Trump made senior staff sign nondisclosure agreements

[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?

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

there's nothing dumber than a trumpling

legal lol

 

[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.

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

Are you disputing what I posted????

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.

there's nothing dumber than a trumpling

legal lol

The jokes practically write themselves when a dullard leftard interjects on a thread sans any intelligence......which is why "del" is such a joke searching for a punchline.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Smart move on his part. There won't be any tell all books during his administration. At least, not by anyone he gave a job to.

 

[Kosh]

Another thread from a far left drone Troll!

Nondisclosure Agreements Notice
As an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) employee, you may have been required to sign a non-disclosure policy, form, or agreement (NDA) to access classified or other information. You should read the following statement as if it were incorporated into any NDA you have signed:

"These provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or Executive order relating to (1) classified information, (2) communications to Congress, (3) the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other whistleblower protection. The definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by controlling Executive orders and statutory provisions are incorporated into this agreement and are controlling."

The provisions in the following list of Executive orders and statutory provisions are controlling in the case of any conflict with an OMB NDA.

• Executive Order No. 13526;
• Section 7211 of Title 5, United States Code (governing disclosures to Congress);
• Section 1034 of Title 10, United States Code, as amended by the Military Whistleblower Protection Act (governing disclosure to Congress by members of the military);
• Section 2302(b)(8) of Title 5, United States Code, as amended by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (governing disclosures of illegality, waste, fraud, abuse or public health or safety threats);
• Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. § 421, et seq.) (governing disclosures that could expose confidential Government agents);
• The statutes which protect against disclosure that may compromise the national security, including sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of Title 18, United States Code; and
• Section 4(b) of the Subversive Activities Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. § 783(b)).

• 
  Nondisclosure Agreements Notice

 

[bripat9643]

It's especially illegal if it's meant to avoid disclosure of an illegal act.

That would be illegal, but otherwise it's perfectly legal.

 

[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?

Smart move on his part. There won't be any tell all books during his administration. At least, not by anyone he gave a job to.

How is that a good thing? You don't think former staff have a right to tell their story? Nor do you believe the public has a right to know?

 

[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?

Are you disputing what I posted????

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.

there's nothing dumber than a trumpling

legal lol

The jokes practically write themselves when a dullard leftard interjects on a thread sans any intelligence......which is why "del" is such a joke searching for a punchline.

Disputing you would imply that I was somehow trying to show how your remarks were wrong. Anyone dumb enough to believe the crap you post is too far gone to be convinced differently, and sane people don't need it pointed out to them. You're nuts, and I enjoy laughing at you. Simple as that.

 

[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.

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

Are you disputing what I posted????

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.

there's nothing dumber than a trumpling

legal lol

The jokes practically write themselves when a dullard leftard interjects on a thread sans any intelligence......which is why "del" is such a joke searching for a punchline.

Disputing you would imply that I was somehow trying to show how your remarks were wrong. Anyone dumb enough to believe the crap you post is too far gone to be convinced differently, and sane people don't need it pointed out to them. You're nuts, and I enjoy laughing at you. Simple as that.

My response was to the del troll.....is that your sock puppet account?

But allow me to address the rest of your post........you can't refute the things that I post here. You deflect and when that fails, you lamely attempt to marginalize and when that fails, you attempt to demonize but at the end of the thread? You ALWAYS come out on the losing end. I know more than you.....I prove it daily. It's no "brag"....just fact.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

Are you disputing what I posted????

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.

there's nothing dumber than a trumpling

legal lol

The jokes practically write themselves when a dullard leftard interjects on a thread sans any intelligence......which is why "del" is such a joke searching for a punchline.

Disputing you would imply that I was somehow trying to show how your remarks were wrong. Anyone dumb enough to believe the crap you post is too far gone to be convinced differently, and sane people don't need it pointed out to them. You're nuts, and I enjoy laughing at you. Simple as that.

My response was to the del troll.....is that your sock puppet account?

But allow me to address the rest of your post........you can't refute the things that I post here. You deflect and when that fails, you lamely attempt to marginalize and when that fails, you attempt to demonize but at the end of the thread? You ALWAYS come out on the losing end. I know more than you.....I prove it daily. It's no "brag"....just fact.

