Unfortunately, if she was hired as an assistant by the First Lady and was paid by the United States government, then, yes, this NDA is with the United States, and would be enforceable by the DOJ.
Still a dick move.
Why the FUCK would the Justice Department involve themselves in a civil matter such as allegedly violating the terms of an NDA?
Fair point. I think the whole question of NDAs on behalf of the federal government is one that should be resolved, though. No other administration had need of them, and the whole idea is contrary to the notion of public service.
Hmmm … and knowing the Trumps, there’s no way they would have paid her out of pocket when they could get taxpayers to pay her instead. So, damn, the complaint is probably legit.
I’m not even sure it’s a dick move. If Michelle Obama’s government-paid personal assistant as FLOTUS wrote a tell-all in violation of an NDA, I’d expect DOJ to intervene.
The Obamas would never have asked anyone to sign an NDA, and they would never have committed conduct so egregious it would have garnered a tell-all. Were there any tell-all books written for the Obama years? I’m not aware of any.
I’ve signed several NDAs at work. Were I to break one of them (and profit from it), I would fully expect their lawyers to jump at me. Who are the Federal Government’s lawyers? The DOJ.
I disagree. As a matter of fact, I would think that governmental processes would involve MORE need for NDAs. OK, for a possible joint venture, I signed an NDA that I wouldn’t reveal the other company’s financial information. Didn’t see a damned thing in there that was way different from what we suspected. Pretty much useless. Now, if Wolkoff had witnessed Donald on the phone with McConnell, the results of that phone conversation could have great consequences.
Still a dick move. Haven’t read the book or (really) any of the links here. Did she actually reveal anything of national importance, other than Melonia calling Christmas “bullshit”?
Well, yeah, of course all that’s true.
But, off-topic … are NDAs really so obnoxious? They’re pretty common in lots of fairly mundane business situations. I’m in marketing and my agency has one with virtually every client.
For protecting trade, business, or national security issues? No.
Because you or your spouse are terrible people and you don’t want anyone to know? Maybe still not obnoxious, but you could try and not be a terrible person. Or at least treat the people who might write a tell-all well enough that they aren’t tempted to spill the beans on you (but then you wouldn’t be a terrible person, possibly).
Bingarooni. In business, NDAs absolutely have their place. In government, accountability to the public is a top issue.
So far as I know, the woman held no security clearances and divulged no items of concern to national security. She basically shared inside information about the True, Unscripted Melania.
And maybe we should hold ourselves accountable, too, to only elect people we can discern are upstanding, ethical and decent. The Trumps were a known ugly quantity that didn’t uphold these ideals long before 2016. WTF is wrong with Americans who viewed these people as a reasonable choice for leadership?
The publisher signed onto this knowing they were going to incur legal costs, I’m sure.
Get everyone you know out there to vote. Just… end this.
Isn’t that why we have security clearances?
Voted last week, second day early in-person was open, at the election commission. Made the middle schooler I had just picked up come along and watch so she know how to register and vote when her time came to do the right thing. Took her out for ice cream afterwards to cement the positive association in her quite gifted mind.
Any excuse for ice cream.
My mother took me along with her to vote all the time, to instill the same type of civic responsibility.
I wonder if she would have if she knew that I would grow up to cancel out her vote.
You win the thread.
Yes…
In other news, SCOTUS is wasting no time putting their thumb on the scale of democracy:
And more:
I dunno. I read her book -she was Melania’s Michael Cohen and she got played good - that 26 million everyone talks about was paid into an account that Trump cronies Rick Gates and Tom Barrack set up in her name - and she agreed to it - but she wasn’t a signatory and had no control over the account, not even an ability to view it. She claims her NDA’s prevented her from telling her side of the story.
She’s just another Trumped up moron, really. But that thing with the DOJ is interesting. Stephanie Winston Wolkoff (SWW) kind of appointed herself to fill the vacuum created by Melania not giving a fuck about anything, and set about interviewing staff and recommending candidates for the First Lady staff positions. She envisioned herself as Melania’s chief strategist, the liaison between Melania’s chief of staff and Melania -everything needs to go through me-.
But this wasn’t a job that existed in reality. She held the staff interviews off premises, in her own hotel - and paid all her own expenses. Melania rubber-stamped everyone she recommended because Melania didn’t give a fuck about anything. But Melania really didn’t do anything in the service of formalizing SWW’s position either because Melania is completely and utterly indifferent to everything.
So after months of pushing, SWW got her Gratuitous Service Agreement, which allowed her work for free. Not in January 2017 though, it took several months. But, IIRC, it didn’t clarify her position or give her any of the titles she wanted, just the titles of “advisor” and “friend”.
The agreement was canceled a few months later as she was being scapegoated in the inaugural scandal.
But this might be a legal problem for the DOJ. Now IANAL, but even though IANAL I watch enough TV to know that a contract doesn’t count unless something in it both parties, and I’m not sure that there was anything in it for SWW. No money, that’s for sure. She didn’t get the titles she wanted. I guess it solidified her status as Melania’s “friend”. But I don’t think that wpukd legally qualify as consideration.
I loved that show. Cheesy goodness.
Is NDA with “the govt” really a thing?
Wouldn’t it be covered under national security rather than anything else?
For things like policy announcements I could see it - but again, that would / should be covered under different rules.
If there is a violation of privacy - that would be criminal rather than civil wouldn’t it?
If the government-paid assistant revealed personal info about the Trumps, I don’t see why that would or should be covered by the DOJ. And if the assistant revealed potentially classified info then that should be covered by the laws and “norms” already in place with possible DOJ involvement, no NDA needed.
It makes me really uncomfortable to think that government employees are signing NDA contracts with the Trumps because that would be a private, non-government contract between them and a government employee.
I get it if they don’t want info about an affair or something outrageous they said in private to come out, but you don’t just fall into the presidency either. If they wanted their employees to sign NDA contracts then they shouldn’t have sought out a high profile government position.
I am not a lawyer so this is just my ignorant opinion.