Summations Only

I think those types of NDA's are legal in the private sector, but definitely not enforceable in the public sector (i.e. government workers). Omarosa worked for the US government during that time, so there is no way that is binding past her employment.

I don't think there is any distinction. An NDA would not prevent you from speaking about something illegal or from responding to a court order in any circumstance, but in circumstances where they are enforceable in the private sector, they are likely enforceable (using monetary penalties) in the public sector.But NDAs that prevent you from speaking out well after employment are not common employment practice in the public sector. I agree that they are more common in some particular business sectors than others.

From my brief reading on the matter, there seems to be different rules for "trade secrets" and "normal confidential information". It can be legal to enforce a lifetime non-disclosure agreement on something like the formula for Coca-Cola, but you can't enforce an NDA lasting a lifetime on something like the CEO of Coca-Cola cheating on his wife. However, there can be a time limted NDA on normal confidential information, if I am reading things correctly.There are also many cases backing the 1st amendment rights of former government employees which means former government employees can share normal confidential information. Obviously, this doesn't apply to classified information which would be equivalent to trade secrets in the private sector.SEdited by Taq, : No reason given.

My hope would be that the practice would be unheard of in the public sector. There's been a lot written in the press recently expressing doubt about their enforceability, e.g., Mark Zaid: 'Any NDA that extends beyond classified information would be unconstitutional.'.It would also be my hope that any "no badmouthing in perpetuity" clause would be unconstitutional on 1st Amendment grounds no matter the sector. It shouldn't be possible to coerce lying (either explicit or by silence) through the promise of employment, which would be the case were all employers to begin using such NDAs. (And though not the topic I'll add that I don't believe the flood of mandatory binding arbitration agreements is right, either, such as in product warranties, credit card agreements, health treatment consent forms, and so forth.)Refreshingly the National Review is not a Trump fan, and about this they say the NDA removes all credibility:

quote:

---

Again, put legalities aside. Heck, put ethics or self-respect aside. If you worked for the Trump administration and signed one of these things, why should anyone believe anything you say about it? More specifically, why should TV shows or op-ed pages invite you or pay you to share your views without disclosing the fact you’ve vowed, in writing, that you will never, ever, for all eternity criticize this administration?

​

Look, I get that many flacks and hacks don’t need the threat of a million-dollar lawsuit to carry water for their former boss or party. But there’s a difference between being a loyal party guy or gal, and actually entering into a binding legal agreement that says you cannot tell the truth if the truth is embarrassing to Donald Trump and the extended Trump Universe.

​

At minimum, I think any Trump White House alum who has a contract with a news network or academic institution, should disclose whether they signed a NDA with a non-disparagement clause in it (or any of its associated PACs). They should produce the actual document for public review. They should also openly declare whether they consider it binding. Their answer, yes or no, should be noted at the end of any op-ed they write and mentioned by any interviewer asking them to share their opinion or analysis.

​

Lots of people in politics and journalism don’t tell the truth (you could look it up). But these people put it in writing, and there should be consequences for that. And if consequences are just another one of the nice things we can’t have anymore, we should at least get some transparency.

---

Along these lines, I recently commented that the NDA explained the fawning Sean Spicer book.I don't know why the news media so often gives serious consideration to anything said by the Trump administration until disproven by hard evidence. Compare politicians and scientists. Maybe I'm biased, but I strongly believe that in general scientists have a great deal more integrity than politicians, yet the tobacco industry had no problem getting scientists to shill about the safety of cigarettes. Therefore scumbag politicians like Trump have an even easier time getting their entire administration (and half of Congress) to shill for them, and the news media should assume they're lying until they prove they're telling the truth. The evidence thus far says they'd be right far more often than wrong.--Percy

You read correctly. Trade secret protection is forever. But, for example only, using the "N" word is not a trade secret. Yes, but those same concerns apply in the private sector. There may be more "newsworthy" stuff in the public sector, but the first amendment would be based on the subject matter and not the fact that the government is involved. NDAs are a contractural matter and you can agree to be silent for money.

At this point, you are wishing. We knew that Trump was making volunteers sign NDAs even during his campaign.As for the idea that an NDA extends beyond classified information being unconstitutional, that's simply bad legal advice. Perhaps there was some context to Zaid's remarks that makes then something other than wishful thinking.

Not counting Trump - we already know he's a scumbag using NDAs to prevent knowledge of his illegal and/or immoral actions from becoming public.I wasn't thinking of political campaigns as part of the public sector, and Wikipedia's article about the public sector doesn't mention them, but maybe they are. I don't know. If they are then according to numerous experts both the campaign and the White House NDAs are likely unenforceable, see further below. Are you referring to Zaid's remark in the headline or to his comments in the article? You didn't quote anything, so I can't tell what you're referring to. Here's the link to the article again: Mark Zaid: 'Any NDA that extends beyond classified information would be unconstitutional.'. If it helps here's some of what he said in the article:

quote:

---

It's entirely inappropriate & likely unconstitutional to require Fed employees to sign NDA that applies post-employment beyond classified info. We'll rep anyone who has signed & wishes to challenge such agreement pro bono.
...
The courts have been clear that any NDA that extends beyond classified information would be unconstitutional as an infringement of free speech.

