Given the obviously controversial nature of President Donald Trump, we have been hearing quite a bit lately about former employees and supposed confidantes betraying him publicly.
Well, let’s clarify before we get dinged by the “fact checkers”: Publicly, we are hearing about some pretty nasty betrayal by his former acquaintances.
First there was Michael Cohen, a former lawyer for the President, who has found himself nuzzling up next to Robert Mueller in recent months, who revealed that he had made secret audio recordings of the President. These tapes were presumably made in hopes of catching some bombshell or ammunition for those willing to pay top dollar for such a thing.
The second was former The Apprentice star and White House Aide Omarosa Manigault -Newman, whose allegations were far more damning.
And, despite how hard we try, who can forget Stormy Daniels; the aging porn star whose “Make America Horny Again Tour” was figuratively financed by CNN’s absurd coverage of her sideshow stunt of an allegation against Donald Trump.
In all of these cases of utter betrayal, confidentiality seems to be a central issue. For Cohen, we have to examine the idea of attorney-client privilege. In the cases of Omarosa and Stormy, the President’s lawyers had drawn up non-disclosure agreements, (NDA’s), that should have prevented such frivolous publication of these accusations.
It looks, now, as though the President will be forced to fight for his NDA’s in court.
A judge in New York has ruled that a confidentiality agreement between the Trump campaign and a former staffer is limited in scope, a decision that could have potential ramifications for other non-disclosure agreements signed by former Trump staffers.
In a ruling in the case of Jessica Denton, a former Trump campaign staffer who filed a lawsuit last year alleging sexual discrimination and harassment while working for the campaign, the judge ruled that Denton’s harassment claim was not subject to out-of-court arbitration under the agreement.
And what does this mean, exactly?
Due to the wording of the agreement, it appeared only disputes over the agreement itself and a few other prohibited behaviors were subject to arbitration, Judge Arlene Bluth wrote, according to Yahoo! News.
“As an initial matter, the Court observes that the arbitration clause confines arbitration to ‘any dispute arising under or relating to this agreement,’” Bluth reportedly wrote. “It does not require arbitration for any ‘dispute between the parties’ or even ‘any dispute arising out of plaintiff’s employment.’”
“There is simply no way to construe this arbitration clause in this agreement to prevent … pursuing harassment claims in court,” she added.
Manigault-Newman’s case will almost certainly be impacted by this ruling, as lawyers for Donald Trump have already begun filings against accusations made in her recently released book about her time in the White House.