# Can this proviso be legally enforced (severance contract with Weisselberg)? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [April 1, 2024, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-proviso-be-legally-enforced-severance-contract-with-weisselberg/999692 "2024-04-01T18:52:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2024, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-proviso-be-legally-enforced-severance-contract-with-weisselberg/999692/1 "2024-04-01T18:52:01Z")
Quoting directly from today’s Times: “Mr. Trump’s company paid Mr. Weisselberg’s legal bills and awarded him a $2 million severance, with a condition: He could not voluntarily cooperate with any law enforcement agency.” ISTM, but IANAL, that such a provision is against public policy and is legally unenforceable. What say you legal types? ---
**Author:** ![Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmer_j.fudd/32/1211_2.png) [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elmer_J.Fudd)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2024, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-proviso-be-legally-enforced-severance-contract-with-weisselberg/999692/2 "2024-04-01T19:04:58Z")
Not only doesn’t it seem enforceable, it looks like a down right crime. How is this not witness tampering? ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2024, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-proviso-be-legally-enforced-severance-contract-with-weisselberg/999692/3 "2024-04-01T19:16:12Z")
Not to play devil’s advocate, but I wonder if the intent of “voluntarily” is that he can’t _choose_ to go to law enforcement, seeking a cooperation deal or something. Or if they invite him to an interview, he can’t _choose_ to sing. If he’s subpoenaed, he’s being _compelled._ Legally he _must_ cooperate. He has no choice. In that case, he cannot choose to ignore them. He cannot refuse. That, as noted, would be illegal and unenforceable. But he has to make the authorities compel him. I would argue that’s the intended effect. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2024, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-proviso-be-legally-enforced-severance-contract-with-weisselberg/999692/4 "2024-04-01T22:39:01Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > “Mr. Trump’s company paid Mr. Weisselberg’s legal bills and awarded him a $2 million severance, with a condition: He could not voluntarily cooperate with any law enforcement agency.” It seems like this statement is missing some context. A broad prohibition against “voluntarily cooperat[ing] with any law enforcement agency” is such an obviously unenforceable provision that it scarcely deserves discussion. If the actual provision is that he would not provide information pertaining to or knowledge arising from his employment except under subpoena, that might bear some consideration although it is still arguably against public policy to essentially coerce a member of the public from relaying information about a potential criminal act or conspiracy to authorities. > [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](#): > > How is this not witness tampering? Witness tampering (or intimidation, or interference with a witness) is the direct action to influence, alter or prevent the testimony of witnesses within legal proceedings, i.e. people who have agreed to or compelled under subpoena to testify in court or in a court-supervised deposition. Again, it depends upon the context of the actual provision but just putting this into a severance agreement is not _ipso facto_ witness tampering unless it being used to specifically alter ongoing testimony. It is, however, “suspicious as a nun in De Wallen”, and would seem to invite a kind of legal “Streisand Effect” in terms of whetting the interests of prosecutors about what knowledge Mr. Weisselberg has that is so needing of being suppressed, as well as why the party in question would pay legal fees and offer a $2M severance package in apparent exchange for such a bizarre provision, or who would hire an attorney that would even allow this such an agreement. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/idqG3thKtpU/maxresdefault.jpg "Arrested Development: I got the worst f attornies") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idqG3thKtpU) Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2024, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-proviso-be-legally-enforced-severance-contract-with-weisselberg/999692/5 "2024-04-01T22:56:03Z")
I think it was clear that the clause could not apply if he was under oath. But I still think it against public policy to keep him from going to the cops to make a voluntary statement. Incidentally, he actually did lie under oath and has now pleaded guilty to perjury and will testify (maybe even truthfully) in one of Trump’s trials. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2024, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-this-proviso-be-legally-enforced-severance-contract-with-weisselberg/999692/6 "2024-04-01T23:08:07Z")
I have no idea if this clause is illegal, but I’m pretty sure it’s entirely useless. Even if he called the prosecutor and asked to be subpoenaed, how would Trump ever prove that?