As always, I freely acknowledge that you know much more than me or anyone I have ever met. Unfortunately, it's all crazy conspiracy theory crap.

 

[Zander]

Surely now he will be charged. Right LWNJ's? Surely now?

 

[Dale Smith]

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?

Are you disputing what I posted????

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

there's nothing dumber than a trumpling

legal lol

The jokes practically write themselves when a dullard leftard interjects on a thread sans any intelligence......which is why "del" is such a joke searching for a punchline.

Disputing you would imply that I was somehow trying to show how your remarks were wrong. Anyone dumb enough to believe the crap you post is too far gone to be convinced differently, and sane people don't need it pointed out to them. You're nuts, and I enjoy laughing at you. Simple as that.

My response was to the del troll.....is that your sock puppet account?

But allow me to address the rest of your post........you can't refute the things that I post here. You deflect and when that fails, you lamely attempt to marginalize and when that fails, you attempt to demonize but at the end of the thread? You ALWAYS come out on the losing end. I know more than you.....I prove it daily. It's no "brag"....just fact.

As always, I freely acknowledge that you know much more than me or anyone I have ever met. Unfortunately, it's all crazy conspiracy theory crap.

 

[Dale Smith]

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?

Are you disputing what I posted????

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

there's nothing dumber than a trumpling

legal lol

The jokes practically write themselves when a dullard leftard interjects on a thread sans any intelligence......which is why "del" is such a joke searching for a punchline.

Disputing you would imply that I was somehow trying to show how your remarks were wrong. Anyone dumb enough to believe the crap you post is too far gone to be convinced differently, and sane people don't need it pointed out to them. You're nuts, and I enjoy laughing at you. Simple as that.

My response was to the del troll.....is that your sock puppet account?

But allow me to address the rest of your post........you can't refute the things that I post here. You deflect and when that fails, you lamely attempt to marginalize and when that fails, you attempt to demonize but at the end of the thread? You ALWAYS come out on the losing end. I know more than you.....I prove it daily. It's no "brag"....just fact.

As always, I freely acknowledge that you know much more than me or anyone I have ever met. Unfortunately, it's all crazy conspiracy theory crap.

 

[HappyJoy]

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

Are you disputing what I posted????

there's nothing dumber than a trumpling

legal lol

The jokes practically write themselves when a dullard leftard interjects on a thread sans any intelligence......which is why "del" is such a joke searching for a punchline.

Disputing you would imply that I was somehow trying to show how your remarks were wrong. Anyone dumb enough to believe the crap you post is too far gone to be convinced differently, and sane people don't need it pointed out to them. You're nuts, and I enjoy laughing at you. Simple as that.

My response was to the del troll.....is that your sock puppet account?

But allow me to address the rest of your post........you can't refute the things that I post here. You deflect and when that fails, you lamely attempt to marginalize and when that fails, you attempt to demonize but at the end of the thread? You ALWAYS come out on the losing end. I know more than you.....I prove it daily. It's no "brag"....just fact.

As always, I freely acknowledge that you know much more than me or anyone I have ever met. Unfortunately, it's all crazy conspiracy theory crap.

View attachment 183434

What comic book did that come from?

 

[Dale Smith]

Are you disputing what I posted????
The jokes practically write themselves when a dullard leftard interjects on a thread sans any intelligence......which is why "del" is such a joke searching for a punchline.

Disputing you would imply that I was somehow trying to show how your remarks were wrong. Anyone dumb enough to believe the crap you post is too far gone to be convinced differently, and sane people don't need it pointed out to them. You're nuts, and I enjoy laughing at you. Simple as that.

My response was to the del troll.....is that your sock puppet account?

But allow me to address the rest of your post........you can't refute the things that I post here. You deflect and when that fails, you lamely attempt to marginalize and when that fails, you attempt to demonize but at the end of the thread? You ALWAYS come out on the losing end. I know more than you.....I prove it daily. It's no "brag"....just fact.

