Even if the non-disparagement contract is valid, it was Bannon who signed it, not Wolff or his publisher and it in no way constrains them from publishing the book. Trump's lawyers are barking up the wrong tree.
In a first year full of stupid things it's hard to say this is the stupidest, but it's right up there. Why?
1) The publisher of "Fire and Fury" couldn't ask for better (and cheaper) publicity to sell the book. Remember when Donnie bragged about the billions of free publicity he got for his campaign? I guess he didn't learn that lesson. Drumpf has now guaranteed the book will shoot to the top of the Best Seller list and stay there.
2) His lawyers should have told him any effort to stop publication will be futile, because he'll need to prove he'd suffer "irreparable harm" from release of the book. That is a virtually impossible hill for a public figure to climb.
3) He is claiming the book libels him, but as a practical matter, it is almost impossible for a public figure to win a libel case in the US. Why? Because he must prove "actual malice," meaning not only is the book false and defamatory but that the author knew it to be so and did it anyway with a reckless disregard for that fact.
Bottom line: Donnie is wasting his time but doing a great job of promoting "Fire and Fury."
sue EVERYONE! He threatened to sue those 12 women who accused him of assault - no law suits filed.
Truth is an absolute defense.
Which do you think this post will illicit more of; deflections or non-responses?
Heard many comments that Bannon was a "disgruntled" ex-employee. Maybe, maybe not, but what has that got to do with the book itself and the revelations made by so many of Trump's inner circle?
What about the tactical error made by Trump and his insiders who allowed the author such unimpeded access to the inner workings of the Trump WH? What does this decision alone, say about the ability of Trump decision-makers to handle day-to-day issues, let alone our most vital national interests?
Maybe Bannon was motivated to speak up because of those in the WH who pissed him off. But the truthfulness of the issues raised by this book, will be given a litmus test of their own.
The reaction of Trump's lawyers also speaks volumes, as they try to suppress as much information about the inner workings of Trump's WH as they can. If Trump is such an effective leader, as he so purports, what has he to hide?
Your friend GaGa continually points that out to me when I post something from the NYT. But I guess you haven't been listening.
PS: Has Bannon denied one word of his quotes yet?
I don't subscribe to it either but did you really burn through your 10 freebies in only 4 days? lol.
The article lists several key things in the book as factually incorrect, or extremely slanted. For example, he tries to mock Trump for not knowing who John Boehner was.
The fact that Trump mentioned Boehner many times in public, played golf with him, ate with him etc proved that of course Trump knew who he was.
Look, there is a lot of kooky stuff with DJT, but does any rational person really believe Trump didn't know who Boehner was? With that kind of shoddy journalism, it would make anyone pause about all the other "facts."
I haven't heard any comment from Bannon as yet either. That being said, he is on the record as saying there was no collusion or illegality between the Trump Team and Russia in the past, but in Wolff's book, he supposedly called the Donnie Jr. meeting "treasonous."
Well, Bannon cant have it both ways. He was either lying then, or he is lying now, but at the end of the day, wouldn't that make him still a liar?
Rudy Guiliani, who was sitting directly across the table from him? 
No way have I opened ten WaPo articles so far in 2018, but when I clicked on your link it was quickly obscured by a "sign up" screen. Maybe there was a way to get around it without subscribing but I lost interest.
As for your Boehner example, I agree with Matt. Your guy is so profoundly brain damaged he could easily have forgotten who Boehner is.
I don't doubt you can find some errors in the book and several well-known journalists were skeptical of parts of it last night on CNN. But the quotes by Bannon on Don, Jr. are an earthquake. And, to anyone with a brain, an obvious example of conspiring with a foreign country to affect an election, which was already known. Don, Jr and Kushner are toast, whatever Bannon says. The news was not what was said, but who said it. And Trump's volcanic response and idiotic attempt to quash the book. And what about all the ridicule of Trump from many un-named WH sources?
But you keep going to the mat to defend your idol. You already look stupid but keep on digging.
Bannon isn't an attorney, nor was he even present during that meeting. The meeting, in and of itself, is not treason or even illegal.
It is perfectly legal for Junior to sit down with the Russians and hear them out. Now, I wouldn't have advised him/them to do so, and maybe it should be illegal, but that is for the congress to take up in the future.
And if it is SO obvious that a "treasonous conspiracy" took place, why cant Dershowitz and Turley see it? Do those two lack brains?
Once again, we have a Trump political faux pas, not a legal one, with facts known to date. Maybe that will change but that is not the situation at present and the remedy for a political screw up is at the polls on election day.
The quote is an earthquake because of who said it. And because of the TrumpQuake it set off that is still reverberating.
Not to mention that if you work for a campaign and attend a meeting at which you've been promised damaging information on your opponent by a foreign power, you have just broken the law. So, no, it's not legal to "sit down with the Russians and hear them out." Only someone with a degree from JDU School of Pretend Law wouldn't get that. Most people get it. If Turley and Dersh don't agree, that hardly constitutes a final ruling. So would it be OK to wait and see what Mueller says? He's playing it close to the vest, so take a deep breath and wait for the other shoes to drop.
