Yes, I am currently suing various people for violating their confidentiality agreements

[dajoki]

Trump stresses legal actions over confidentiality in wake of Westerhout firing
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/31/trump-westerhout-non-disclosure-1479250

President Donald Trump on Saturday stressed his ongoing legal battles to keep details of his administration's inner workings from emerging in books and press reports following the firing of his personal assistant.

"Yes, I am currently suing various people for violating their confidentiality agreements. Disgusting and foul mouthed Omarosa is one. I gave her every break, despite the fact that she was despised by everyone, and she went for some cheap money from a book. Numerous others also!" Trump wrote on Twitter.

-snip-

"While Madeleine Westerhout has a fully enforceable confidentiality agreement, she is a very good person and I don’t think there would ever be reason to use it. She called me yesterday to apologize, had a bad night. I fully understood and forgave her! I love Tiffany, doing great!" Trump wrote

Trump's 2016 campaign team, transition team and political appointees are typically expected to sign a non-disclosure agreement, even if the legal foundations of such agreements are murky. Trump Organization employees would also be routinely required to sign such agreements.

NDAs are not typically signed by federal workers as they’re thought to be public servants who are not beholden to any individual, which would include White House staff. Any agreement is therefore not easily enforceable

-snip-

[CTyankee]

1. "cheap money from a book"

Do tell, Donald you schmuck...

[Newest Reality]

5. His was ghost written,

by some ghost.

"A really...good ghosts are hard to find...but, people say...I know more about ghosts than almost anyone...the book...fantastic...mine, you know...the best book ever written in...probably the history of everything! I know about history."

[Kid Berwyn]

2. They don't work for dimwit Donnie.

They work for We the People. And they are accountable to the People and the law. They are not accountable to a single interest, especially not a crooked Bankrupt Unstable Moron installed by Vladimir Putin.

[spanone]

3. has any other president demanded NDA'S of their staff?

never heard of this before in all my years

[Wounded Bear]

4. I'm not sure it's legal in government jobs...

Either it's classified or it's not.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. NDAs for government employees are unenforceable.

They can't disclose information that the government has deemed to be confidential or classified, but it's well-established that a government employee can't be required to sign a general NDA, or if they do, it's not enforceable. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-nda/trump-ndas-cant-silence-ex-white-house-officials-legal-experts-idUSKBN1GV2UT

[Newest Reality]

6. Damn Dude...

Why doncha' just scream it out loud? Your reactions beg the questions.

Wow. How much do you have to hide at all costs? I mean come on, Sherlock Holmes would be pointing right at you just from your statements.

He may have more to hide than any other President...ever!

[Bradical79]

8. Our grifter President suing grifters he hired.

Embarrassing.

[Gothmog]

9. Trump's Nondisclosure Agreements for Federal Employees Are Authoritarian and Unenforceable

This type of agreement is not enforceable https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/trumps-nondisclosure-agreements-for-federal-employees-are-authoritarian-and-unenforceable.html

These agreements are, in all likelihood, legally deficient in a fairly elementary way. Absent consideration (i.e., the thing received by contracting parties in exchange for their agreement to perform/remain silent/forego rights), any nondisclosure agreement would in all likelihood be deemed invalid. Any nondisclosure agreement entered into by a federal employee owing civil damages to any person, let alone the president, also begs the appalling question of what consideration those employees could possibly have received separate and apart from their salaries, which are statutorily prescribed and reported annually to Congress. If they did receive some benefit apart from their salaries—or if the job, and thus the salary, itself was contingent upon signing the agreement—it would be worth contemplating what laws such an arrangement might violate.

The far stronger likelihood is that consideration isn’t present here, rendering these alleged agreements little more than a bullying, speech-chilling, calculated bluff. Marcus cites a draft agreement that makes penalties payable to the federal government (as opposed to Trump personally), but it’s difficult to imagine how that bit of drafting slipperiness would matter, except to attempt to obfuscate that Trump is the real party to the agreement and federal employees are obligees. According to Marcus, some who were reluctant to sign ultimately did so because they figured they were unenforceable anyway. Barring some dark authoritarian turn in our other branches of government, these employees were absolutely correct about this last part.

These alleged nondisclosure agreements represent an attempt to purchase the free speech rights of federal employees for the sake of Trump’s personal protection, paid with only an empty, but perhaps effective, threat. To say such a threat cheapens the presidency grossly understates the constitutional repugnancy of these agreements. This effort reveals the president’s view of himself as an autocratic leader and of his place within the American system as being above it. It further demonstrates his blithering ignorance and disdain for even the simplest and purest of American concepts like free speech and public service.

[Gothmog]

10. Can Trump use NDAs to prevent White House staffers like Omarosa from criticizing him?

The NDAs are not enforceable https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/can-trump-use-ndas-stop-white-house-staffers-omarosa-criticizing-ncna900706

NDAs are also probably illegal. A draft of the agreement obtained by the Washington Post indicates that White House staffers are prohibited from disclosing “confidential” information. If that word sounds broad and open to interpretation, it is. The agreement defined it as “all nonpublic information I learn of or gain access to in the course of my official duties in the service of the United States Government on White House staff.” And if “all nonpublic information” sounds like an overly vague way to define what confidential information is, it is.

Even if we could divine what is covered by these agreements, such NDAs would be very hard to enforce for a number of reasons. Consider the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA is a federal law which allows individuals to obtain access to certain records from federal agencies. It is pretty easy to see how a FOIA request could conflict with a non-disclosure agreement. A FOIA request might, for instance, cover a request for information on a government contract or grant or an unpublished policy statement, the substance of which is otherwise “nonpublic.”

There are also federal whistleblower laws which protect government employees who report certain activities. It is not outside the realm of possibility that an employee would want to report information covered by both a whistleblower law and a non-disclosure agreement. For instance, an employee may wish to report allegedly corrupt activities which are otherwise “nonpublic.”

Perhaps the biggest legal issue raised by the non-disclosure agreement has to do with the First Amendment. Government employees can and do give up certain rights, including some First Amendment rights, when they enter government service. But non-disclosure agreements of this type use vague and threatening language in order to chill and silence speech. Protecting the president from bad press does not warrant such an erosion of the Constitution.

[Gothmog]

11. Trump NDAs can't silence ex-White House officials: legal experts

It would be fun watching trump attempt to enforce one of these NDAs https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-nda/trump-ndas-cant-silence-ex-white-house-officials-legal-experts-idUSKBN1GV2UT

The NDAs, as described by the Post, contain an essential constitutional flaw. White House employees don’t work for President Trump. They work for the United States, so the U.S. is the supposed beneficiary of the non-disclosure agreements.

The U.S., and not President Trump, would also be responsible for enforcing the agreements, said law professors Heidi Kitrosser of the University of Minnesota and Mark Fenster of the University of Florida. But the First Amendment protects people against government restrictions on free speech. “These NDAs strike me as clearly unconstitutional under the First Amendment,” said Kitrosser.

“A public employee,” added Fenster, “can’t be forced to sign away the right to speak.”

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

12. Too bad Roy Cohn is dead