Oops

Quote:

---

In a statement, a campaign official said, "Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. has filed an arbitration against Omarosa Manigault-Newman, with the American Arbitration Association in New York City, for breach of her 2016 confidentiality agreement with the Trump Campaign."

The official added, "President Trump is well known for giving people opportunities to advance in their careers and lives over the decades, but wrong is wrong, and a direct violation of an agreement must be addressed and the violator must be held accountable," added the official.

According to a sample of the agreement provided, she was required to keep proprietary information about the president, his companies or his family confidential and to never "disparage" the Trump family "during the term of your service and at all times thereafter."

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Oops

Quote:

---

In a statement, a campaign official said, "Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. has filed an arbitration against Omarosa Manigault-Newman, with the American Arbitration Association in New York City, for breach of her 2016 confidentiality agreement with the Trump Campaign."

The official added, "President Trump is well known for giving people opportunities to advance in their careers and lives over the decades, but wrong is wrong, and a direct violation of an agreement must be addressed and the violator must be held accountable," added the official.

According to a sample of the agreement provided, she was required to keep proprietary information about the president, his companies or his family confidential and to never "disparage" the Trump family "during the term of your service and at all times thereafter."

---

---

He's seeking to take any book profits she makes.

coyote68 said:

---

FbgTxAg said:

---

You guys actually think the IG report is gonna amount to anything? I'll save you some time and give you the headline in advance.

"While we found numerous instances of protocol being breached and policies and procedures not being followed, we have determined that neither political ideology nor personal animosity were involved. We have referred a few individuals who broke protocol to the OPM, and we believe it is appropriate to let that process play out."

---

Yes sir, I do.

There is a life and death struggle going on at the DOJ/FBI over the future of the USA. There are still many who are supporters of Comey, McCabe, Strozk, and the others who were in a conspiracy to get Hilary elected and then take POTUS Trump down. The Director of OPM is an example.

There is untold pressure behind the scenes through many intermediaries to intimidate the people in charge of bringing justice. I really believe that there are US Attorneys and FBI agents doing their jobs. It is a good thing that Jeff Sessions is segregated from the Mueller probe so that he and his attorneys can focus on the real crimes. Mueller is just a diversion.

If their is no justice for the perpetrators of the scheme to bring down the POTUS, our Constitutional Republic will be destroyed. This is not about a watergate breakin and coverup. This is about sedition which is a crime that is now being brought up in the media. Serious stuff.

The media wants you to believe that Mueller is the only investigation going on. Some where in Utah.......

---

I think most of us hope you are right. But I'm not holding my breath. The deep state will protect itself at all cost, and nobody is ever held accountable. It's all just lies and deception and obfuscation, and the media is a big part of it.

My cynicism is well earned.

aggiehawg said:

---

blindey said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

My complete guess is he's going to browbeat both sides about a plea

---

I've been wondering about this. Good judges usually have solid intuitions about how a jury is going to break. Perhaps he's going to tell them which verdicts will "likely" (wink this will happen) be directed and which counts he thinks the jury will tag Manafort for and then to work out a deal.

But I don't do criminal work, so I have no idea.

---

Catherine Herridge indicated that the court official responsible for handling the jury was being specifically called to the courtroom before it was sealed today. Also note the same court official was summoned to one of the multiple bench conferences that happened on Friday. Might be coincidence, might not.

Reading the tea leaves at this point. I will say if this thing has gone sideways to the point that Ellis is forced to declare a mistrial, I have serious doubts they will seek to re-try him on all of the same counts. It would be a much narrower scope, if they brought it at all. A few of the prosecution witnesses (the ones with limited immunity) have lost their jobs anyway and might scatter to the winds.

---

Yeah I think several people have felt this was a face saving trial pursued to give the SC some justification for existing. It's got nothing to do with the President much to CNN's chagrin.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Oops

Quote:

---

In a statement, a campaign official said, "Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. has filed an arbitration against Omarosa Manigault-Newman, with the American Arbitration Association in New York City, for breach of her 2016 confidentiality agreement with the Trump Campaign."

The official added, "President Trump is well known for giving people opportunities to advance in their careers and lives over the decades, but wrong is wrong, and a direct violation of an agreement must be addressed and the violator must be held accountable," added the official.

