Donald Trump Threatens 'Art Of The Deal' Ghostwriter, Claiming His 'Disloyalty' Somehow Amounts To Defamation

from the slappity-slapp-slapp dept

Earlier this week there was a fascinating piece in the New Yorker by Jane Mayer, interviewing Tony Schwartz, who is credited as the co-author to Donald Trump's first and most famous book, The Art of the Deal (Schwartz is interchangeably referred to as the ghostwriter or co-author -- his name appears on the book as the much smaller type-faced co-author, which is unlike most ghostwriters -- but Schwartz claims he really wrote the book after just following Trump around for a bit and getting some ideas from him). The interview with Schwartz is great storytelling and focuses on his belief that Trump would be a disastrous President (and the fact that The Art of the Deal was exaggerated reality).

Despite the fact that the Republican National Convention happened this week, where Trump was officially nominated as the Republican Party candidate for President, Trump apparently found the time to have his lawyer dash off a ridiculously stupid cease and desist letter. It's the kind of cease and desist letter that we tend to see from complete cranks, rather than serious businessmen, let alone the official nominee for President from a major political party. Everything about the letter is flat out ridiculous (and at points, contradictory). Throughout it, Trump's Chief Legal Officer, Jason Greenblatt, keeps saying that Schwartz's statements are defamatory, but fails to name a single one. As has been pointed out many times, if you're screaming "defamation" but fail to point to a factual statement that is defamatory, you're just making noise.

The letter also claims that Schwartz is attempting to "rewrite history" and even starts out suggesting that Schwartz's claim of writing the book is an exaggeration, because the contract was merely to "provide certain services." But, rather than actually follow through on that line of argument, Greenblatt then more or less admits it, while arguing something totally different: that the book was successful because of Trump's association with it, not because of Schwartz. But Schwartz never argued otherwise, and that's completely besides the point.
Mr. Trump hired you to provide certain services in connection with the preparation of the Book. Although it has long-suited you to dramatically overstate your work on the Book in order to further your own career, (for example, telling George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America that, "I wrote every word of [the Book], Donald Trump made a few red marks when I handed him the manuscript, but that was it."), let me set the record straight about the origin of the Book: Mr. Trump was the source of all of the material in the Book and the inspiration for every word in the Book. You would not have had access to any of the information that appeared in the Book without Mr. Trump. He was the mastermind behind the deals described in the Book, and he provided you with the facts and facets of each of these deals in order for you to write them down. What's more, Mr. Trump is wholly responsible for the great success of the Book, not you. It was his ingenuity that made the deals described in the Book happen, and it was his promotion of the Book that made it a runaway success.
Again, so what? That's got nothing to do with Schwartz's point and is nowhere near defamatory. Greenblatt also goes on to weirdly attack the one claim from Schwartz that he's pretty sure that many of the things in The Art of the Deal are false. Greenblatt wastes many perfectly good English words arguing that the book contract gave Schwartz the right to make changes to the book to make sure it was accurate, and somehow suggesting that his failure to change things proved that he didn't actually believe things in the book were false. Of course, again, this is not what Schwartz was arguing. He was saying that the stuff Trump told Schwartz, which Schwartz then crafted into the narrative of the book, were lies told by Trump. That should be obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills.

Also, the above accusation is doubly weird, because just a page earlier in the letter, Greenblatt was arguing that Schwartz was a mere conduit and was basically just hired to scribble down Trump's words of wisdom. If he played such a minor part, then isn't that more or less admitting that Schwartz would have no say in correcting falsehoods in the book? The letter also tries to claim that Schwartz has been begging Trump for more work for decades and recently signed an agreement for royalties on the audiobook version of it. Schwartz, for his part, denies ever asking Trump for more work and says he actually turned down the offer to work on the sequel. The agreement on the audiobooks may be true, but it's difficult to see how that matters. Schwartz now speaking out against Trump, if anything, would likely diminish the interest in the book, and would impact Schwartz's own royalties (for which Schwartz has pledged to charity for any works purchased this year).

