negotiated nondisclosure agreements. “The idea of having some kind of economic penalty is an outrageous effort to limit and chill speech. Once again, this president believes employees owe him a personal duty of loyalty, when their duty of loyalty is to the institution.”

I haven’t been able to lay hands on the final agreement, but I do have a copy of a draft, and it is a doozy. It would expose violators to penalties of $10 million, payable to the federal government, for each and any unauthorized revelation of “confidential” information, defined as “all nonpublic information I learn of or gain access to in the course of my official duties in the service of the United States Government on White House staff,” including “communications . . . with members of the press” and “with employees of federal, state, and local governments.” The $10 million figure, I suspect, was watered down in the final version, because the people to whom I have spoken do not remember that jaw-dropping sum.

It would prohibit revelation of this confidential information in any form — including, get this, “the publication of works of fiction that contain any mention of the operations of the White House, federal agencies, foreign governments, or other entities interacting with the United States Government that is based on confidential information.”

As outlined in the document, this restriction would cover Trump aides not only during their White House service but also “at all times thereafter.”

More: Trump made senior staff sign nondisclosure agreements. They’re supposed to last beyond his presidency - The Washington Post

Is this even legal? Could it stand up in court? It certainly sounds unconscionable. What do you think?

Yes, we all know the man lacks taste and humility.

So what? He has the job.

Iron clad comeback.

He still has the job.

Sure and that will last forever and ever, you got me again.

 

[nat4900]

Whoops

Why are Congressmen Signing Non-Disclosure Forms on Obama’s Secret Treaty? - Freedom Outpost

Freedom Compost.......Really......???......LOL

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news

 

[nat4900]

“This is crazy,” said attorney Debra Katz, who has represented numerous government whistleblowers and negotiated nondisclosure agreements. “The idea of having some kind of economic penalty is an outrageous effort to limit and chill speech. Once again, this president believes employees owe him a personal duty of loyalty, when their duty of loyalty is to the institution.” ibid

Exactly.

One’s loyalty is to the Constitution and country – not to the temporary occupant of the Oval Office.

I guess that under the orange buffoon's regime, one does NOT take an oath to the Constitution....one takes an oath to the charlatan, demagogue......

after all, Mussolini did THAT also........

 

[del]

i don't imagine they'll stand up when mueller starts subpoenaing the poor sad sacks that haven't managed to get themselves fired yet.

trump thinks, and i use the word loosely, that he can bully and bluster his way thought anything, but he's not dealing with bob and ray's paint company any more.

 

[Dale Smith]

They’re supposed to last beyond his presidency.

Back in April 2016, when the notion of Donald Trump in the White House still seemed fanciful, The Post’s Robert Costa and Bob Woodward sat down with Trump, and Costa, at one point, raised the subject of the nondisclosure agreements for employees of which the candidate was so fond.

Costa: “One thing I always wondered, are you going to make employees of the federal government sign nondisclosure agreements?”

Trump: “I think they should. . . . And I don’t know, there could be some kind of a law that you can’t do this. But when people are chosen by a man to go into government at high levels and then they leave government and they write a book about a man and say a lot of things that were really guarded and personal, I don’t like that. I mean, I’ll be honest. And people would say, oh, that’s terrible, you’re taking away his right to free speech. Well, he’s going in.”

Reader, it happened. In the early months of the administration, at the behest of now-President Trump, who was furious over leaks from within the White House, senior White House staff members were asked to, and did, sign nondisclosure agreements vowing not to reveal confidential information and exposing them to damages for any violation. Some balked at first but, pressed by then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and the White House Counsel’s Office, ultimately complied, concluding that the agreements would likely not be enforceable in any event.

The nondisclosure agreements, said a person who signed the document, “were meant to be very similar to the ones that some of us signed during the campaign and during the transition. I remember the president saying, ‘Has everybody signed a confidentiality agreement like they did during the campaign or we had at Trump Tower?’ ”

At that time, in February or March of 2017, the source said, “There was lots of leaking, things that just weren’t true, and a lot of things that were true and should have remained confidential. The president’s point was that they [staff] would think twice about that if they were on the hook for some serious damages.”

