No kidding! First Bolton’s book, then this. One has to wonder where the under-the-table payoff is…
What did you do with their husbands?
As in Czarist/Soviet Russia just publish the book in England/France???
NDAs definitely shouldn’t apply to whistleblowing on illegal acts.
Like others have suggested, with a small amount of effort you can find PDF versions to buy for a few dollars right now.
This lawsuit is going to guarantee that book is going to be a best-seller.
Also, the stories in it are going to be leaking like Trump’s diaper when he tees up on the 15th hole at Mar-a-lago.
Clearly this family has a god complex.
The book will eventually get published but does it really matter though? No matter how many disgusting things she reveals about him, the Trump supporters will deem his behavior perfectly acceptable. When he said “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters”, he wasn’t kidding.
Not to mention that Frederick Trump was killed by the 1918 pandemic. One would have expected poor little Donnie to learn a thing or two.
mine’s actually stamped right on my birth certificate and witnessed by the obstetrician. i might have been a little too young at the time to consent, but i think i’m stuck with it.
jokes on my mom though. the eula’s even longer.
They are applied in many places to be sure
LOL That’s hilarious!
Musta bought off the judge.
I’m somehow reminded of this…
How Walter Sobchak would react to the judge’s order holding up Mary Trump’s book June 30, 2020, Scott Pilutik, Underground Bunker
Had Judge Hal B. Greenwald ever watched The Big Lebowski he’d know that “the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint,” as Walter Sobchak accurately noted. Judge Greenwald’s three-page order contains no legal analysis and appears blithely unaware of the existence of prior restraint. He merely calendars the case for July 10. I imagine before then Simon & Schuster and Mary Trump will be able to find an appellate court only too happy to light Judge Greenwald up.
As I understand it they don’t legally cover illegal activities and they can’t prevent someone from testifying in a criminal court or participating in an investigation. The problem is that they may intimidate someone into not disclosing illegal activities especially when the person has not yet been charged or convicted of a crime, which in turn prevents the person from being charged.
NDAs are also widely used in ordinary business dealings, as essentially a precursor to discussing a business project. But I think they are just too hazardous to allow when they have anything to do with alleged misconduct. I can see how they can actually be attractive and desired by some victims – in a lot of cases they may not want to talk about it anyway given the way we as a society treat victims of abuse, and I think they should be free to do so, but not sign away that right in a binding fashion.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.