Donald Trump Hires Charles Harder To Threaten Steve Bannon With A Lawsuit, Block Publication Of New Book

from the 2018-kicks-off-with-a-bang dept

If you follow political news at all, you probably saw the story yesterday concerning excerpts from Michael Wolff's upcoming book Fire and Fury, in which former Trump "Chief Strategist" Steve Bannon appeared to completely throw Trump under the bus, allegedly saying a bunch of pretty negative things about Trump and his family -- including the headline-making exaggerated opinion that Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort meeting with Russians was "treasonous." Trump quickly responded in kind with one of the most incredible statements you'll see (and that's saying something, given the speaker) which starts out thusly:

Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind. Steve was a staffer who worked for me after I had already won the nomination by defeating seventeen candidates, often described as the most talented field ever assembled in the Republican party.

It goes on. Normally, none of this would be Techdirt-worthy, but late last night, a new twist was added. According to ABC News, President Donald Trump has hired lawyer Charles Harder to threaten Steve Bannon with a lawsuit for defamation, breach of confidentiality and non-disparagement agreements. And, then, this morning, more news broke of another letter, written by Harder, sent to Wolff and the book's publisher, demanding that the book not be published at all -- and that they send Harder a complete copy of the book.

So, let's lay our cards on the table here: the lawyer, Charles Harder, is still the lawyer representing a plaintiff in an ongoing lawsuit against us -- and we've written about many of his other lawsuits, including representing the First Lady, Melania Trump. Not much more needs to be said about him. We're also not huge fans of Steve Bannon. Or Donald Trump. Or, for that matter, of Michael Wolff, who has a long history of... not being very good at his job. So, if you want to accuse us of bias in this post, consider it spread all around.

ABC did not publish a copy of the actual letter Harder sent Bannon, but did extensively quote it, so we can piece together most of the letter. Here are the various excerpts:

"This law firm represents President Donald J. Trump and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. On behalf of our clients, legal notice was issued today to Stephen K. Bannon, that his actions of communicating with author Michael Wolff regarding an upcoming book give rise to numerous legal claims including defamation by libel and slander, and breach of his written confidentiality and non-disparagement agreement with our clients. Legal action is imminent."

"You [Bannon] have breached the Agreement by, among other things, communicating with author Michael Wolff about Mr. Trump, his family members, and the Company, disclosing Confidential Information to Mr. Wolff, and making disparaging statements and in some cases outright defamatory statements to Mr. Wolff about Mr. Trump, his family members, and the Company, knowing that they would be included in Mr. Wolff’s book and publicity surrounding the marketing and sale of his book."

"Remedies for your breach of the agreement include but are not limited to monetary damages, injunctive relief and all other remedies available at law and equity...."

The letter then cites parts of Paragraph 8 of the Agreement: "Consent to Injunction. A breach of any of your promises or agreements under this agreement will cause the Company, Mr. Trump and each other Trump Person irreparable harm. Accordingly, to the extent permitted by law, and without waiving any other rights or remedies against you at law or in equity, you hereby consent to the entry of any order, without prior notice to you, temporarily or permanently enjoining you from violating any of the terms, covenants, agreements or provisions of this agreement on your part to be performed or observed. Such consent is intended to apply to an injunction of any breach or threatened breach."

The "Damages and Other Remedies" part of the Agreement is then cited, "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, each Trump Person will be entitled to all remedies available at law and equity, including but not limited to monetary damages, in the event of your breach of this agreement. Nothing contained in this agreement will constitute a waiver of any Trump Person’s remedies at law or in equity, all of which are expressly reserved."

"Further, as the prevailing party in any litigation arising out of your breach of the Agreement, Mr. Trump and the Company will be entitled to 'an award of reasonable legal fees and costs."

Phew. Donald Trump, of course, has a long history of threatening defamation lawsuits, not all of which actually come to fruition. He has actually sued for defamation a few times -- but not very successfully. Also, I'm not sure Trump or his supporters should be all that excited about the idea of a Trump deposition either. In the past, those haven't always gone well (though I'm sure the media would salivate over such a thing).