Moreover, said the source, this confidentiality pledge would extend not only after an aide’s White House service but also beyond the Trump presidency. “It’s not meant to be constrained by the four years or eight years he’s president — or the four months or eight months somebody works there. It is meant to survive that.”

This is extraordinary. Every president inveighs against leakers and bemoans the kiss-and-tell books; no president, to my knowledge, has attempted to impose such a pledge. And while White House staffers have various confidentiality obligations — maintaining the secrecy of classified information or attorney-client privilege, for instance — the notion of imposing a side agreement, supposedly enforceable even after the president leaves office, is not only oppressive but constitutionally repugnant.

Unlike employees of private enterprises such as the Trump Organization or Trump campaign, White House aides have First Amendment rights when it comes to their employer, the federal government. If you have a leaker on your staff, the cure is firing, not suing.

“This is crazy,” said attorney Debra Katz, who has represented numerous government whistleblowers and negotiated nondisclosure agreements. “The idea of having some kind of economic penalty is an outrageous effort to limit and chill speech. Once again, this president believes employees owe him a personal duty of loyalty, when their duty of loyalty is to the institution.”

I haven’t been able to lay hands on the final agreement, but I do have a copy of a draft, and it is a doozy. It would expose violators to penalties of $10 million, payable to the federal government, for each and any unauthorized revelation of “confidential” information, defined as “all nonpublic information I learn of or gain access to in the course of my official duties in the service of the United States Government on White House staff,” including “communications . . . with members of the press” and “with employees of federal, state, and local governments.” The $10 million figure, I suspect, was watered down in the final version, because the people to whom I have spoken do not remember that jaw-dropping sum.

It would prohibit revelation of this confidential information in any form — including, get this, “the publication of works of fiction that contain any mention of the operations of the White House, federal agencies, foreign governments, or other entities interacting with the United States Government that is based on confidential information.”

As outlined in the document, this restriction would cover Trump aides not only during their White House service but also “at all times thereafter.”

More: Trump made senior staff sign nondisclosure agreements. They’re supposed to last beyond his presidency - The Washington Post

Is this even legal? Could it stand up in court? It certainly sounds unconscionable. What do you think?

I think someone so obsessed with nondisclosure agreements his entire life -- this was SOP in the Trump Org. as well -- has a lot of secrets to hide. That's what I think.

Everyone involved in the Sandy Hook hoax had to sign NDAs including those that bulldozed the school. Those involved in all these staged events have to do so including crisis actors.

 

[del]

Executive privilege already covers this so this is nothing but trolling for responses and The Libtard Cult of Sheep to chime in unison like the Bobbleheaded idiots they are.

you need to take a look at us v nixon, s0n

these non-disclosures aren't even good toilet paper.

but your a trumpling and by definition too stupid to see anything beyond his well upholstered ass and your lips planted on it.


carry on

 

[del]

They’re supposed to last beyond his presidency.

Back in April 2016, when the notion of Donald Trump in the White House still seemed fanciful, The Post’s Robert Costa and Bob Woodward sat down with Trump, and Costa, at one point, raised the subject of the nondisclosure agreements for employees of which the candidate was so fond.

Costa: “One thing I always wondered, are you going to make employees of the federal government sign nondisclosure agreements?”

Trump: “I think they should. . . . And I don’t know, there could be some kind of a law that you can’t do this. But when people are chosen by a man to go into government at high levels and then they leave government and they write a book about a man and say a lot of things that were really guarded and personal, I don’t like that. I mean, I’ll be honest. And people would say, oh, that’s terrible, you’re taking away his right to free speech. Well, he’s going in.”

