Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Legal expert: If you signed an NDA with Prez Trump, you have committed bribery.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/17/1788864/-Legal-Experts-White-House-NDAs-Constitute-Felony-Bribery-For-Both-Trump-And-The-SignersWhat needs to be understood is that a person’s constitutionally protected right to free speech is a “thing of value,” and hiring a public official is an “official act.” Further, because the NDAs forbid speech that could be injurious to Trump, it is a thing of value to Trump in particular, not to the government who is the actual prospective employer. As far as the law is concerned, it is no different from a cash payment to Trump for a government job. If Trump were requiring that prospective employees pay him $1000 for a job he would be clearly understood to be soliciting a bribe.
Here’s where it gets interesting. Signing the NDA is therefore no different from paying the bribe in order to get the job, the thing of value to the prospect. Again, no different from paying Trump $1000 for a government job.
Former White House ethics counsel:
[Norman] Eisen points to the federal bribery statute (18 U.S.C. 201) as a statutory tripwire that Trump stumbled across. He says it is also clear that this is a personal concession to Trump, not to the government (e.g. a policy that says “thou shalt not leak”). “The thing that makes these NDAs, at least as described, different is that they continue to vest rights personally in the president even after he leaves office,” he says. “That shows that this is not a concession being made to the government in exchange for a job, but a personal one being made to the man who occupies the office. The president couldn’t of course demand a monetary payment from someone in order to be employed, and neither should he be able to do this.”
Here’s where it gets interesting. Signing the NDA is therefore no different from paying the bribe in order to get the job, the thing of value to the prospect. Again, no different from paying Trump $1000 for a government job.
Former White House ethics counsel:
[Norman] Eisen points to the federal bribery statute (18 U.S.C. 201) as a statutory tripwire that Trump stumbled across. He says it is also clear that this is a personal concession to Trump, not to the government (e.g. a policy that says “thou shalt not leak”). “The thing that makes these NDAs, at least as described, different is that they continue to vest rights personally in the president even after he leaves office,” he says. “That shows that this is not a concession being made to the government in exchange for a job, but a personal one being made to the man who occupies the office. The president couldn’t of course demand a monetary payment from someone in order to be employed, and neither should he be able to do this.”
Trump will spend the rest of his life navigating lawsuits.
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