Still, having a sitting President sue a former top advisor and former campaign CEO for defamation would be... unusual. Without seeing everything that Wolff has written, nor seeing everything that Bannon has said, it's difficult to know if anything actually reaches the level of defamation -- nor will we speculate one way or the other. Bannon, of course, may not be the most trustworthy narrator -- and there are already reports that Bannon planned to use the book "to settle scores" against people he disagreed with -- such as Jared Kushner. But portraying people negatively, by itself, is not defamation.

So far, most of the comments revealed certainly appear to be statements of opinion not fact. But the full book has not yet been released. We will note, of course, that a pretty long history of US case law (and the good old First Amendment) makes it quite difficult to successfully claim defamation of a public figure -- and there basically is no more public figure right now than Donald Trump. Trump would have to show that Bannon said or wrote false things about Trump, knowing that they were false, or with reckless disregard for the truth. That's not an easy standard to meet but certainly not impossible. I would be very surprised if Bannon went that far, but it's not impossible. And, at least in the excerpted portions in the letter, there does not appear to be an explanation of which statements are actually defamatory and how (which is generally what one does if you're claiming defamation and have an actual basis for such a claim).

Of course, there may be other concerns as well. Some are already raising questions about Wolff's reporting in the book, which could create an interesting wrinkle should a case actually show up:

And, as noted, Wolff has been accused of questionable journalistic techniques in the past, which he denies, including claims that he "invented or changed quotes." So it's hardly surprising that a bunch of articles are popping up digging into Wolff's history as well. That said, Axios is also reporting this morning that Wolff recorded his interviews, so if officials want to claim that he made up their quotes, that may backfire badly.

As for the breach of confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses, those are other issues entirely. It's certainly been reported in the past that the Trump campaign made staffers sign confidentiality agreements which appeared to be quite broad. Whether or not such an agreement is actually enforceable would certainly be an interesting legal question, and one that would be watched quite closely in the courts -- especially seeing as there has been a lot of discussion lately about how non-disclosure agreements were used to silence the victims of sexual assault, and how perhaps such agreements should be made illegal, but nothing's really happened on that front so far.

It does seem worth pointing out that there's a built-in contradiction if Bannon's statements are both defamatory and a confidentiality agreement violation. Because if it's violating confidentiality, well, then that's an admission that it's true and not made up. It's possible that Harder is claiming some statements are defamatory while others breach confidentiality --but it'll be fun determining which ones are which.

So, does Trump (and Harder) have a legitimate case against Bannon? Without seeing the details it's difficult to say for certain. However, either way, I think we can express our strong opinion that merely having the President of the United States feel the need to bring in a lawyer to threaten a lawsuit against his former top strategist over some negative things said in a book... is a really bad look. It's no secret that our President appears to have an extremely thin skin when it comes to criticism. Threatening lawsuits certainly doesn't help change that impression.

As for getting Wolff and publisher Henry Holt & Co. to stop publishing the book entirely? That seems extraordinarily unlikely to happen. The book has already been distributed to bookstores, and getting a judge to order the publication to stop would be clear prior restraint and an absolute violation of the First Amendment. And, for Wolff and the publisher, you have to imagine that they're loving the threat for all the free advertising it's providing. There's a term for that, I think. On top of that, I'd argue that the President of the US demanding an entire book not be published is even more ridiculous than threatening Bannon with a defamation lawsuit. Banning books is most certainly not something the President should be doing and is an affront to the First Amendment. But, of course, Donald Trump has a long history of attacking the First Amendment, so perhaps it's not a surprise.