Reader, it happened. In the early months of the administration, at the behest of now-President Trump, who was furious over leaks from within the White House, senior White House staff members were asked to, and did, sign nondisclosure agreements vowing not to reveal confidential information and exposing them to damages for any violation. Some balked at first but, pressed by then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and the White House Counsel’s Office, ultimately complied, concluding that the agreements would likely not be enforceable in any event.

The nondisclosure agreements, said a person who signed the document, “were meant to be very similar to the ones that some of us signed during the campaign and during the transition. I remember the president saying, ‘Has everybody signed a confidentiality agreement like they did during the campaign or we had at Trump Tower?’ ”

At that time, in February or March of 2017, the source said, “There was lots of leaking, things that just weren’t true, and a lot of things that were true and should have remained confidential. The president’s point was that they [staff] would think twice about that if they were on the hook for some serious damages.”

Moreover, said the source, this confidentiality pledge would extend not only after an aide’s White House service but also beyond the Trump presidency. “It’s not meant to be constrained by the four years or eight years he’s president — or the four months or eight months somebody works there. It is meant to survive that.”

This is extraordinary. Every president inveighs against leakers and bemoans the kiss-and-tell books; no president, to my knowledge, has attempted to impose such a pledge. And while White House staffers have various confidentiality obligations — maintaining the secrecy of classified information or attorney-client privilege, for instance — the notion of imposing a side agreement, supposedly enforceable even after the president leaves office, is not only oppressive but constitutionally repugnant.

Unlike employees of private enterprises such as the Trump Organization or Trump campaign, White House aides have First Amendment rights when it comes to their employer, the federal government. If you have a leaker on your staff, the cure is firing, not suing.

“This is crazy,” said attorney Debra Katz, who has represented numerous government whistleblowers and negotiated nondisclosure agreements. “The idea of having some kind of economic penalty is an outrageous effort to limit and chill speech. Once again, this president believes employees owe him a personal duty of loyalty, when their duty of loyalty is to the institution.”

I haven’t been able to lay hands on the final agreement, but I do have a copy of a draft, and it is a doozy. It would expose violators to penalties of $10 million, payable to the federal government, for each and any unauthorized revelation of “confidential” information, defined as “all nonpublic information I learn of or gain access to in the course of my official duties in the service of the United States Government on White House staff,” including “communications . . . with members of the press” and “with employees of federal, state, and local governments.” The $10 million figure, I suspect, was watered down in the final version, because the people to whom I have spoken do not remember that jaw-dropping sum.

It would prohibit revelation of this confidential information in any form — including, get this, “the publication of works of fiction that contain any mention of the operations of the White House, federal agencies, foreign governments, or other entities interacting with the United States Government that is based on confidential information.”

As outlined in the document, this restriction would cover Trump aides not only during their White House service but also “at all times thereafter.”

More: Trump made senior staff sign nondisclosure agreements. They’re supposed to last beyond his presidency - The Washington Post

Is this even legal? Could it stand up in court? It certainly sounds unconscionable. What do you think?

I think someone so obsessed with nondisclosure agreements his entire life -- this was SOP in the Trump Org. as well -- has a lot of secrets to hide. That's what I think.

Everyone involved in the Sandy Hook hoax had to sign NDAs including those that bulldozed the school. Those involved in all these staged events have to do so including crisis actors.

tsk, tsk

helmet, dale, helmet

 

[BULLDOG]

Just tried to 'Agree' with a post, got 'You do not have permission'. What does this mean?

Probably means the post was dumb, and only an idiot would agree with it.

 

[Lastamender]

Yes, we all know the man lacks taste and humility.

So what? He has the job.

Iron clad comeback.

He still has the job.

Sure and that will last forever and ever, you got me again.

Looks like I won't get the last word either.

 

[BULLDOG]

They’re supposed to last beyond his presidency.

Back in April 2016, when the notion of Donald Trump in the White House still seemed fanciful, The Post’s Robert Costa and Bob Woodward sat down with Trump, and Costa, at one point, raised the subject of the nondisclosure agreements for employees of which the candidate was so fond.

