General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumstblue37
(65,403 posts)Gothmog
(145,313 posts)BigmanPigman
(51,609 posts)like Manafort suing the Mueller Investigation?
milestogo
(16,829 posts)Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)There is blood in the undies for sure.
spooky3
(34,458 posts)True Dough
(17,305 posts)He slapped Teddy around pretty good by the looks of it...
RestoreAmerica2020
(3,435 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 4, 2018, 02:55 AM - Edit history (1)
(Quote source: Brietbart 4/16)
I'm not quite sure I buy Bannon's change of heart, to sell a book? Bannon? The Bannon who would throw himself on his sword for trumpf. That Bannon? Que paso? It's really kinda of sad if you think about it...being that they were best buddies and all.
spooky3
(34,458 posts)C_U_L8R
(45,003 posts)Even his pet trolls have no respect (or fear) of Trump.
dubyadiprecession
(5,714 posts)Trump is very sad and pathetic.
C_U_L8R
(45,003 posts)Now Trump's lawyers a pig-piling on. Hilarious!!
Baitball Blogger
(46,735 posts)Two kinds of people will not honor confidentiality clauses. People who put the public good above their own personal welfare; and Libertarians who only understand their own personal interest.
This is one of those rare occasions when infighting between two flawed beings might do some good for the public good.
Maybe this is how the House of Cards, falls. From within.
meow2u3
(24,764 posts)world wide wally
(21,744 posts)We could be rid of him tomorrow
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)in a long while.
It's been absolutely delicious.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I could be wrong, but I don't think he can hold them to anything.
Sam McGee
(347 posts)?resize=400%2C270
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)Cha
(297,298 posts)Response to Sam McGee (Reply #17)
mr_lebowski This message was self-deleted by its author.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)Guess what ... you're no longer a private citizen running a business fiefdom, toolbag.
You're in the PEOPLES HOUSE NOW, there are LAWS about RECORD-KEEPING when it comes to everything POTUS does or says. You can't make people sign 'non-disclosures' about the shit you say and do during the course of your 'business day'. To the extent you have any 'right to privacy', it's strictly in matters that are CLEARLY personal in nature, i.e. not related to your JOB.
You can hide SOME stuff via legit Nat'l Security concerns, but you sure as shit don't have that excuse here.
Unless maybe you wanna go on record and claim that your OBVIOUS SENILITY and INCOMPETENCE needs to be hidden from The World, otherwise the USA is in imminent danger of foreign attack. You wanna go there?
underpants
(182,826 posts)Let it go
procon
(15,805 posts)If Trump had a legitimate legal case he would have gone straight to court and convinced a judge to issue an order to silence Bannon, which isn't likely because public figures like politicians have a very high bar to clear to win any case of slander or defamation.
Even if Trump had Bannon's non disclosure agreement when he worked as the chief executive officer in the campaign, that would have ended when he became president and hired Bannon as the White House Chief Strategist.
In any event the horse is out of the barn now, and Trump can't stop the release of the book and all of Bannon's juicy little tidbits about the idiot who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
worstexever
(265 posts)Isn't the proverbial cat already out of the M-F-ing bag?
Cha
(297,298 posts)low bar, trump.. low bar.
Puzzler
(2,505 posts)... sigh
-Puzzler
cilla4progress
(24,736 posts)SNOWFLAKE
ginnyinWI
(17,276 posts)DesertRat
(27,995 posts)msongs
(67,413 posts)worstexever
(265 posts)Toorich
(391 posts)are they still on the books? Didn't they provide for hanging if you mocked the Prez?
The SCOTUS would prolly find it perfectly constitutional if the repugs want to reintroduce it.
JI7
(89,252 posts)aikoaiko
(34,171 posts)Otherwise he wouldn't be violating the agreement.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Zambero
(8,964 posts)As far as any non-disclosure agreement goes, any violations of public trust on the part of an elected official and/or appointee(s) would seem to be a disqualifier for pursuing any such agreement.