Many may argue that the threats alone may be the point of all of this. Threatening (or even suing) Bannon for saying mean things after leaving the White House may be intended more as a message to other Trump White House staffers (past, present and future) to shut the fuck up, rather than talk to the press. Historically, trying to enforce a code of silence in this manner doesn't tend to work well. It is likely to only lead to more leaking and more talking to the press -- though perhaps with less willingness to put names on the quotes. And, on top of that, threatening the publisher and author seem only likely to interest more authors in writing about the Trump White House in hopes of a similar "free advertising" blitz from the President and his lawyers.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 9:34am

    Okay, but her emails, though.

    /s

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

    • identicon
      David, 4 Jan 2018 @ 11:21am

      Re:

      Benghazi?

      At any rate, where is the problem in suing simultaneously for defamation and breach of confidentiality? That's the essence of our president's core nemesis, fake news. Defamation for "fake", breach of confidentiality for "news".

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

      • icon
        Roger Strong (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 11:34am

        Re: Re:

        That's the essence of our president's core nemesis, fake news.

        His nemesis is proper journalism. Declaring it "fake news" is his defence tactic.

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

      • icon
        The Wanderer (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 12:05pm

        Re: Re:

        Interestingly, I saw a piece recently (I believe in the Washington Post) which argued that he may have gotten the term "fake news" from Hillary Clinton's use of it (in a different and more traditional sense) a few weeks earlier, post-Election-Day, and simply decided to co-opt it for his own use and his own Humpty-Dumpty meaning.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2018 @ 12:56pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes, most of the nominal left seems to have forgotten that we were the ones who invented the term "fake news" and began fearmongering about it, long before it ever graced the grand idiot's lips. *Some* of us had the foresight to warn that it was a dangerous term that would be instantly co-opted by anyone and everyone who wanted to delegitimize any news they don't like whether it is truly "fake" or not. We were mocked...

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

        • identicon
          Thad, 4 Jan 2018 @ 2:28pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The phrase "fake news" was all over the major media in the weeks following the election, referring specifically to fraudulent sites with completely fabricated stories designed to look like news sites.

          Trump co-opted it to use it as a term of derision for news media he doesn't like. His claim to have invented the term "fake news" is as accurate as his claim to have invented the term "tax cuts".

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2018 @ 9:21am

      Re:

      A simple change to IRV would give a shot at breaking the 2 party "them or us" crap that has gotten things to where they are.

      Because both options in a 2 choice system can suck.

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

      • icon
        The Wanderer (profile), 5 Jan 2018 @ 1:23pm

        Re: Re:

        The ranked-preference voting system which is most comonly meant by the shorthand of "IRV" actually is fairly bad as ranked-preference systems go; it does have the advantage that it's simpler and easier to explain than most of the better ones, but it only changes the structure of the strategic-voting gaming-the-system incentives, it doesn't eliminate them entirely.

        To eliminate those incentives (and the "spoiler effect") entirely, you need the Condorcet method, or something else that satisfies the Condorcet criteria.

        (Those methods do have the downside that they still leave open the possibility of a "true tie", in which every candidate beats at least one other but is beaten by at least one other. IMO, however, that sort of tie simply means that the electorate really is so evenly split that there really is no "candidate preferred by the majority" - in which case there's no reason not to break the tie by random draw.)

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

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 9:38am

    Tis a bad lawyer who doesn't explain discovery to his client.

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

  • icon
    Wryhta (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 9:42am

    I'd have thought the last thing Trump would want is the possibility of having to testify under oath, something the defense team would certainly demand.

    I can't see this going anywhere.

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

    • identicon
      David, 4 Jan 2018 @ 12:58pm

      Re:

      I call triple P: punishment for perjury is for peons.

      Besides, I don't think Trump is able of telling wittingly either truth or untruth. That requires a grasp of reality.

      Testifying under oath would not make a difference for him I think. He is telling his personal truth either way. It's just that he can afford a much more significantly personalized truth than most others.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2018 @ 10:09am

    I love how the term the Company is used instead of the Office or other such words. Does Trump think he is the CEO of a company with absolute power instead of a president of a country?

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

    • icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 11:50am

      Re:

      I'm pretty sure he still thinks he's starring in a reality TV show.