Costa: “One thing I always wondered, are you going to make employees of the federal government sign nondisclosure agreements?”

Trump: “I think they should. . . . And I don’t know, there could be some kind of a law that you can’t do this. But when people are chosen by a man to go into government at high levels and then they leave government and they write a book about a man and say a lot of things that were really guarded and personal, I don’t like that. I mean, I’ll be honest. And people would say, oh, that’s terrible, you’re taking away his right to free speech. Well, he’s going in.”

Reader, it happened. In the early months of the administration, at the behest of now-President Trump, who was furious over leaks from within the White House, senior White House staff members were asked to, and did, sign nondisclosure agreements vowing not to reveal confidential information and exposing them to damages for any violation. Some balked at first but, pressed by then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and the White House Counsel’s Office, ultimately complied, concluding that the agreements would likely not be enforceable in any event.

The nondisclosure agreements, said a person who signed the document, “were meant to be very similar to the ones that some of us signed during the campaign and during the transition. I remember the president saying, ‘Has everybody signed a confidentiality agreement like they did during the campaign or we had at Trump Tower?’ ”

At that time, in February or March of 2017, the source said, “There was lots of leaking, things that just weren’t true, and a lot of things that were true and should have remained confidential. The president’s point was that they [staff] would think twice about that if they were on the hook for some serious damages.”

Moreover, said the source, this confidentiality pledge would extend not only after an aide’s White House service but also beyond the Trump presidency. “It’s not meant to be constrained by the four years or eight years he’s president — or the four months or eight months somebody works there. It is meant to survive that.”

This is extraordinary. Every president inveighs against leakers and bemoans the kiss-and-tell books; no president, to my knowledge, has attempted to impose such a pledge. And while White House staffers have various confidentiality obligations — maintaining the secrecy of classified information or attorney-client privilege, for instance — the notion of imposing a side agreement, supposedly enforceable even after the president leaves office, is not only oppressive but constitutionally repugnant.

Unlike employees of private enterprises such as the Trump Organization or Trump campaign, White House aides have First Amendment rights when it comes to their employer, the federal government. If you have a leaker on your staff, the cure is firing, not suing.

“This is crazy,” said attorney Debra Katz, who has represented numerous government whistleblowers and negotiated nondisclosure agreements. “The idea of having some kind of economic penalty is an outrageous effort to limit and chill speech. Once again, this president believes employees owe him a personal duty of loyalty, when their duty of loyalty is to the institution.”

I haven’t been able to lay hands on the final agreement, but I do have a copy of a draft, and it is a doozy. It would expose violators to penalties of $10 million, payable to the federal government, for each and any unauthorized revelation of “confidential” information, defined as “all nonpublic information I learn of or gain access to in the course of my official duties in the service of the United States Government on White House staff,” including “communications . . . with members of the press” and “with employees of federal, state, and local governments.” The $10 million figure, I suspect, was watered down in the final version, because the people to whom I have spoken do not remember that jaw-dropping sum.

It would prohibit revelation of this confidential information in any form — including, get this, “the publication of works of fiction that contain any mention of the operations of the White House, federal agencies, foreign governments, or other entities interacting with the United States Government that is based on confidential information.”

As outlined in the document, this restriction would cover Trump aides not only during their White House service but also “at all times thereafter.”

More: Trump made senior staff sign nondisclosure agreements. They’re supposed to last beyond his presidency - The Washington Post

Is this even legal? Could it stand up in court? It certainly sounds unconscionable. What do you think?

I think someone so obsessed with nondisclosure agreements his entire life -- this was SOP in the Trump Org. as well -- has a lot of secrets to hide. That's what I think.

Everyone involved in the Sandy Hook hoax had to sign NDAs including those that bulldozed the school. Those involved in all these staged events have to do so including crisis actors.

Yes. That was outlined in the monthly Literati News Letter we all got. You didn't get this month's edition yet?