Even more hilariously, Greenblatt ends the letter by demanding Schwartz not only shut up, but also return all the royalties earned over the years from the book, including his half of the $500,000 advance.

Thankfully, Schwartz had lawyer Elizabeth McNamara at Davis Wright Tremaine respond to the letter, calling bullshit on it. The whole thing is worth a read (it's really only two pages), but here's a snippet:
Your letter alludes vaguely to "defamatory statements," "outright lies" and "downright fabrications," but you do not identify a single statement by Mr. Schwartz that is factually false, let alone defamatory. Instead, it is self-evident that Mr. Trump is most concerned with Mr. Schwartz's well-founded expressions of his own opinion of Mr. Trump's character, as well as Mr. Schwartz's accurately taking credit for the writing of The Art of the Deal, which you pointedly do not contest. Also, in Mr. Trump's eyes, Mr. Schwartz has been "very disloyal" in speaking out on these issues, as he is quoted saying to Mr. Schwartz in the recent New Yorker article by Jane Mayer.

The fact that Mr. Trump would spend time during the week of the Republican National Convention focused on settling a score with and trying to censor his co-author on a thirty-year-old book is, frankly, baffling, but only further underscores the very basis for Mr. Schwartz's criticisms. In any event, the demands you make in the letter are without any foundation in law or fact. Mr. Schwartz will not be returning any of the advance or royalties from the Book, and he has no intention of retracting any of his opinions about the character of the Republican nominee for the presidency, nor does he have any obligation or intention to remain silent about this issue going forward.
Of course, as we've noted in the past, this is kind of par for the course for Trump. When people say mean things about him, his lawyers tend to go ballistic, threatening (and sometimes suing for) defamation, even when there clearly is no defamation at all. This is why it's so ridiculous when Trump talks about "opening up" libel laws to go after those who write or say mean things about him.

Being so thin skinned and willing to at least threaten to drag an author to court for stating his opinion hardly seems particularly Presidential.



Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2016 @ 12:08pm

    Twumpkins

    Poor Baby Twump. His widdle feelings are hurt.


    He'll probably still sue, just to cost the guy money in court.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    eaving (profile), 21 Jul 2016 @ 12:16pm

    Erdogan, American Edition?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    I.T. Guy, 21 Jul 2016 @ 12:17pm

    500,000 advance and he didn't want to work for him again?
    "The letter also tries to claim that Schwartz has been begging Trump for more work for decades and recently signed an agreement for royalties on the audiobook version of it. Schwartz, for his part, denies ever asking Trump for more work and says he actually turned down the offer to work on the sequel."

    Uh huh. Sure. There's more to this.

    "but Schwartz claims he really wrote the book after just following Trump around for a bit and getting some ideas from him"
    So if he wrote the book, then the falsehoods are on him then, no?

    Oh... and... Trumps an ass... stop acting surprised.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      crade (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 9:00am

      Re:

      "then the falsehoods are on him then, no?"

      At least partially. This is what the author says and why he says he is remorseful about writing it.

      "Oh... and... Trumps an ass... stop acting surprised."

      An Ass as president might ruffle a few feathers, but voting in a vindictive sociopath means you guys have really gone off the rails.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Tejat, 22 Jul 2016 @ 10:43am

        Re: Re:

        ...voting in a vindictive sociopath means you guys have really gone off the rails.

        Why shouldn't a vindictive sociopathic country have a matching president?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Wolfie0827 (profile), 21 Jul 2016 @ 12:22pm

    From the Article: "Being so thin skinned and willing to at least threaten to drag an author to court for stating his opinion hardly seems particularly Presidential."

    Well, Trump as himself doesn't seem very presidential or even a business man, just a semi rich brat.

    (Donald, go ahead and sue me, try to prove calling you a rich brat is defamation!)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2016 @ 12:36pm

    Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

    Oh, sorry guys. I was just enjoying the ride while my country gets flushed down the toilet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2016 @ 12:42pm

    Are you familiar with the term "lèse-majesté?"