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

    • icon
      The Wanderer (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 12:07pm

      Re:

      When that agreement was drafted and signed, Trump almost certainly wasn't President yet. The "Company" being referred to is probably the Trump Organization, i.e. the umbrella under which all of the Trump family's properties operate and those individual properties, collectively.

      Trump would be more likely to care about damage to that Company than to the office of the President, or to the USA, anyway.

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

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 10:09am

    Breach of Confidentiality?

    Huh.

    I didn't think it was possible to have a lower opinion of Trump's National Security Advisor choices.

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

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 10:15am

    The point is that it could be expensive to defend

    I think the last paragraph sums up the real reason for this case: Trump and Harder are filing a legal threat with the assumption that the case will be very expensive to defend against. And since it's too expensive to defend, the publisher will simply give into the demands.

    Trump doesn't want this to go to court and have to give a deposition over whether the alleged defamation statements are true or not. And how would it look if a sitting US president was giving testimony in a libel case to block the sale of a book? Then again, I doubt Trump cares about his image as long as he thinks he's "winning".

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 2:18pm

      Re: The point is that it could be expensive to defend

      Quite possibly, however you can bet that the publisher would be weighing whether the PR boost for the book from being sued by the President of the US would outweigh the costs of defending themselves in court.

      (Not to mention, as several people have pointed out, there's good odds that if push comes to shove Trump will back down rather than face discovery in court, which could go really badly for him. It's one thing to claim that someone is lying, another entirely to be legally required to back that up and give them the opportunity to place their evidence into the record.)

      You can't pay for that kind of PR, so it might be worth the legal fees to stick to their guns.

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

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 10:21am

    Who could have predicted that the Trump gang would dissolve into animosity, infighting and litigation? That's like predicting that the target market for fidget spinners would have lost interest in them so quickly.

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

  • identicon
    ryuugami, 4 Jan 2018 @ 10:21am

    Fact or fiction

    So far, most of the comments revealed certainly appear to be statements of opinion not fact.

    However, we're talking about people who repeatedly claimed that opinions are facts, so they're probably not entirely clear on the "subtle" differences between the two.

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

  • icon
    Ed (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 10:22am

    This national embarrassment just keeps getting worse and worse with every day (tweet?).

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2018 @ 10:46am

    Paging Hamilton, now paging Hamilton to the white courtesy forum form.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2018 @ 2:50pm

      Re:

      This site has gone so far downhill in the last few months that I don’t even dream about it any more. Sad. There’s not enough wit or intelligent sarcasm to bother responding to the drivel posted. Pathetic. Not worth my time. Or energy. Even in my dreams. Right, Tonto? Right, Kimosabee. Leave them be, we have sacred arrowheads to gather for coming of the next full moon ceremony celebrating the death and extinction of Masnick’s honor and nobility, now gone forever, leaving only dust scattered far and wide over this graveyard where good ideas and insightful comments are buried under nameless headstones by fearful morons.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2018 @ 7:12pm

        Re: Re:

        A parody so fantastic, it earned its own report vote.

        (In the event this is the real Hamilton, it's hilarious that you'd crawl back to a website you don't dream about.)

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2018 @ 10:54am

    "built-in contradiction"

    "there's a built-in contradiction if Bannon's statements are both defamatory and a confidentiality agreement violation."

    Not really. "Embellished truth" would fit both categories. That's generally how defamation works, taking the worst (truthful) things about a person and exaggerating, distorting, and expanding them into a narrative that as a whole could be considered basically false while containing elements of truth -- or -- basically true while containing elements of falsehood.

    Why does this even need to be explained? Hasn't everyone experienced this sort of thing from Kindergarten onward?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2018 @ 11:50am

      Re: "built-in contradiction"

      That is not at all how defamation works.

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

      • icon
        The Wanderer (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 12:15pm

        Re: Re: "built-in contradiction"

        The trouble is that there's a colloquial meaning of "defamation", and then there's the meaning the term has under the law, and the former is very much broader than the latter.

