797
Does this open up a whole bunch more witnesses in his trials?
Legally, no. You cannot use an NDA to force someone to help you cover your a crime. That’s illegal.
What it might do is get people to come forward, because the threat of the NDA was perceived as real.
Most noncompete agreements are also illegal and unenforceable but if people follow them without seeking advice, they’re doing what the employer intended them to do.
When I had to sign a non-compete as a requirement to accept a job I thought I wanted, my lawyer’s advice was to just sign it because it was completely unenforceable. He said to basically sign it and forget about it.
I’ve never understood how a Trump NDA as something agreed to by members of the US government would have any teeth whatsoever. Any NDA I signed as an employee of the government was between me and the government. I couldn’t imagine my manager making me sign one with him personally.
You cannot use an NDA to force someone to help you cover your a crime. That’s illegal.
So there's a 0% chance that Trump would ever do something like that.
The thing is that the people who make you sign the agreement want you to think it’s enforceable. It simply isn’t.
There was a case where the big Silicon Valley companies entered into a mutual agreement to not only have their employees sign non-competes, but colluded to not hire each other’s employees. They were sued and lost, and everyone working for them at the time got a check.
I’ve signed the NDAs that will get you an orange jumpsuit if you break them. Those are the ones written by places like the DoD. Some Trump lawyer saying you must cover up a crime because of a personal NDA you signed with him as President would have absolutely zero effect on my testifying, because it has no legal basis for enforcement.
It's not up to Trump. It's up to the court.
Do you seriously think he would consult with a court before making one of his employees sign an NDA?
That's irrelevant? The court will override any NDA you may have signed if you're a witness to a crime.
That's not how NDAs work. You make your employees sign them and then they're afraid to do or say anything that might provoke you into suing them, regardless of whether it'll even hold up in court. It's all about intimidation.
I think you are missing the other person's point...
But you can't do a crime to cover the crimes you're already criming!
NDA's wouldn't apply to legally compelled testimony.
But if they didn't come forward because of the NDA, that would open up info that the prosecutors maybe didn't know about. They wouldn't know to legally compel them to do so. Just conjecture on my part.
I think this is where discovery comes in but I'm not a lawyer so I'm shaky on the process. My understanding is that the two parties have to give over certain information to each other like who the witnesses are and evidence that will be used in the trial. So even if they did have an NDA there is still the possibility of the prosecutors being able to question them in a trial, if they were handed over during discovery as witnesses. If there's a lawyer or someone more knowledgeable about trial law lurking around that can correct me if I'm wrong please do!
🚨ℙ𝕚𝕤𝕤 𝕋𝕒𝕡𝕖 𝕚𝕤 ℝ𝕖𝕒𝕝🚨
The fuck did I miss?
Wasn't there the theory that he was so friendly with Putin because they have video footage of him getting peed on by Moscow hookers?
No, it was him watching Moscow hookers pissing on a bed in the presidential suite of a hotel, with a previous resident of that room being Obama. It's been a while since I thought about the piss tape.
First I'm hearing. Hopefully the last too 😐
Don’t we all?
Nothing in this article mentioned that. Unless I missed it too.
So this is just some guy on the Internet spewing bs at this point.
Wasn't there like a testimony from an FBI guy about the pee tapes or something though? I think there was no hard evidence, but the pee tapes at least have to some plausibility.
The rumour was that Russia had a video of him getting peed on by prostitutes in Sweden or something. Russia likes to motivate with sticks, even when they dangle a carrot, so if (hah) Russia were involved it stands to reason they'd have something to leverage him with.
To the surprise of absolutely nobody who's not in the cult.
"Robert E. Peetapes" is back on the menu, boys.
The shittier version of David s pumpkins. Tis the season I guess.
now here is a REAL PATRIOT 🫡
Please staffers, please tea on me. I'm just here, waiting, wide open for your tea.
Steep me harder daddy!
soooo hottt and steamyyy
Congratulations to Jessica Denson!
This has been years in the making. We're going to see a shitload more reports (and books) of how incredibly fucked the entire campaigns and administration was under that orange fuckwit.
NDAs are the biggest crock of shit ever and should be made universally null and void, yes, even in cases where they're valid. What the fuck is the point of having freedom of speech if someone can just coerce/threaten/force you to into signing it away?
I think there is an argument to keep them for things like products in development phases to stop people from blabbing to possible competitors, but this particular situation is bullshit.
That could easily be solved by just removing competition from our economy. Lets just work together on shit, that's a lot better for everyone.
Good luck with that.
Technically a Page 13 in a government/military setting is an NDA. Now in your ideal world, sure, you'd never need to keep secrets, but in the real world, you probably don't want a potential invader to know your exact defense systems, capabilities, guard locations and the best and least guarded places to come in and out.
Even assuming a completely peaceful world, you probably don't want to be sharing the passwords to critical infrastructure or the private medical information of people on a hospital database.
GOOD. No way NDAs should even be a thing for something like this.
this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023
797 points (98.7% liked)
politics
19148 readers
2971 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS