Trump attorney sends Bannon cease and desist letter over 'disparaging' comments

[SunSeeker]

Source: ABC News

Lawyers on behalf of President Donald Trump sent a letter Wednesday night to former White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon demanding he refrain from making disparaging comments against the president and his family.

The letter comes after excerpts from a forthcoming book by journalist Michael Wolff were made public Wednesday, causing a stir.

Trump attorney Charles J. Harder of the firm Harder Mirell & Abrams LLP, said in a statement, "This law firm represents President Donald J. Trump and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. On behalf of our clients, legal notice was issued today to Stephen K. Bannon, that his actions of communicating with author Michael Wolff regarding an upcoming book give rise to numerous legal claims including defamation by libel and slander, and breach of his written confidentiality and non-disparagement agreement with our clients. Legal action is imminent."



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-attorney-sends-bannon-cease-desist-letter-disparaging/story?id=52128555&cid=clicksource_4380645_1_hero_headlines_bsq_hed

---

"Litigation is imminent."??? Oh really? Let the depositions begin!

[DeminPennswoods]

1. Too little, too late

nt

[C_U_L8R]

2. Wolff was embedded in the White House

Making the NDA totally pointless.

[SunSeeker]

4. Of course! And by invoking the NDA, they're confirming what Bannon said is true!

[leftynyc]

25. Not exactly

Only that he DID say them. Truth is a defense for libel but defamation could still be claimed. Can a federal employ defame their boss? Not sure, but I don't think the case will go anywhere and I suspect Bannon will thumb his nose at it. As long as what he said was true, libel is a non-starter.

[C_U_L8R]

42. This could backfire bigly on Trump

Trump's clearly too late preventing Bannon from talking, so
he's more interested in making an example of Bannon to intimidate
the remainder of his staff into keeping their mouths shut.
That might work.... but if Trump's threats prove empty and
his NDAs don't hold up... well, it could be a free-for-all for
everyone from jilted business partners to pissed-off employees.
Even ex-wives. That must frighten Donnie to the core.

[leftynyc]

44. As long as the minions

are still employed or are speaking of when they were employed by the white house, they're safe from donnie's "fire and fury". He's impotent in the face of the first amendment.

[SunSeeker]

57. Not libel, I'm talking aboit his claim it violates Bannon's non-disclosure agreement with Trump.

By Trump's lawyer claiming that what Bannon said violates his non-disclosure agreement, it implies that what Bannon said discloses Trump campain/administration conversations. In other words it confirms that these statements in the book are indeed Trump campaign/administration statements. If Bannon was just making them up, he would not be "disclosing" anything.

Trump's lawyers should have just called it libel, although that claim is a loser too. But by including the non-disclosure agreement violation claim, it is even more of a loser. LOL

[leftynyc]

73. Trumps lawyers suck

Brannon's NDA became void the second he became a White House employee. I still thinks this cat fight hurts Bannon more than Donnie. FAR more.

[SunSeeker]

75. Yes indeed.

We have yet to see who this book will hurt the most. But Bannon will certainly be damaged. The real damage to Bannon will come from the loss of the Mercers support. Word is, the Mercers were not happy with what Bannon said in the book and have cut ties with him. The Mercers were Bannon's key benefactor and basically supported Breitbart with huge cash infusions.

[Eliot Rosewater]

77. BTW, I hope people realize the GOP is filling the courts AS WE SPEAK with judges who

would entirely ignore the law in cases like this and make a decision solely to help a rightwinger like trump.

We have some real horror show to look forward to because of the ACTIONS of some in 2016.

[leftynyc]

78. Don't even get me started

Judiciary has always been my issue. The damage Donnie is doing will be felt for decades.

[msongs]

3. great let's have trump in court under oath... nt

[SunSeeker]

6. Trump, Ivanka, Jared...everyone will be deposed!

It will be hilarious!

Alas, no one believes he'll file the lawsuit. He never filed the lawsuits he said he would bring against the women who accused him of sexual harassment.

[ellie]

5. Hahahahahahahahaha

Oh, this is fantastic!

[Irish_Dem]

7. What a cluster F. Excuse my language. nt

[NastyRiffraff]

8. How do you "cease and desist" comments you've already made

and that have been published in a BOOK. You know, on paper, with ink, with excerpts all over the tubes.