        One part of the definition from gcide is simply "the wrong of maliciously injuring the good name of another", with no reference to truth or falsity about it, and I think that's probably reasonably close to the colloquial meaning of the term.

        Attempting to apply the penalties provided under the law for the law's definition, but using the colloquial definition, would be so excessively restrictive as to violate the First Amendment - and so the law isn't going to be expanded to use the colloquial definition any time soon, if ever.

        It might be possible to combine broadening the definition of defamation to the colloquial one with reducing the penalties to something that doesn't result in violation of the First Amendment - but the end result would be penalties so weak that they would not remotely satisfy someone who'd be likely to sue for defamation in the first place, so that's not likely to happen either.

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

        • identicon
          David, 4 Jan 2018 @ 1:26pm

          Re: Re: Re: "built-in contradiction"

          One part of the definition from gcide is simply "the wrong of maliciously injuring the good name of another",

          You can't maliciously injure a dead horse no matter how hard you beat it.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2018 @ 11:09am

    So at what point does any of this become an impeachable offense?

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

  • identicon
    Anon, 4 Jan 2018 @ 11:10am

    Injunctive Relief?

    Why would trumptard be able to sue the publisher or Wolff anyway? The agreement was with Bannon. This is not Bannon's book, so Bannon has no option now to halt it. The problem occurred when Bannon talked t Wolff. Now the cat/hairpiece is out of the bag - Bannon can't sign away Wolff's or the publisher's rights. The NDA does not apply.

    So the only issue is libel. As mentioned, the bar for a public figure is high... very high. Unless Wolff said (not Bannon) "I'm gonna get that bastard!" how do you prove malicious intent?

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

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 11:31am

      Re: Injunctive Relief?

      Why would trumptard be able to sue the publisher or Wolff anyway? The agreement was with Bannon.

      Bannon was the Trump White House's Karl Rove, in on all the secrets. He was part of the National Security Council. He could do more damage than Chelsea Manning or even Edward Snowden

      Should he spill secrets in his book, that would put the publisher in the same position as WikiLeaks and Wolff in the same position as Julian Assange.

      That's mostly at the discretion of the President, but he's not widely known for discretion.

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

      • identicon
        ANON, 4 Jan 2018 @ 9:54pm

        Re: Re: Injunctive Relief?

        Violation of the official secrets act would be a criminal offense, not a civil lawsuit. Any injunction related to that would be brought by the Attorney General on behalf of the government. Plus, that would be over officially classified material (like where the missiles are hidden) not over the president's illiteracy or cheeseburger addiction.

        There is no suggestion that anything in this book rises to the level of official state secret.

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

    • icon
      Matthew Cline (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 2:59pm

      Re: Injunctive Relief?

      Why would trumptard be able to sue the publisher or Wolff anyway?

      The threat letter claims that Wolff encouraged annon to break his NDA, thus tortious interference with a contract.

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

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 11:10am

    Fascism or Totalitarianism?

    I can't decide if this is an example of modern-day fascism or totalitarianism.

    In the old days, dictators could keep control by saying "If you talk bad about me, I'll send you to the gulag".
    Now, dictators say "If you talk bad about me, I'll sue you and family for so much money that you'll go bankrupt just thinking about it."
    Either way, the effect is the same: people are afraid of talking bad because they fear the consequences.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2018 @ 11:14am

    Historically, trying to enforce a code of silence in this manner doesn't tend to work well. It is likely to only lead to more leaking and more talking to the press -- though perhaps with less willingness to put names on the quotes.

    In other words: The more you tighten your grip, Trump, the more confidential information will leak through your fingers.

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

  • identicon
    J.R., 4 Jan 2018 @ 11:18am

    Poor Things...

    Poor Trumpty-Dumbty et al. my heart pumps purple coolaide for them ... sniffle

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2018 @ 11:26am

    Bully is as bully does. Hail to the bully in chief - and I don't mean Teddy Roosevelt.

