The WLB Has Not Thought This Out....

[Pat Mustard]

I am going to guess most who have posted so far, 2 weeks ago couldn't give a flying F about what Bannon has to say.  I could go as far as to say, most of you would have considered anything Bannon had to say would be the rantings of a mentally ill alcoholic.  I would also wager iyho, anything breitbart has to say must be wrong cuz, well its breitbart.

And now it is different.  Because it fits into your personal view of trump.

The first thing that went through my mind was NDA.  I remember hearing many years ago ALL Trump employees sign such a papers and personally I would not work for such an employer.  But Bannon did work for such an employer.  Does this mean he didn't spout off?  Nope.  But where is the proof?  From an author who for years has been questioned on accuracy:

Wolff says he has notes and e-mail that back him up, but refuses to release them.

https://web.archive.org/web/201207180615...burn.shtml

Bannon is a disgruntled former employee with character issues.  I would not put a lot of stock in any words attributed to him now or before, just because its convenient for a narrative I may want to push forward.

Aww is the widdle baby sad because her favourite nazi has an owwwie?

[Brian37]

And that is not surprising since thinking is not his long suit to begin with.  But this will require a "discovery" process which will be a horror show.... if he presses forward with it.  The WLB is famous for threatening lawsuits and never following through.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/trump-l...president/

Trump lawyers try to stop publication of Michael Wolff book — and demand apology to president

That First Amendment is always a problem to tyrants!

He and his lawyers are merely bluffing. They will get their asses either laughed out of court by a judge, or a smart counter lawyer will point out "People vs Larry Flint".

The dumbass doesn't understand now that he is a public figure, the standard of suing is higher than it is for a no name non famous person.

---

But it is fun watching one rat eat another. Just like a wiseguy squealing on a mafia boss.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wait, I thought that Bannon was one of those best people Trump habitually picks with his very good brain? Turns out he's a lying sack of unhinged shit?

---

The Bannonites war with the Trumpkins is, imo, going to be hilarious.

[Jackalope]

BTW, those NDAs likely run afoul of federal whistleblower laws. (Unless we are talking about bona fide classified material - but we aren't.)


ALSO - the fact that they're going after it under the umbrella of an NDA, that strongly implies that there is truth to the book. (i.e. if you disclose things that are false, there is no issue under an NDA.)

[The Grand Nudger]

Any specificity on exactly what is false would imply that the trump team was not ready to defend the mound of other alleged comments as false, in addition. It would be disturbing to find, for example, that there were only three or four comments the administration was willing to defend itself against.

That's probably why they didn't offer any specificity in their show-suit.

[Jackalope]

Any specificity on exactly what is false would imply that the trump team was not ready to defend the mound of other alleged comments as false, in addition.  It would be disturbing to find, for example, that there were only three or four comments the administration was willing to defend itself against.

Yep, and that's why the threat of legal action is largely a bluff. I seriously doubt Trump and his lawyers want to open themselves up to discovery.

Personally, I think it's bad form and quite unseemly to threaten other people with legal action of a personal nature while hiding behind the shield against being sued that the presidency appears to provide.

[Jane2d]

BTW, those NDAs likely run afoul of federal whistleblower laws.  (Unless we are talking about bona fide classified material - but we aren't.)


ALSO - the fact that they're going after it under the umbrella of an NDA, that strongly implies that there is truth to the book.  (i.e. if you disclose things that are false, there is no issue under an NDA.)

Please explain to me how you think this NDA runs afoul of fed whistleblower. 

NDA typically have a "any employment related info you wish to make public must be approved by our company prior to release" [paraphrase].  How does this imply a 'truth to the book'?

[Amarok]

I don't trust Bannon .But he was a rabid fanboy even after he was fired . So this does not fit the disgruntled former employee narrative. I personally think he's just trying to distance himself from the oncoming firestorm . As for comparing impeaching Trump to killing Lincoln that's just silly .

[Brian37]

Any specificity on exactly what is false would imply that the trump team was not ready to defend the mound of other alleged comments as false, in addition.  It would be disturbing to find, for example, that there were only three or four comments the administration was willing to defend itself against.

Yep, and that's why the threat of legal action is largely a bluff.  I seriously doubt Trump and his lawyers want to open themselves up to discovery.  

Personally, I think it's bad form and quite unseemly to threaten other people with legal action of a personal nature while hiding behind the shield against being sued that the presidency appears to provide.

Name me one time 45 had any good form? He's been an asshole his entire life.

[SteelCurtain]

Please explain to me how you think this NDA runs afoul of fed whistleblower. 

NDA typically have a "any employment related info you wish to make public must be approved by our company prior to release" [paraphrase].  How does this imply a 'truth to the book'?

Because when you work for Trump in the White House, you don't work for Trump International or Donald Trump personally. You work for the federal government, which has rules in place to protect whistleblowers.