---

From White House spokesman: I've never seen an NDA in Trump White House:

quote:

---

Government watchdogs have argued that the documents are unenforceable and uncommon for public employees.

---

From Are The White House's NDAs Enforceable? Maybe Not:

quote:

---

On Aug. 14, the Trump campaign filed an arbitration case against Manigault alleging that she violated a confidentiality agreement that she had signed in 2016. But despite the lawsuit, Manigault might not have a lot to worry about, given that experts are saying that the NDA might not be enforceable.

---

I'll stop there. I'm not trying to make legal arguments, just trying to point out that Zaid isn't a lone voice in the night - there are other legal voices that agree with him.--Percy

We've all heard of the Nixon tapes. Well now there's the Omarosa tapes, and as Donald Jr. would say, "I love it!" The score is currently Omarosa 3, Trump administration 0. Here are the details:

• Omarosa's account of her firing by John Kelly: the Trump administration said it didn't happen that way, Omarosa produced a tape.
• Omarosa's account of Trump expressing no prior knowledge of her firing: the Trump administration said it didn't happen that way, Omarosa produced a tape.
• Omarosa said she was offered a do nothing job to keep quier: the Trump administration said it didn't happen that way, Omarosa produced a tape.

Why is the media investing Omarosa with so little credibility? Omarosa was on one of the Sunday morning political interview programs facing a panel of liberal interviewers (and one conservative) who all challenged her credibility but asked her virtually not a single question about any of the information in her book that had already been made public prior to the Tuesday release.I never watched the Apprentice and I had no awareness of Omarosa before the 2016 campaign began, and very little awareness of her after. My impression from what little I saw was that she was a verbally aggressive, combative and overly dramatic Trump supporter, but unlike Kellyanne Conway she never struck me as a liar. Am I wrong about that?I don't know what all else is in Omarosa's book, but if I were the media I'd start paying closer attention.--Percy

James Corden is the Late Late Show host, and this video of his opening monologue is very fun, especially the second half: --Percy

Some might remember President Trump's recent pardon of Dinesh D'Souza for his 2014 conviction for making an illegal campaign contribution. D'Souza is a conservative commentator, writer and filmmaker. He has a new film titled Death of a Nation. Here's the trailer, just so people can get a clear idea of the kind of people Trump is friends with: It's been in theaters since August 3rd. It's not in too many theaters, though. The closest to me is over an hour away.Sort of reminds me of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.--Percy

Tomorrow Michael Avenatti will be speaking at the Hillsborough County Democratic Summer Picnic in Greenfield, NH. I have a ticket and am thinking of going.--Percy

It may be that your high opinion of Avenatti is shared by Fox news. .I saw a bit (as much of them as I can stomach) where they were repeatedly referring to him as CPL (creepy porn lawyer). They didn't actually have much to say but it seems they might be afraid that you are right about him.

It turns out that the US President is not a dictator, which is sure to disappoint conservatives everywhere.From the Guardian: Blow for EPA as court blocks bid to slacken safety rules for chemical plantsNothing specific I want to quote here, just a list of a few of the attempts by Trump's EPA to allow the chemical industry to poison, sicken, or otherwise endanger the health and safety of Americans that have been blocked by the courts.I'm sure that the EPA has the authority to do at least some of these things, but, wouldn't you know, there are actually rules and procedures that need to be followed. You iknow, that "rule of law" thingy that was so important to the Founders of this nations.

I did not quote anything because you did not quote anything other than his conclusion. The idea that an NDA is only constitutional when applied to national security is ridiculous.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Video available via Brennan On Revoked Clearance: ‘This Country Is More Important Than Mr. Trump’ - TPM – Talking Points MemoThe above also links to an interview transcript:
Rachel Maddow interviews John Brennan: Read the full transcriptMooseAdded by edit:Side note from Trump's time-zone troubles reportedly come up on 'a constant basis'

quote:

---

Politico published a rather unflattering piece yesterday on Donald Trump’s diplomatic learning curve, which has apparently proven challenging for the amateur president. The article noted one instance, for example, in which Trump studied a briefer’s map of South Asia and mispronounced Nepal as ‘nipple’ and laughingly referred to Bhutan as ‘button.’

​

Noting the similarities between this and a scene from The Simpsons, Jon Chait noted, It’s like having Homer Simpson as president, but dumber.

---

The little linked video: It’s like having Homer Simpson as president, but dumber.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.