    You'd better get familiar quickly, if you elect Trump.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mr Big Content, 21 Jul 2016 @ 1:13pm

    Pirate Mike Wont Like It ...

    ... when American Presidential Elections are enforced.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    TDR, 21 Jul 2016 @ 1:19pm

    The Donald's response (in full DH voice);

    "I see your Schwartz is as big as mine. Now let's see how well you handle it."

    Commence Schwartz-saber fight!

    "I hate it when I get my Schwartz twisted!"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Jul 2016 @ 1:24pm

    Character

    I want my president to have character (I know, it's been a while) not be a character.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    OldGeezer (profile), 21 Jul 2016 @ 1:57pm

    What will it take for his campaign to implode?

    History is littered with presidential hopefuls that end up with some scandal or just saying something stupid and the next thing you know there is a press conference with them giving some bullshit excuse for dropping out. Trump says something really stupid and rambling incoherently every time he opens his mouth. He has been exposed in numerous lies and his past is so checkered you have to wonder how he is even still a contender. This guy is so Teflon I think he could still be in the race if photos surfaced of him blowing a boy scout. The choice between him and Hillary is like deciding if you want to be executed in the chair or lethal injection.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 21 Jul 2016 @ 2:10pm

      Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?

      It is mind boggling that he has gotten this far. But a part of me almost wants to see Drumpf become prez. It's the same part of me that can't look away from a train about to wreck. And the rational part of me is screaming, "BUT YOU ARE ON THE TRAIN TOO, YOU IDIOT!!!"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John85851 (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 12:03pm

        Re: Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?

        It'll be like the Brexit vote and people will wake up the next day saying:
        Sure I voted for him, but I didn't think he'd get enough votes to win.
        Hmm, maybe I better do a Google search to see what might happen if Trump becomes president. Oh, gee, that looks bad. I probably shouldn't have voted that way. Can we get a do-over?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 21 Jul 2016 @ 3:04pm

      Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?

      Trump's fans view all of his copious faults as strengths. If there were photos of him blowing a boy scout, that would just make them love him all the more.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      BernardoVerda (profile), 21 Jul 2016 @ 9:05pm

      Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?

      That analysis would be so much more reassuring, if Trump hadn't already gotten this far.

      (And if the GOP wasn't mostly falling into line behind him regardless of previous claimed unwillingness to do so. Trump may be running an opportunistic scam -- but a substantial portion of the public seems eager to believe whatever convenient claims and promises he spouts, and overlook the less agreeable, contrary ones... and that's a human proclivity that scammers have long found quite useful.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 4:18am

      Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?

      Trump supporters are just a step above Hillary supporters. Trump is a blowhard. Hillary is an outright disaster waiting to happen. She enriched herself to the tune of $150 million in the last 7 years, much of while she was selling influence in the State Dept. She oversaw the fist killing of an ambassador in decades then lied about the cause of Benghazi. She tried to cover her tracks with an illegal, private email server. She lied about having top secret emails on that server. She dumped 30,000 emails illegally.

      I am not a Trump fan, but I can say that I would take my chances on him before I ever cast a vote for Hillary.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        OldGeezer (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 10:03am

        Re: Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?

        They are both criminals. They both are liars. They both have crazy agendas. Where is Pat Paulsen when we need him? Everyone knew it was a gag when he threw his hat in the ring for several elections. Every time a surprising number of people would write him in as a protest vote. It is unfortunate that he is deceased. Enough voters are disgusted with both choices I think he could get elected this time. I think Trump has some serious psychiatric disorder. He can't possibly be as stupid as he appears. Hillary is very intelligent and that is what makes her dangerous.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Monday (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 11:13am

          Re: Re: Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?

          First, neither are Criminals. @HillaryClinton has email issues, but they are resolved. @realDonaldTrump is still being investigated for Fraud; sued by people he owes substantial monies to; a Sociopath.

          What will it take for [Trump's] Campaign to implode???

          Wait for the debates. That's all there is to it. Just be patient, and wait for these debates to shatter Trump's ego; world, and Family.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 1:13pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?

            HillaryClinton has email issues, but they are resolved.
            In what way have Hillary's criminal "issues" been "resolved"?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              OldGeezer (profile), 23 Jul 2016 @ 12:51am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?

              They haven't been resolved. Hillary was absolved.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Uriel-238 (profile), 23 Jul 2016 @ 1:14am

                Hillary's absolution

                It is the latest clear evidence that the privileges of kings and other feudal lords have been restored -- or equal treatment under law was never established in the first place.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  That One Guy (profile), 23 Jul 2016 @ 8:47am

                  Can't 'restore' what was never lost

                  It's the latter.

                  For all the talk through history about equal treatment under the law and justice being blind, it has always been the case that the scales of 'justice' are influenced by station and/or wealth, the only difference is the extent that the influence applies and that at times it's hidden better.

                  These days, not so much. The facade is paper-thin at best, to the point that only the naive or insanely optimistic expect equal treatment under the law.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Monday (profile), 23 Jul 2016 @ 9:33am

                    Re: Can't 'restore' what was never lost

                    Dr MLK jr; 1967, Massey Lectures. It will never be equal. It will be Improved, simply to stultify, giving the impression Equality through Justice is being achieved, or Justice achievable.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  OldGeezer (profile), 23 Jul 2016 @ 1:53pm

                  Re: Hillary's absolution

                  It's called the golden rule. Whoever has the gold makes the rules.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Aludra, 23 Jul 2016 @ 9:38am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?

                Hillary was absolved.

                Wow. That was one quick trial. I never even heard of it. Could you provide a link, please?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  OldGeezer (profile), 23 Jul 2016 @ 2:09pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?

                  No trial was necessary. If I am charged with a crime I committed and the prosecutor decides not to pursue it doesn't mean I'm any less guilty. I just won't go to court and have a conviction. A prospective employer cannot ask if I have ever been arrested, only if I have been convicted. The end result is no different than an absolution.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Avior, 24 Jul 2016 @ 3:45pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What will it take for his campaign to implode?

                    No trial was necessary. If I am charged with a crime I committed and the prosecutor decides not to pursue it doesn't mean I'm any less guilty.

                    Still, it is not absolution. Based on the publicly revealed evidence, much less the stuff the FBI didn't reveal, I'd say she's guilty as hell. Only an acquittal in a fair trial would convince me otherwise at this point. Too bad she doesn't seem to want her "day in court" to establish her claimed innocence.

                    A prospective employer cannot ask if I have ever been arrested, only if I have been convicted.

                    Prospective landlords and employers alike often ask if an applicant has ever been arrested.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Uriel-238 (profile), 24 Jul 2016 @ 5:26pm

                      The US courts can't be trusted to ajudicate anything.

                      Considering our ridiculous conviction rate in the US, why would you consider an acquittal or a conviction by US courts to be any indicator of anything, except maybe whether or not a suspect has friends in the courts?

                      Would you trust the acquittal of a police officer charged for the murder of a suspect on the field?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Paul Alan Levy (profile), 21 Jul 2016 @ 2:24pm

    What happened to Alan Garten?

    He used to be the signer of the ridiculous letters coming out of Voldemort's Summer Palace. And his LinkedIn page still lists him as Executive Vice President and General Counsel at The Trump Organization https://www.linkedin.com/in/alan-garten-405a1013

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Paul Alan Levy (profile), 21 Jul 2016 @ 2:27pm

    Alan Garten, part 2

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    TDR, 21 Jul 2016 @ 3:33pm

    Yogurt should grab Spaceballs The Flamethrower and turn the Donald into flambe, saying "May the Schwartz be with you!"