According to a sample of the agreement provided, she was required to keep proprietary information about the president, his companies or his family confidential and to never "disparage" the Trump family "during the term of your service and at all times thereafter."

---

---

Got her?

Probably so especially if she made it up.

You don't understand the "got him" joke do you?

Sasappis said:

---

Trying to enforce an NDA related to her public employment is not going to work.

Her time related to the campaign and prior to that her employment by the trump org is a different story. They are both private entities unlike her government employment.

---

They would have a problem with unlimited time frame too IMO. You can't make disparaging comments for the rest of your life? Pretty sure a judge would toss that.

FriscoKid said:

---

Sasappis said:

---

Trying to enforce an NDA related to her public employment is not going to work.

Her time related to the campaign and prior to that her employment by the trump org is a different story. They are both private entities unlike her government employment.

---

They would have a problem with unlimited time frame too IMO. You can't make disparaging comments for the rest of your life? Pretty sure a judge would toss that.

---

Honestly, the law on this varies widely by state. We'd have to see the contents of the agreement to have any idea re enforceability.

FbgTxAg said:

---

You guys actually think the IG report is gonna amount to anything? I'll save you some time and give you the headline in advance.

"While we found numerous instances of protocol being breached and policies and procedures not being followed, we have determined that neither political ideology nor personal animosity were involved. We have referred a few individuals who broke protocol to the OPM, and we believe it is appropriate to let that process play out."

---

Got the DB fired

If you signed a contract and took consideration, you forfeit the consideration if you break the terms of the contract. They are suing for breach of that contract.

Sasappis said:

---

Trying to enforce an NDA related to her public employment is not going to work.

Her time related to the campaign and prior to that her employment by the trump org is a different story. They are both private entities unlike her government employment.

---

And that is why the plaintiff it the Trump Campaign. The book covers reported happenings prior to her appointment as whatever her real title was. The Frank Lusk incident refers to a campaign timeframe, which is a lie according to Frank Lusk himself, but the timeframe is correct. Haven't read the book nor will I , but multiple chapters cover pre White House. And all these appearances across the MSM are post White House are likely covered as well. Her few months in the WH are nothing.

Sasappis said:

---

Trying to enforce an NDA related to her public employment is not going to work.

Her time related to the campaign and prior to that her employment by the trump org is a different story. They are both private entities unlike her government employment.

---

Particularly if she refused to sign it, which reports are that she did. Hence the Trump campaign's involvement.

As to the broadness of the disparagement clause that could go either way. Might be too broad to be enforceable or seeing as how it has only been 2 years, that seems quite reasonable.

We'll see what happens, if anything.

aggiehawg said:

---

Sasappis said:

---

Trying to enforce an NDA related to her public employment is not going to work.

Her time related to the campaign and prior to that her employment by the trump org is a different story. They are both private entities unlike her government employment.

---

Particularly if she refused to sign it, which reports are that she did. Hence the Trump campaign's involvement.

As to the broadness of the disparagement clause that could go either way. Might be too broad to be enforceable or seeing as how it has only been 2 years, that seems quite reasonable.

We'll see what happens, if anything.

---

Wouldn't this part still apply post WH job? She claimed they wanted her to sign an adjusted NDA before she left and she claimed to have refused. I'm sure the adjusted one would be to try and hide the time in the WH, but she said no. However the 2016 one seems pretty clear. Her book covers chapters of pre WH appointment life and her appearances are post WH life, wouldn't the 2016 still be in place post WH?

Quote:

---

she was required to keep proprietary information about the president, his companies or his family confidential and to never "disparage" the Trump family "during the term of your service and at all times thereafter."

---

Quote:

---

However the 2016 one seems pretty clear. Her book covers chapters of pre WH appointment life and her appearances are post WH life, wouldn't the 2016 still be in place post WH?

---

My gut says, "Yes," but I haven't read the arbitration petition yet.

FbgTxAg said:

---

I think most of us hope you are right. But I'm not holding my breath. The deep state will protect itself at all cost, and nobody is ever held accountable. It's all just lies and deception and obfuscation, and the media is a big part of it.

My cynicism is well earned.