Did you see how hysterical he was today? It was an 8.2 on the Sphincter scale. LOL
If that wasn't funny enough, I have you, on one hand, telling us meeting with the Rooskies is illegal, while two of the most brilliant minds in U.S. law telling us otherwise.
Hmmm... a guy using the alias JakeFromStateFarm on the PR board of an illegal activity, or esteemed Messrs Turley and Dershowitz? Can I get back to you on that one Jake? LOL
As for what Bannon has said, he is on BOTH sides of the SAME issue. So, since you are so caught up in the importance of "who said it" which "Bannon" are you referring to, Bannon 1 or Bannon 2? LMAO!
Did you really just say it was simply me vs. Turley/Dershowitz on this issue? ROFL.
You really need to find a new place to retail your bullshit. It ain't working here.
What is your Clown of 1600 Comedy Club afraid about the book. If he has nothing to hide, let it be published. If he has skeletons then he sure is shitting in his pants! Oh how about that Bannon thing?
Most "lib" media have stated that the information in the book can't be substantiated. So, yes the lib media is having fun with this because you have to admit, there is some dysfunctional shit going on with this administration. But what's true and what isn't with the book, who knows....but the author did have a high clearance to the WH, so it makes you wonder..
And the right....here lies the difference... the right will take some National Enquirer story about Clinton and child porn in some pizza joint. Fox, Breitbart will take any BS story and run, pound it in till the loonies actually believe it.....and they end up buying that shit
-- Modified on 1/4/2018 9:58:56 PM
against Bannon for breach of contract – the confidentiality and non -disparagement clauses in the contract Bannon signed when he joined the campaign. The stuff about defamation and damages is just filler. Trump’s attorneys are not dumb enough to think that would fly even as to Trump Jr and Kushner because I suspect they are public figures now as well. You are right, however, that suing to stop publication of the book that would have no chance.
And the real remedy sought is for Bannon to “cease and desist” violating the contract i.e., stop disclosing private stiff to the media in the future. Further, the contract reportedly also has a consent to injunction clause wherein Bannon stipulated that his breach would cause irreparable harm. While not per se enforceable to get an injunction, this clause is evidence that supports some of the elements for injunctive relief.
But the reason the cease and desist letter is a smart move by Trump has nothing to do with Bannon or Wolf. It is designed to stop other staff members from talking to Bob Woodward or whoever for his book and – just as important – to put other members of the media on notice of the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in the contracts so they can be sued for inducing breach of contract. Absence of malice is not a defense to these claims. Woodward et al will probably do it anyway but it does give Trump some leverage.
Even if the non-disparagement contract is valid, it was Bannon who signed it, not Wolff or his publisher and it in no way constrains them from publishing the book. Trump's lawyers are barking up the wrong tree.
and was a response to the article you linked which also was about Bannon, not the publisher or author. I said suit would be worthless to stop publication.
Poor little pouty boy has a boo-boo..
I usually order all my books online, since I'm seldom in a great hurry to get them sooner than a couple of days. However, today I walked down to my favorite bookstore to get a newly released copy of "Fire and Fury," but it was it was already sold out. There was a line for back ordering. So much for Trump trying to put the old kibosh on it!
The book is officially outed as just more lies from the Left. Perhaps that's why Trump "tried to stop" it.
But hey, I'm sure you guys will still buy it and believe it and read it together while you cum on each other's faces...
-- Modified on 1/5/2018 2:43:35 PM
Then this is a black eye and a kick in the nuts to trump. Now you have to assume that some of what's in the book may be hearsay but you can't claim that ALL the book is fiction. But like most true trump supporters, they'll drain the pool because little Johnny took a piss. I'm personally amazed how some will defend trump to no end....
definitely an issue! But remember, these idiots allowed Michael Wolff unfettered access to the inner workings of the Trump White House, without first vetting him. What does that say about their judgement?
This same judgement blocked the American news media from the oval office meeting with the previous Russian ambassador, Kislyak as Trump bragged about firing the head of our FBI. Did Trump think the Russian media would not exploit his foolishness? Putin must have considered himself a true "puppet master" as he watched Trump's misguided behavior.
While Trump's staff works overtime to do "damage control" his words and actions simply reinforce the main premise of the book--stupid, fucking, chaos. The fact they even have to do "damage control" as a result of their own poor judgement speaks volumes about what kind of chaos they operate in.
And what's that saying, where there's smoke, there's fire.
The fact that Bannon gave Wolff unfettered access is strike one. The fact that he and Trump both talked to Wolff "on the record" is strike two. All those un-named sources at least had the brains to speak to Wolff on background so their names could not be used.
Strike three is Trump's idiotic tweet storm about the book which has sold thousands more copies and done a great job of feathering Wolff's nest. As usual, Trump has only himself to blame. And Bannon.
Here you have a long time Hollywood reporter. What do you have to be good at in order to get the lowdown on the stars? Blowing smoke up their asses, and of those they surround themselves with. Why no one in the White House didn't see him coming a mile away is beyond unfathomable! Wolff, the Russians and now all the world leaders know how to lead Trump around by his nose.