    You know, I think I just realized who Trump really is. He's Spaceballs The Politician. Or maybe Spaceballs The Blowhard. If he gets elected, we'll have a real-life President Skroob on our hands. Somebody should check the combination to his luggage—it's probably 1-2-3-4-5.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Jul 2016 @ 3:36pm

    A lawyer named Greenblatt

    My world gets comic-bookier every day.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2016 @ 6:03pm

    There will be little to no oversight in this years elections, I guess we couldn't afford it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2016 @ 10:51pm

    When people say mean things about him, his lawyers tend to go ballistic,

    One might even say that they try......
    *puts on sunglasses*
    To go nuclear

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Catch44, 22 Jul 2016 @ 2:47am

    the ROOT of the problem

    I live on the West Coast, USA.

    um, this stupid book ain't an issue to me. Treason is however. And so far Trump has not commit TREASON like the alternative HAS.

    First off issues for me is Rotten officials in California hate the Constitution, and proved it with their unconstitutional gun control horseshit. Cause I live in California. That's MY ISSUE out here, not the programming propaganda shit you hear on your fucking TV's. This is from the fucking STREET where Reality happens, nobody wants em, mark my words democrats of 30+ years are going to dump that fuckin party--I dumped that fuckin party. There's nothing there anymore. They USED the Gays (gays caught on now -- see milo), just like they fuckin used me, go spend 18 hours a day reading bills, you'll see the fucking land grabbers (shall this be a national monument, shall this be a national park=nogozoneattheendoftheday), the building renamin billz, the immigration vs national security ball dropping, the retarded fracking, problems with military and SEX. The Farm vs Globalist bills, the Water Wars, These fucking Foreign banksters controlling We The People's Currency vs the Senate with the Constitution regulating the Monetary SYSTEM!, it just goes on and on and fuckty on.

    This book flap is simply the latest childish fairy tale hand holding "look over here at this shiny object it's sparkling" we have the story you want to be talking about all day long--by the 30 year experienced drooling progressive snakes who control the public spectrum and flood it with fascist commercial interests and United Nations agenda 2030 turds (hat tip to pbs mission creep), middle finger to FCC POTUS appointee--fire em all and hire engineers to allocate the spectrum in the best way with the goal of the public interest number one.

    I don't see grown-up's talk serious, when there are oath breaking traitors holding office. What specifically do you do to get them the fuck out?

    I am looking for someone who will uphold the Rule of Law, not break it.

    Otherwise, a book isn't going to do shit but be fuel for cooking SHTF beans in the bunker after martial law.
    So How many books do you want to sell me and for how much?

    What you dumbsters who didn't serve in the US is that if you or I lost that fucking data.

    The ACTIONS of government on this were a parting away from the RULE OF LAW.

    That means when you find yourself in ANY situation you must consider yourself already dead, knowing this, only one thing left to do, STOP THE BAD PEOPLE FROM ATTACKING THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS SEND THE DUAL CITIZENS ("israel first") packing the fuck out with their faux US loyalty. and In ISRAEL's case -- RACISM won't work with the RULE OF LAW.

    So yeah, slap trump around and get him on track. Yes' he's the alternative to Hillary's treason, but NO he's probably not the best president because he goes off on shit sometimes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Lord Lidl of Cheem (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 2:49am

    Dear People of the United States of America,

    If you would like to see where all this is heading take a look at whats going on in Turkey right now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 3:27am

    isn't claiming defamation without pointing out what statements are defamation, defamation?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    FM Hilton, 22 Jul 2016 @ 3:32am

    Facts v. lies and truth

    It can all be boiled down to this:

    "Stop telling the truth or else I'll sue you for it!"

    Although it sure would have been fun to have heard from the ghostwriter far earlier in this entire episode-but I'm sure the Trump fan club would have not heard it then, either.

    I fear for this country when such a demagogue is actually considered a viable candidate for the Presidency.

    I thought we'd learned something from the 1930's...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Alwaid, 22 Jul 2016 @ 10:52am

      Re: Facts v. lies and truth

      I thought we'd learned something from the 1930's...