---

Indeed it is. And I think most of us share that cynicism (if not, they really haven't been paying attention), but are hoping against hope that something comes out of this to at least discredit a bunch of people....Hillary, Obama, etc.....and start to set things right.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

However the 2016 one seems pretty clear. Her book covers chapters of pre WH appointment life and her appearances are post WH life, wouldn't the 2016 still be in place post WH?

---

My gut says, "Yes," but I haven't read the arbitration petition yet.

---

Being in arbitration we may never see it.... isn't that the point and to cut out the appeal process?

Sasappis said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Sasappis said:

---

Trying to enforce an NDA related to her public employment is not going to work.

Her time related to the campaign and prior to that her employment by the trump org is a different story. They are both private entities unlike her government employment.

---

Particularly if she refused to sign it, which reports are that she did. Hence the Trump campaign's involvement.

As to the broadness of the disparagement clause that could go either way. Might be too broad to be enforceable or seeing as how it has only been 2 years, that seems quite reasonable.

We'll see what happens, if anything.

---

Wouldn't this part still apply post WH job? She claimed they wanted her to sign an adjusted NDA before she left and she claimed to have refused. I'm sure the adjusted one would be to try and hide the time in the WH, but she said no. However the 2016 one seems pretty clear. Her book covers chapters of pre WH appointment life and her appearances are post WH life, wouldn't the 2016 still be in place post WH?

Quote:

---

she was required to keep proprietary information about the president, his companies or his family confidential and to never "disparage" the Trump family "during the term of your service and at all times thereafter."

---

---

The campaign NDA cannot restrict her speech with regards to her government employment, even after the fact.

I agree that chapters in the books related to the campaign are likely covered. The time before the NDA and her time after the campaign are different. It is possible the 2016 NDA could be applicable to her employment with trump but there is a tricky consideration issue.

But no, that 2016 NDA cannot keep her from going on TV and talking about her employment with the white house.

---

I think you are missing my point. She's lying about Apprentice tapes, on set crap, conversations during the campaign that never happened, etc etc. I'm not talking about one thing between January 21, 2017 January 20, 2018. She's talking about EVERYTHING including things between those dates. If she was talking about stuff on these 15 interviews she's done that fell between January 21, 2017 January 20, 2018, I'd agree, but she's going back 14 years in some of her interviews.

Manafort has rested, CA start tomorrow.

isnt she being sued by Trump campaign? Why would Apprentice tapes matter on that?

BMX Bandit said:

---

isnt she being sued by Trump campaign? Why would Apprentice tapes matter on that?

---

Not saying they do, mentioning them, was show that she's talking about "everything" not just her life as a public servant. The book reportedly has several chapters on just the campaign.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Manafort has rested, CA start tomorrow.

---

Did he call any witnesses?

Quote:

---

I have agreed that they can seek damages for her disclosures of confidential events/information from her time in the campaign. I am just saying that the NDA cannot stop her from talking completely after she left the WH because it cannot stop her from disparaging the President, because her disparagement can be general and not specific.

---

Cannot argue with that. Actually, I don't think this action by the Trump campaign is that worthwhile. She's already self-imploding. Ignore it and let it pass would be my instinct. That's never been Trump's MO however. It's one thing to have disparagement issues for a businessman's name and reputation. Completely different for a politician in elected office.

No

Does this Omarosa stuff have anything to do with the actual thread? If not, can we move it to a new thread? Almost this whole page is Omarosa. Thanks.

Papadopoulos

AgInTheColony said:

---

Does this Omarosa stuff have anything to do with the actual thread? If not, can we move it to a new thread? Almost this whole page is Omarosa. Thanks.

---

She's claiming that Mueller wants all of her recording and she's willing to help him impeach Trump.

Rapier108 said:

---

AgInTheColony said:

---

Does this Omarosa stuff have anything to do with the actual thread? If not, can we move it to a new thread? Almost this whole page is Omarosa. Thanks.

---

She's claiming that Mueller wants all of her recording and she's willing to help him impeach Trump.

---

Ok. Omarosa away then!

Oh geez. Let's assume that trump is on tape using the "n word" (which he is not).

In what universe is this even remotely something that Mueller would have a legal case on??? Never mind that this has anything to do with Russian collusion. It's not even criminal in any way whatsoever.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Papadopoulos

---

Discovery? For what? I thought he pled guilty already?

The SC thing is an absolute joke at this point if he's digging for stuff like that!