• SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      86
      ·
      1 year ago

      Legally, no. You cannot use an NDA to force someone to help you cover your a crime. That’s illegal.

      What it might do is get people to come forward, because the threat of the NDA was perceived as real.

      Most noncompete agreements are also illegal and unenforceable but if people follow them without seeking advice, they’re doing what the employer intended them to do.

      When I had to sign a non-compete as a requirement to accept a job I thought I wanted, my lawyer’s advice was to just sign it because it was completely unenforceable. He said to basically sign it and forget about it.

      I’ve never understood how a Trump NDA as something agreed to by members of the US government would have any teeth whatsoever. Any NDA I signed as an employee of the government was between me and the government. I couldn’t imagine my manager making me sign one with him personally.

      • Techmaster@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        You cannot use an NDA to force someone to help you cover your a crime. That’s illegal.

        So there’s a 0% chance that Trump would ever do something like that.

        • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          The thing is that the people who make you sign the agreement want you to think it’s enforceable. It simply isn’t.

          There was a case where the big Silicon Valley companies entered into a mutual agreement to not only have their employees sign non-competes, but colluded to not hire each other’s employees. They were sued and lost, and everyone working for them at the time got a check.

          I’ve signed the NDAs that will get you an orange jumpsuit if you break them. Those are the ones written by places like the DoD. Some Trump lawyer saying you must cover up a crime because of a personal NDA you signed with him as President would have absolutely zero effect on my testifying, because it has no legal basis for enforcement.

          • Techmaster@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you seriously think he would consult with a court before making one of his employees sign an NDA?

              • Techmaster@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                That’s not how NDAs work. You make your employees sign them and then they’re afraid to do or say anything that might provoke you into suing them, regardless of whether it’ll even hold up in court. It’s all about intimidation.

      • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        1 year ago

        But if they didn’t come forward because of the NDA, that would open up info that the prosecutors maybe didn’t know about. They wouldn’t know to legally compel them to do so. Just conjecture on my part.

        • FraidyBear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think this is where discovery comes in but I’m not a lawyer so I’m shaky on the process. My understanding is that the two parties have to give over certain information to each other like who the witnesses are and evidence that will be used in the trial. So even if they did have an NDA there is still the possibility of the prosecutors being able to question them in a trial, if they were handed over during discovery as witnesses. If there’s a lawyer or someone more knowledgeable about trial law lurking around that can correct me if I’m wrong please do!

      • Schmuppes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wasn’t there the theory that he was so friendly with Putin because they have video footage of him getting peed on by Moscow hookers?

      • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nothing in this article mentioned that. Unless I missed it too.

        So this is just some guy on the Internet spewing bs at this point.

        • ButtDrugs@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wasn’t there like a testimony from an FBI guy about the pee tapes or something though? I think there was no hard evidence, but the pee tapes at least have to some plausibility.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            The rumour was that Russia had a video of him getting peed on by prostitutes in Sweden or something. Russia likes to motivate with sticks, even when they dangle a carrot, so if (hah) Russia were involved it stands to reason they’d have something to leverage him with.

  • RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Congratulations to Jessica Denson!

    This has been years in the making. We’re going to see a shitload more reports (and books) of how incredibly fucked the entire campaigns and administration was under that orange fuckwit.

  • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    NDAs are the biggest crock of shit ever and should be made universally null and void, yes, even in cases where they’re valid. What the fuck is the point of having freedom of speech if someone can just coerce/threaten/force you to into signing it away?

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think there is an argument to keep them for things like products in development phases to stop people from blabbing to possible competitors, but this particular situation is bullshit.

    • wanderingmagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Technically a Page 13 in a government/military setting is an NDA. Now in your ideal world, sure, you’d never need to keep secrets, but in the real world, you probably don’t want a potential invader to know your exact defense systems, capabilities, guard locations and the best and least guarded places to come in and out.

      Even assuming a completely peaceful world, you probably don’t want to be sharing the passwords to critical infrastructure or the private medical information of people on a hospital database.

        • wanderingmagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not just the US military - any military. Plus the designs for nuclear weapons, bioweapons and chemical weapons becoming public knowledge. How would you like some plague and radiation for breakfast, white phosphorus for lunch, and then nerve gas for dinner?

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think white phosphorus manufacturing is pretty open knowledge or atleast the most baic form of manufacturing, its just that its so volatile that generally speaking its not worth it.

            Same with nerve agents, ya basically need it on an industrial scale to be effective. Remember that cult in Japan who gassed the subway, they also did the same thing with trucks its just that it diluted and was blown away that only a handful of people died and most got a bad headache at worst.