      We learned that winning the war meant that we could get away with being hypocrites.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2016 @ 5:36am

      Re: Facts v. lies and truth

      Germany is great again? What could possiblie go wrong? Trump is the virtue of knowledge and so it should be.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 4:23am

    "...baffling..."

    Only if you fail to understand that Trump is the Antichrist.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Monday (profile), 22 Jul 2016 @ 9:18am

    Dispute? What dispute?

    Mr. Schwartz does not dispute the "fact" concerning
    [set] the record straight about the origin of the Book : Mr. Trump was the source of all of the material in the Book and the inspiration for every word in the Book, you would not have had access to any of the information that appeared in the Book without Mr. Trump.
    ; the records for Schwartz's source is clear. And, it is re-affirmed with that statement by Mr Trump's acrobat Lawyer.

    However, Mr. Schwartz is setting the record straight that he is the Writer of the 'Book', and Trump is not. That's clear English. What I believe Trump's Lawyer states as disloyal, is that Mr. Schwartz did not sign a Release or NDA, and that really pisses Trump off; the truth coming out at election time. It is very much like Ted Cruz's failure to endorse a candidate that has spent countless hours attacking Cruz' family, and Ted Cruz did not follow through on his statement that he would endorse Trump, more disloyalty - in Trump's view. A statement is not a signed document or truly legally binding.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2016 @ 10:22am

    What would a second book be about thought?

    How to have sex with your own daughter AND still be a republican presidential candidate?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jaquar owner, 23 Jul 2016 @ 8:45pm

    Two Posibilities

    There seams to be two possibilities. The ghostwriter is either 1) telling the truth or 2) not telling the truth.

    1) Telling the truth is somewhat hard to believe since no one else has come forward with similar views about Mr. Trump being a "sociopath". It is the Democratic Party that has been spinning this narrative about Mr. Trump. Trumps family, friends, employees, or business associates certainly would be jumping onto this bandwagon if it were true (look what happened to Bill Cosby. The reason I believe much of the hearsay reported about Bill and Hillary Clinton is because multiple source report the same thing. Even after they have denied the hearsay from others, more and more facts seems to come out making it true in my mind.


    2) Not telling the truth is a possibility if the ghostwriter was bought by a Democratic Super Pac or other. The ghostwriter has been quiet since 1987 while he was collecting large royalties and was trying to get more business with Mr. Trump. He was clearly looking to further enrich himself. It is possible that a Super Pac formulated the idea to damage Mr. Trump's image when the ghostwriter first tweeted that "he not Trump had written the book". The tweet was a natural response of any ghostwriter when they see their words being bragged about by the author. I myself have had the very same reaction in a similar situation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 23 Jul 2016 @ 9:56pm

      Re: Two Posibilities

      What is curious is that people aren't saying much about Trump at all, even in the RNC.

      Even his kids.

      Considering that Trump is super sensitive and likes to throw around lawsuits, it's not surprising that there are few stories.

      So far there isn't a single reason to vote for him, except to vote against Hillary. And while I'd be inclined to vote against Hillary, I don't want to do so if it means voting for Trump.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2016 @ 6:56am

      Re: Two Posibilities

      Hahahahaha.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 26 Jul 2016 @ 6:42am

      Re: Two Posibilities

      There seams [sic] to be two possibilities. The ghostwriter is either 1) telling the truth or 2) not telling the truth.

      I'm curious what other conspiracies you believe in. Your post smacks of the mindset, with looking for nefarious hidden motives rather than the obvious and perfectly plausible stated ones. 9/11 was an inside job? Aliens at Roswell? Illuminati?

      It's strange that you would tend to credit Trump, a known blatant and perhaps even pathological liar, over this guy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    pirate, 12 Aug 2016 @ 11:35pm

    LOL

    Funny how Trump was just some weird rich guy until he decided to run against the democrats.
    Now he's everything wrong with the world.
    Hahah how gullible can liberals be?
    Is there any amount of bullshit they won't swallow?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.