 

[Lastamender]

They’re supposed to last beyond his presidency.

Back in April 2016, when the notion of Donald Trump in the White House still seemed fanciful, The Post’s Robert Costa and Bob Woodward sat down with Trump, and Costa, at one point, raised the subject of the nondisclosure agreements for employees of which the candidate was so fond.

Costa: “One thing I always wondered, are you going to make employees of the federal government sign nondisclosure agreements?”

Trump: “I think they should. . . . And I don’t know, there could be some kind of a law that you can’t do this. But when people are chosen by a man to go into government at high levels and then they leave government and they write a book about a man and say a lot of things that were really guarded and personal, I don’t like that. I mean, I’ll be honest. And people would say, oh, that’s terrible, you’re taking away his right to free speech. Well, he’s going in.”

Reader, it happened. In the early months of the administration, at the behest of now-President Trump, who was furious over leaks from within the White House, senior White House staff members were asked to, and did, sign nondisclosure agreements vowing not to reveal confidential information and exposing them to damages for any violation. Some balked at first but, pressed by then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and the White House Counsel’s Office, ultimately complied, concluding that the agreements would likely not be enforceable in any event.

The nondisclosure agreements, said a person who signed the document, “were meant to be very similar to the ones that some of us signed during the campaign and during the transition. I remember the president saying, ‘Has everybody signed a confidentiality agreement like they did during the campaign or we had at Trump Tower?’ ”

At that time, in February or March of 2017, the source said, “There was lots of leaking, things that just weren’t true, and a lot of things that were true and should have remained confidential. The president’s point was that they [staff] would think twice about that if they were on the hook for some serious damages.”

Moreover, said the source, this confidentiality pledge would extend not only after an aide’s White House service but also beyond the Trump presidency. “It’s not meant to be constrained by the four years or eight years he’s president — or the four months or eight months somebody works there. It is meant to survive that.”

This is extraordinary. Every president inveighs against leakers and bemoans the kiss-and-tell books; no president, to my knowledge, has attempted to impose such a pledge. And while White House staffers have various confidentiality obligations — maintaining the secrecy of classified information or attorney-client privilege, for instance — the notion of imposing a side agreement, supposedly enforceable even after the president leaves office, is not only oppressive but constitutionally repugnant.

Unlike employees of private enterprises such as the Trump Organization or Trump campaign, White House aides have First Amendment rights when it comes to their employer, the federal government. If you have a leaker on your staff, the cure is firing, not suing.

“This is crazy,” said attorney Debra Katz, who has represented numerous government whistleblowers and negotiated nondisclosure agreements. “The idea of having some kind of economic penalty is an outrageous effort to limit and chill speech. Once again, this president believes employees owe him a personal duty of loyalty, when their duty of loyalty is to the institution.”

I haven’t been able to lay hands on the final agreement, but I do have a copy of a draft, and it is a doozy. It would expose violators to penalties of $10 million, payable to the federal government, for each and any unauthorized revelation of “confidential” information, defined as “all nonpublic information I learn of or gain access to in the course of my official duties in the service of the United States Government on White House staff,” including “communications . . . with members of the press” and “with employees of federal, state, and local governments.” The $10 million figure, I suspect, was watered down in the final version, because the people to whom I have spoken do not remember that jaw-dropping sum.

It would prohibit revelation of this confidential information in any form — including, get this, “the publication of works of fiction that contain any mention of the operations of the White House, federal agencies, foreign governments, or other entities interacting with the United States Government that is based on confidential information.”

As outlined in the document, this restriction would cover Trump aides not only during their White House service but also “at all times thereafter.”

More: Trump made senior staff sign nondisclosure agreements. They’re supposed to last beyond his presidency - The Washington Post

Is this even legal? Could it stand up in court? It certainly sounds unconscionable. What do you think?

Of course it is legal. He has just done something you pricks don't like. Too bad.