Trump’s lawyers send cease-and-desist letter to Bannon

Trump’s lawyers send cease-and-desist letter to BannonPresident Trump used to have kind words for his former chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, but things changed with his scathing statement on Jan. 3. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

By Carol D. Leonnig and Josh Dawsey January 3 at 11:13 PM

Lawyers for President Trump sent a cease-and-desist letter to Trump’s former senior strategist Stephen K. Bannon, arguing he had violated a non-disclosure agreement in speaking about his time on the campaign and in Trump’s most trusted inner circle.

In a letter sent Wednesday night, Trump’s lawyers told Bannon his comments to author Michael Wolff in a soon-to-be-released tell-all book violate Bannon’s employment agreement that he signed with the Trump Organization in numerous ways and also likely defamed the president. They ordered that he stop communicating either confidential and or disparaging information, and preserve all records in preparation for “imminent” legal action.

“You 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,” read the letter from lawyer Charles Harder.

In a statement late Wednesday, Harder said Bannon’s expansive comments about Trump and his family to Wolff expose him 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.”

A representative for Bannon had no immediate comment on the letter.Trump is described as being enraged at Wolff’s new book, “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” that describes him as not prepared to be president, poorly informed about the basics of governing and ridiculed at times behind his back.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.18f048c82131

It's such a shame that Bannon would invite someone like Michael Wolff into the White House to interview on protected government activities and events. It sounds like when it wasn't juicy enough or interesting enough, the author made up stuff. What was Bannon's point or purpose in doing that??

UPDATE
The publication of a forthcoming tell-all book about the White House is being rushed so it will go on sale Friday, despite President Trump's legal team demanding an immediate halt to its publication.

Oh good, get it out there fast so the White Houses can get full copies of it as soon as possible.

Trump Lawsuit Over White House Book 'Nonstarter,' Legal Experts Say

Yeah, I think it's very difficult to file a lawsuit until after the book has been published and the harm caused. I personally don't think it's going to harm the President or Don Jr. It's going to harm the people who actually spoke to Wolff, like Steve Bannon.

http://a57.foxnews.com/hp.foxnews.co...de3a8cd4be.jpgRUSH TO THE SHELVES

White House tell-all to hit bookshelves early, as publisher defies Trump demand

• Should liberal media trust Michael Wolff’s explosive, anti-Trump book?
• Bannon-backed candidates distance themselves over Wolff book
• White House has strong words for 'pathetic' Michael Wolff book
• Trump demands publisher stop release of book that caused Bannon fallout
• Coulter: Bannon's comments on the Trump Tower meeting 'completely insane'
• Scaramucci: Author's claim that Trump didn't want to win election is 'nonsense'
• Gorka: Wolff book is full of 'inaccuracies and lies'
• Karl Rove: Steve Bannon has marginalized himself

Why Trump can't stop 'Fire and Fury'

By Paul Callan
Updated 7:42 AM ET, Fri January 5, 2018

(CNN)While the East Coast was being pounded Thursday by a brutal winter storm, President Donald Trump's latest lawyer, Charles Harder, tossed a "bomb cyclone" of his own into the news cycle.

Harder, who helped put the website Gawker into bankruptcy for its unauthorized publication of a Hulk Hogan sex tape, entered the arena issuing "cease and desist" threats to Michael Wolff, author of "Fire & Fury," the highly unflattering Trump tome, the book's publisher and former Trump chief strategist, Steve Bannon.

Harder previously represented first lady Melania Trump in her defamation lawsuit against the Daily Mail, which resulted in an apology and, according to the Associated Press, a settlement of about $2.9 million.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/asset...m-plus-169.jpg

Steve Bannon may just be right


Harder's threat letter poses a greater risk to Bannon than the truly empty threat of a defamation-related lawsuit naming Wolff and his publishers. The Harder cease and desist letter refers to a "non-disparagement" agreement that was allegedly signed by Bannon during the Trump campaign prohibiting him from "disparaging Mr. Trump, or any of his family members, or any of their businesses, or the campaign." No such agreement would stop Wolff and his publisher from distributing a book quoting Bannon's remarks.

Bannon might quite reasonably assert that such an agreement cannot bind him now as his derogatory references to Trump insiders in the Wolff book focused on the period of the Trump presidency rather than that of the Trump campaign.

After the inauguration, Bannon became a federal employee working as "special counselor to the President" and as such he will claim that he is not bound by an earlier, private sector employment agreement relating to the campaign. He could also assert the First Amendment right of free speech, permitting him to comment on activities that occurred while he worked in the Trump White House.

Any Bannon criticism of the Trump campaign, however, might be fair game for Trump to use in a lawsuit against him, depending on the precise wording of the non-disparagement agreement. Proving damages would be extremely difficult because the President and his family have already been subjected to such an enormous volume of disparaging criticism in the rough and tumble of presidential politics that it would be almost impossible to isolate the impact of Bannon's nasty comments in the Wolff book.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/asset...m-plus-169.jpg

Nothing affects Trump more than what people say about him


Bannon, therefore, would likely win any lawsuit arising from a campaign non-disparagement agreement signed by him. On the other hand, Bannon might even have a counterclaim against the President, who referred to him as "out of his mind."

Proving a defamation-related lawsuit against Michael Wolff and his publishers would be even more difficult. To win such a case the President must establish that false and defamatory material about the President was published in Wolff's book and that both Wolff and his publishers acted with "actual malice" in publishing the material. This requirement, established in the famous case of New York Times vs. Sullivan, often makes lawsuits filed by public figures impossible to win.

As with the Bannon "disparagement" claim, proof of identifiable damages traceable to Wolff's book would pose yet another insurmountable challenge in a Trump defamation lawsuit. (The publisher is putting the book on sale four days early in light of the anticipated demand for its explosive revelations.)

The President's criminal lawyers will also warn him that any record created in such a defamation trial could be used against the President in criminal or impeachment proceedings. Wolff's attorneys would also be able to take a deposition of the President, possibly asking embarrassing questions related to the inner workings of the White House and about how the President claims his reputation was damaged by the book.

President Bill Clinton's false answer under oath during a deposition in the Paula Jones civil case resulted in one of the charges lodged against Clinton in his impeachment proceedings. Testifying under oath is always risky for a sitting president.

Under these circumstances, the risk to the President would be so great that it is likely that Harder's "cease and desist" letter is no more than the bully bluster used so often by the President in his former life in the real estate industry. But using this tactic from the Oval Office is far more dangerous than from Trump Tower.

Even Hulk Hogan's lawyer can't body slam the fire and fury of Michael Wolff's book -- or Steve Bannon's disdain.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/04/opinio...lan/index.html