[SunSeeker]

9. You can't. But you sure can confirm they're true by claiming they violate a nondisclosure agreement

Smooth move, eh?

[Dave Starsky]

55. Trump's lawyers really are fucking idiots.

I wouldn't hire them to try to talk down a jaywalking ticket.

[RestoreAmerica2020]

23. Perhaps a time machine? Que locura! What s bunch

..of nuts.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. NDAs aren't enforceable for federal employees.

Their information, knowledge and communications are considered with few exceptions to be public property - so anything that occurred after the inauguration wouldn't be subject to Bannon's NDA.

[SunSeeker]

17. Yep, and all the book excerpts I've heard involved post-election quotes.. nt

[bench scientist]

27. Non disclosure agreements (NDA) aren't enforceable but are non-disparaging agreements?

That is what is in the article. I would guess non-disparaging agreements would not be enforceable either. I don't know. Do you Ocelot?
Hope you are staying warm in MN!

[SunSeeker]

58. Non-disparaging agreements would on their face violate federal record keeping & FOIA laws.

They're doing the people's business, not Trump's business. The people have a legal right to know what they are doing in their name, even if it is "disparaging." Indeed, ESPECIALLY if it is disparaging.

[sheshe2]

11. Tee Hee

[Stuart G]

48. "Tee Hee"...this is the greatest post ever in relation to anything Trump did or said...

...........post of the year, month, century..etc..

[sheshe2]

80. Hey Stuart.. :)

[The empressof all]

12. The lawyers were tired...

They wanted to calm Trump down and shut him up for the night so they could get some sleep for a few hours. They know they are going to be needing strength over the next phase as he breaks down further.

[Brother Buzz]

16. And those same lawyers are now in la-la land dreaming, "Billable hours, baby".

[C Moon]

20. That they'll never get paid for.

[Scarsdale]

30. They will be paid,

from the money tRump is collecting for 2020. He is paying Don Jr.'s legal fees from donations to the fund for his re-election. The curtain is being drawn back, and all their dirty secrets are being exposed. He claims he won, against "17 of the most talented people ever to run"?? Cruz, Jeb(!) Gingrich, Rubio, Paul??? Talented at what, toadying up to his orange arse after they lost? We all knew he was nuts before he ran, now even the hard liners are having to own up to the fact that it was common knowledge. Hillary should sue the orange turd for calling her crooked every day, with no proof whatsoever. He really hates smart people since there are none in his immediate family. Ivanka for president? What a joke.

[C_U_L8R]

43. It's theatre

to prevent the rest of the staff from leaking anymore.
But very well could open the floodgates once everyone
sees the emperor has no case.

[Julian Englis]

13. Donnie Snowflake can't take the heat. Sad. Bigly sad. n/t

[Honeycombe8]

14. Now that's interesting. A "non-disparagement agreement"? Bannon must've been expecting litigation.

Bannon knows Trump sues at the drop of a hat for anything or nothing. So with a "non-disparagement agreement" involved, Bannon must've known he'd be sued.

This is so bizarre, there are no words. But fun to watch.

I wonder WHY Bannon did this book. There must've been a very good reason. Retaliation for something? It must help him with some goal, or he wouldn't have initiated this war with Trump.

[SunSeeker]

19. Dunno, maybe ego? The book's biggest danger to Bannon is the loss of Mercer $upport.

Word is the Mercers, who have funded Bannon and Breitbart, are unhappy with the book and have cut ties with Bannon.

[leftynyc]

26. That would be big news

With the loss of just about all its advertisers, the only thing keeping the breitbart website going has been the Mercers.

[Honeycombe8]

41. Well, that IS a big loss. There must be some very good reason for the book, to lose that support.

Is he THAT angry? He strikes me as someone who does things for a return, to get something out of it. Or maybe he is just this angry at how he was treated.

He wrote this book very fast, if he started after he left the WH.

[SunSeeker]

52. The interviews for the book were done while he was still working at the White House.

Bannon didn't write the book, Wolff did. Wolff roamed the White House and talked to a lot of people for the book, incliding Trump himself. But no one spilled the beans as colorfully as Bannon.