As always, I freely acknowledge that you know much more than me or anyone I have ever met. Unfortunately, it's all crazy conspiracy theory crap.

View attachment 183434

What comic book did that come from?

I know more than you....infinitely more. I am trying to help you hut if you choose to retain your status as on of the moron millions? There isn't much I can do. I can lead you to water but if you are too stubborn to drink from the trough of knowledge? I am "guilt free"..........I did what I was suppose to do and you have to meet me halfway. Questions?

 

[HappyJoy]

Disputing you would imply that I was somehow trying to show how your remarks were wrong. Anyone dumb enough to believe the crap you post is too far gone to be convinced differently, and sane people don't need it pointed out to them. You're nuts, and I enjoy laughing at you. Simple as that.

My response was to the del troll.....is that your sock puppet account?

But allow me to address the rest of your post........you can't refute the things that I post here. You deflect and when that fails, you lamely attempt to marginalize and when that fails, you attempt to demonize but at the end of the thread? You ALWAYS come out on the losing end. I know more than you.....I prove it daily. It's no "brag"....just fact.

As always, I freely acknowledge that you know much more than me or anyone I have ever met. Unfortunately, it's all crazy conspiracy theory crap.

View attachment 183434

What comic book did that come from?

I know more than you....infinitely more. I am trying to help you hut if you choose to retain your status as on of the moron millions? There isn't much I can do. I can lead you to water but if you are too stubborn to drink from the trough of knowledge? I am "guilt free"..........I did what I was suppose to do and you have to meet me halfway. Questions?

I know, I immediately regretted my reply to you for obvious (thought probably not to you) reasons.

Have you considered sainthood?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Trump made senior staff sign nondisclosure agreements

So?

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I wonder if he demands they take frequent classes on business work ethics, protocols and practices?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Smart move on his part. There won't be any tell all books during his administration. At least, not by anyone he gave a job to.

How is that a good thing? You don't think former staff have a right to tell their story? Nor do you believe the public has a right to know?

They don't have a right if they sign an NDA. The public has no right to know about the inner workings in the White house

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[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?

Smart move on his part. There won't be any tell all books during his administration. At least, not by anyone he gave a job to.

How is that a good thing? You don't think former staff have a right to tell their story? Nor do you believe the public has a right to know?

They don't have a right if they sign an NDA. The public has no right to know about the inner workings in the White house

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I don't think I've ever heard an American say (paraphrasing) "Yep, we don't need to know what happens in the White House, let's make it punitive if anyone says anything."

 

[Dale Smith]

My response was to the del troll.....is that your sock puppet account?

But allow me to address the rest of your post........you can't refute the things that I post here. You deflect and when that fails, you lamely attempt to marginalize and when that fails, you attempt to demonize but at the end of the thread? You ALWAYS come out on the losing end. I know more than you.....I prove it daily. It's no "brag"....just fact.

As always, I freely acknowledge that you know much more than me or anyone I have ever met. Unfortunately, it's all crazy conspiracy theory crap.

View attachment 183434

What comic book did that come from?

I know more than you....infinitely more. I am trying to help you hut if you choose to retain your status as on of the moron millions? There isn't much I can do. I can lead you to water but if you are too stubborn to drink from the trough of knowledge? I am "guilt free"..........I did what I was suppose to do and you have to meet me halfway. Questions?

I know, I immediately regretted my reply to you for obvious (thought probably not to you) reasons.

Have you considered sainthood?

Just give me a wide berth.....you don't have the intellect nor the information to pose a challenge to me. The results are always the same....I kick your ass, you get all "butthurt" and resentful. Your arguments are built on ideology and emotions which will always fail you in the end. My arguments are based on thousands upon thousands of hours of dogged research that I do at least ten to twelve hours a day every day 365 days a year. I feel naked without my MP3 player that has been downloaded with lectures and documentaries. The library of information and PDF files of books I have downloaded and read would totally overwhelm you.......not a brag....simply fact. One day you will "wake up" to the nature of the cage and I sincerely hopes that it happens soon so you have a chance to prepare. Read "Watership Down".........a big time clue.