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

  • identicon
    Christenson, 4 Jan 2018 @ 11:30am

    Banned in Boston? lol

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2018 @ 11:30am

    The only thing that surprises me about this whole situation is that it has taken this long to occur.

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

  • icon
    TheResidentSkeptic (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 11:34am

    I am so happy...

    ... that I got tins of flavored popcorn for Christmas.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2018 @ 11:54am

    Too late

    The book has shipped and some stores are already selling it.

    The next lawsuit will require anyone that has read it to get a lobotomy at their own expense.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2018 @ 3:26pm

      Re: Too late

      This ongoing saga is going to require the use of mass mind bleach when the whole book is out there for all to see.
      Let's see which Corporation rises to the challenge for that!

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

  • icon
    dave blevins (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 11:57am

    Those who don't know history ...

    ... or in this case, are mostly totally ignorant, will do a "Streisand" (big time).

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2018 @ 1:25pm

    Thanks Mike. I came here when I saw this story on another site. I knew your coverage would be good. I didn't realise that Harder is the same lawyer hired to go after you guys.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2018 @ 1:49pm

    If at first you don't succeed,

    try Harder(tm)

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

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 2:00pm

    Charles Harder: "When you have absolutely no case, I'll take it anyway."

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

  • icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 2:37pm

    "Trump Person"

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2018 @ 4:08pm

    Even if the contents of the book are not presented as statements of opinion, Bannon could just argue they are alternative facts, no?

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

  • identicon
    Rex Banner, 4 Jan 2018 @ 4:17pm

    Ban on Bannon? Ban ON!

    Bestest buds before, but bruised bromance broken. Bush-basher Benedictine Biosphere Breitbart boutique banker book bid business bigoted? Begorrah!

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

  • icon
    SteveMB (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 7:58pm

    Is Even Trumplethinskin That Stupid?

    If he sues for defamation, he leaves himself and his whole crew open to subpoenas digging for evidence that Bannon's statements aren't defamatory because they're true.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 8:11pm

      Re: Is Even Trumplethinskin That Stupid?

      He'll run away before it reaches that point, until then however the threat of a lawsuit and the costs involved are now things that the target has to worry about, possibly causing them to fold before it comes to that.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2018 @ 10:32pm

      Re: Is Even Trumplethinskin That Stupid?

      Well, consider that Shiva Ayyadurai hired Charles Harder...

      On the other hand, "Hamilton" can write that fanfiction he's always wanted!

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

    • identicon
      Thad, 5 Jan 2018 @ 9:19am

      Re: Is Even Trumplethinskin That Stupid?

      I suspect it's a bluff and he doesn't really intend to sue (much like Harder's threats on behalf of Harvey Weinstein a few months ago).

      That said, I wouldn't put money on it. I would never bet against Trump doing something impulsive and against his own interest because he was mad over a petty slight.

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

  • icon
    Drew_Wilson (profile), 4 Jan 2018 @ 10:11pm

    The Book Is Getting Published Early

    Looks like the publisher laughed at the lawsuit and moved up the publication date by four days in response to the threat. source

    Rage tweeting in 3... 2... 1...

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

  • identicon
    JustSomeGuy, 5 Jan 2018 @ 2:14am

    "disclosing Confidential Information to Mr. Wolff"? I don't think there's anything confidential about the current US president being mentally deficient :-)

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2018 @ 3:51am

    A lost opportunity

    Trump should have come out with a tweet immediately after the NYMag article and said, "yeah, I really didn't want to win the election. I just had a bet going for $50 that I could get more than 10% in the Repub primary." And sit back with a tub of popcorn and watch the deranged left's heads explode.

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

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 5 Jan 2018 @ 4:04am

    The funniest part of this is the almost absence of Trump trolls. If they can't say "What about [Hillary, Obama, whatever not related but certainly partisan]?" to divert attention they have nothing.

    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
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
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.