Why Trump cannot be Enforced against WH employees

Why Trump cannot be Enforced against WH employees

President Donald Trump Saturday confirmed that it is carrying out a number of specific duties relating to former White House employees in breach of their non-disclosure agreements. However, as under-represented by legal experts for many years, regardless of their state contracts, public employees cannot be prevented from disclosing confidential information about their work to government.

After his long personal assistant was released Madeleine Westerhout, which indicated that he was unsatisfactory about the daughters of the President during a dinner he had not recorded with journalists, Trump reiterated that she had signed an undisclosed agreement before joining the White House.

“While a confidentiality agreement is fully enforceable by Madeleine Westerhout, she is a very good person and I don't think there would ever be a reason to use it. She asked me yesterday to apologize, she had a bad night. I fully understood it and gave it well! I love Tiffany, doing great! ”Trump tweeted Saturday morning.

Trump then returned to the theme of inviting White House employees who breached the terms of their non-disclosure agreements, in particular t Omarosa Manigault Newman, former director of communications in reality TV show White House Office of Public Liaison and Trump competitor.

“Yes, I am currently inviting different people to overcome their confidentiality agreements. Disappointment and foul cloth is Omarosa. I gave her a break, despite everyone's contempt for her, and she took money from a book. Many more too! ”, Trump tweeted.

As previously reported by the Legal and Crime law analyst Elura NanosRegardless of the unbelievable threats of the President, it is certain that confidentiality agreements against federal employees cannot be enforced.

“Trump may think that Omarosa is another Stormy Daniels – but there is a big difference. Omarosa was a federal employee. It is clear that there is so much wrong with NDA Omarosa's idea that it is difficult to know where to start. Start the first amendment…[which] it prevents the government imposing advance restrictions. The NDA would have “Prior Authorization of Speech”, and the Omarosa Constitution, as a public employee, would cost ”, Nanos wrote.

The adoption of Nanos is supported by a legal precedent. The US Court of Appeal ruled for a DC Circuit in the case of 1983 McGehee v. Casey, that pre-employment of government cannot be prohibited from talking about their public employment, assuming that the government has no legitimate interest in criticizing unclassified matters.

Mark Fenster, a professor of law specializing in government transparency at the University of Florida Law School, reiterated the same attitude to the non-enforceability of the President's NDAs in a Reuters interview.

“The President of the United States is now seeking to enforce wide-nondisclosure agreements which keep illegal or confidential acts of public interest from the public,” said Fenster last year.

“You could understand how someone like Donald Trump, who was never in government… could come into government and want to do this,” he said, adding, “But it won't happen. ”

[image via Alex Wong/Getty Images]

.

Leave a comment

Send a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.