[Honeycombe8]

64. Ahhh...I did not know that. So why is Bannon's name on the book...

if it's not his book?

[SunSeeker]

65. It's not. Michael Wolff's name is on the book. nt

[Honeycombe8]

68. I obviously didn't pay close attention!

I just skimmed a couple of articles, and read tweets by Trump, saw the lawsuit by Trump reference, so thought this was Bannon's book.

Lesson learned! (until the next time, I guess)

I read about Wolff and wondered why he was being discussed.

[BigmanPigman]

15. He threatens to sue everyone.

Any "confidentiality" agreement is worthless since it doesn't apply when you are officially working in the White House. At least that is what the pundits who know the law have been saying all night.

[longship]

18. One word: "discovery"

Oopsie!

[KWR65]

21. When you hang around crazy people they do cRaZy things.

Trump is a walking disaster zone.

[PoliticAverse]

22. Sue or sue not, there is no "imminent". n/t

[leftynyc]

24. I read up on this

because Donnie is very well known to have anyone in his orbit sign NDAs, it doesn't apply to federal employees whose first amendment rights cannot be infringed. The second he became a White House employee, the deal was void. This is nothing but a Hail Mary.

[BumRushDaShow]

29. Right

There are NDAs (that have nothing to do with "non-disparagement" but "non-disclosure" ) that deal with government info/property that contractors (and other feds) may sign, but Drumpf's (and his lawyers' ) mistake is to keep equating "government" with "business". Two totally different entities!

[leftynyc]

35. Donnie's NDA's ALWAYS included

non-disparagement clauses. That's why his ex-wives don't talk.

[BumRushDaShow]

46. Well he is in a different universe now.

[leftynyc]

50. It's killing him he can't get

any of his white house minions to keep to an agreement like that. It's worked so well for him up to now.

[BumRushDaShow]

56. Yup.

[SunSeeker]

59. That's one of the reasons businessmen make such lousy public officials.

They're used to telling people what to say and do. In government, laws and regulations dictate what you can say and do; the laws are "the boss." What the White House does is not a Trump business but the people's business, governed by the people's laws. And the most important of those laws in this context is the First Amendment. Tough shit Donnie.

[leftynyc]

74. Exactly

Donnie though he was going to be able to pretend he is America's CEO and Answer to nobody. I second your tough shit to Donnie.

[BumRushDaShow]

28. "non-disparagement agreement"

Is that the "loyalty oath"?

Sorry but that dog don't hunt! Bannon is laughing his ass off.

[beachbum bob]

31. I love the start to 2018 and watching KARMA at WORK

[marble falls]

32. Now that was dumb. It only serves to make Trump look like he's hiding more and worse....

think I'll put on the old hazmat suit and watch the monkeys fling shit over at Breitbart for a couple of minutes.

[paleotn]

33. defamation by libel and slander

OK, but you've got to prove Bannon was lying. Good luck with that.

[leftynyc]

36. AND that he had malicious intent

I think those are the two things that can prove libel - That letter is laughable.

[onenote]

39. The second element is "actual malice"

To demonstrate actual malice it would have to be proven that the allegedly false and defamatory statements were made by Bannon with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false

[leftynyc]

45. That would be tough to prove

but oh so entertaining to watch. A popcorn worthy court case.

[truthisfreedom]

34. Hahahahahaaaaaaa.

Snicker.

[bucolic_frolic]

37. It's a lightly veiled slander warning, but

the greatest defense against slander is the truth

[TheCowsCameHome]

38. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but.....WUT??!?!

[Nitram]

40. So Trump just snowflaked out? LOL!

[Stuart G]

47. ,,A "cease and desist letter" Now that will INCREASE BOOK SALES..not stop them.

You want to increase sales, and increase interest in the book, best way to do that..censure, try to stop the sales of the book.

So when the "litigation " starts. Which is a stronger argument .

for publication

1. .Wolf was allowed to spend time in the White House and listen to conversation. White House gave Wolf permission to write book.

2. First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

3. Public figures are open to criticism because that is the nature of being a "public figure" Of all the "public figures in the U.S.A. the President of the United States is clearly the most "public', and open to criticism because of the nature of the job.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

against publication

1. Cease and desist order sent to Bannon, and publisher.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[SunSeeker]

60. The book is already #1 on Amazon just based on pre-orders!

The book will not even be officially released until January 9!

[Stuart G]

49. Proof indeed, that Mr. Trump ain't that bright...10 watt bulb is brighter..

Now a 10 watt is pretty dim, not bright, low level of light. ops ...very low level, and very dim

[FSogol]

51. LOL, they're breaking out the champagne over at Henry Holt Publishing!

Christmas came early for them in 2018.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

53. "It's deja vu all over again."

"Yogi-isms"

Prior restraint

Prior restraint (also referred to as prior censorship or pre-publication censorship) is censorship imposed, usually by a government, on expression that prohibits particular instances of expression. It is in contrast to censorship which establishes general subject matter restrictions and reviews a particular instance of expression only after the expression has taken place.

In some countries (e.g., United States, Argentina) prior restraint by the government is forbidden, subject to certain exceptions, by a constitution.
....

Prior restraint in the United States

Which recently appointed justice will be the first to stab America in the back?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

54. Yes, The Trump Cease & Desist Letter Over The Bannon Book Is Stupid

GOVERNMENT

Yes, The Trump Cease & Desist Letter Over The Bannon Book Is Stupid

Just like every other legal document prepared by this administration.

By ELIE MYSTAL
at 11:08 AM

It’s a snow day in the Northeast. If you’re reading this, it’s because you went into work to try to be a hero, found that nobody else is there, and are just killing time until you feel it’s okay to go home. ... Since we’re just among friends, let me bring you behind the curtain and show you a little of how the sausage gets made around here.
....

Reporting on the Trump administration is like a game of Clue. Today, it’s Charles J. Harder with the cease and desist over the Michael Wolff book that includes tell-alls from Steve Bannon. Tomorrow, it could be Don McGahn filing a lawsuit against snow for “false imprisonment” of the President in D.C. The details of each successive eruption of legal fallacy hardly even matter. The man employs hundreds of lawyers and none of them seem to be able to make a cogent legal argument.

Trump filings are just like this blizzard. It’s a flurry of white stuff that stings and freezes, but if you try to really wrestle with any individual piece, it just kinds of melts away, like there was nothing there to begin with.

We’re all gonna die.

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and the Legal Editor for More Perfect. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at [e-mail]. He will resist.

[SunSeeker]

61. Sue the snow? Hey, don't give Trump's lawyers any ideas!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

62. As long as it's all-white, it probably has nothing to worry about. NT

[SunSeeker]

66. LOL

[MFM008]

63. This book may sell more

Copies than the bible.....

[SunSeeker]

67. Well, it's #1 on Amazon!

[TNLib]

69. Ok yeah I forgot about the confidentiality thing Trump makes everyone sign

It'll be interesting if it holds water.

[SunSeeker]

71. The best thing that could happen is if Trump actually did sue Bannon.

Then, the courts could issue a ruling that these non-disclosure agreements do not apply to Trump now that he is president. Once that is a published decision, the floodgates would open against Trump by all the rats fleeing the ship. Everyone would put out a book! Even the ex-wives!

But I don't believe Trump will really sue Bannon. It would be the stupidest movie he made since firing Comey.

[Jarqui]

70. The cease and desist of Bannon serves to give credibility

to some of what Michael Wolff wrote.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/04/politics/trump-bannon-letter-legal-action/index.html?iid=EL

Charles Harder, representing both the President and the Trump campaign, said in a statement released Wednesday night that Bannon's contributions to a new book by Michael Wolff "give rise to numerous legal claims including defamation by libel and slander, and breach of his written confidentiality and non-disparagement agreement with our clients."

"breach of his written confidentiality[ means in the opinion of Trump and his lawyers, Bannon told Wolff things that were true.

What a stupid man Trump is.

[SunSeeker]

72. Exactly. His lawyers only made it worse for Trump with that letter.

They can make it even worse for him if they actually sued.

[Jarqui]

81. For sure

All those recordings/transcripts/notes/rebuttal by Wolff go into evidence and the public domain ...

... which will kill Trump's attempts to lie about them

It will never make it to court because the testimony would germinate more discussions ...

[Eliot Rosewater]

76. Wait, wait, I said WAIT just a god damn minute

no no, I said WAIT

[SunSeeker]

79. LOL