Posted on 04/05/2016 3:49:05 AM PDT by markomalley
(snip)
RC: And one thing I always wondered, are you going to make employees of the federal government sign nondisclosure agreements?
DT: I think they should. You know, when somebody — and I see it all the time. . . . And I don’t know, there could be some kind of a law that you can’t do this. But when people are chosen by a man to go into government at high levels and then they leave government and they write a book about a man and say a lot of things that were really guarded and personal, I don’t like that. I mean, I’ll be honest. And people would say, oh, that’s terrible, you’re taking away his right to free speech. Well, he’s going in. . . . I would say . . . I do have nondisclosure deals. That’s why you don’t read that. . . .
(snip)
RC: But you are recommending nondisclosure...
DT: And I tell you this, I will have to think about it. I will have to think about it. That’s a different thing, that I’m running a private company and I’m paying people lots of money, and then they go out and...
BW: The taxpayers are paying the other people in the federal government.
DT: Sure. Sure. They don’t do a great job, and then you fire them and they end up writing a book about you. So it’s different. But I will say that in the federal government it’s a different thing. So it’s something I would think about. But you know, I do right now — I have thousands and thousands of employees, many thousands, and every one of them has an agreement, has a . . . I call it a confidentiality . . . .
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
To point out: feds do have to sign nondisclosure agreements already. The agreement is on SF 312. But that nondisclosure covers classified information. I tend to think that the Donald wants a far more all-encompassing NDA to be signed.
One might want to defend this in the case of a Trump presidency, but, would you feel comfortable with such a wide-reaching NDA being signed by employees of the Obama Admin or the Clinton Admin? That would virtually eliminate the possibility of whistle blowers.
This is the terrible thing about Donald Trump: He actually answers questions from journalists as if he were just talking to regular folks! Here is a prime example. Robert Costa obviously had some kind of agenda in bringing this up. Donald Trump give his first impression, then says he will have to think about it, and then Costa starts to argue with what Donald Trump is thinking about out loud. This is not Presidential!
I’d rather know that he’s giving it dome thought than to regurgitate some gobbledygook political-speak talking points like most do.
“This is not Presidential!”
Yup. Big problem many here have with DT — how often he rookies it.
It’s one thing with a media mouth, quite another wit a major goods supplier of nuke arsenal owner.
A general, overarching NDA for gov employees? Ummm...NO!
Whistleblowing would be unaffected.
the guy never ran for office.
Granted, he needs to pick up the learning curve faster, but he says what he is honestly thinking.
Wrong or right, what a refreshing change.
This is the terrible thing about Donald Trump: He actually answers questions from journalists as if he were just talking to regular folks! Here is a prime example. Robert Costa obviously had some kind of agenda in bringing this up. Donald Trump give his first impression, then says he will have to think about it, and then Costa starts to argue with what Donald Trump is thinking about out loud. This is not Presidential!
_____________________________
Totally agree. I think Trump is unwilling to admit when he doesn’t know something or hasn’t thought something through. I wish he would just stick to the big picture “Make America Great Again” theme and pound away at the half dozen points instead of fumble and bumble through the interviewers’ agenda-driven gotcha questions. Also, why does he continue to talk to MSNBC, NY Times, and Wash Post??!?
He seems to have forgotten, where Trump is concerned, the media are “THE ENEMY”.
NDAs can be subordinated in a court of law to public disclosure or kept under seal.
Attorney-client privilege is not held to an NDA outside of it.
Most every whistle-blower is represented by an attorney. An attorney will petition the court to admit material otherwise subject to an NDA.
In other words, there’s no problem.
In other words again, an NDA is not binding when unlawful behavior or actions are involved.
This much is true; Donald HATES liars. He can’t stand them; me neither. But there are clear liars, there are those that ‘fudge beyond reason’, there are those that are confused, there are those who are not bright but are led to lie by those that know better (media scumbags). So it is difficult to set policy to punish the scumbags in general.
When it comes to liars affecting national security, my view is a rope, a tree and a horse. I can bet Donald is of similar persuasion.
Wrong or right, what a refreshing change.
Not really refreshing......he doesn’t know what he’s doing.
Would Donald trump hire someone that didn’t know what he was doing?
> “Would Donald trump hire someone that didn’t know what he was doing?”
No, of course not. He would hire some nobody on the Internet who knows everything, knows all, and knows how to do everything, and who also says Donald doesn’t know what he’s doing. Yes, that’s it! Problem solved.
Was there ever this kind of in depth interview done with Obama when he was running in 2008, so we could be privy to all he didn’t know?
Even if they did, this endorsement of a black box government where the people have no right to look inside would be offensive. This is a man who expresses admiration for the Chinese government's actions in Tiannenmen Square.
For the life of me, I cannot understand his appeal to people who used to consider themselves small government constitutional conservative.
No, of course not. He would hire some nobody on the Internet who knows everything, knows all, and knows how to do everything, and who also says Donald doesn’t know what he’s doing. Yes, that’s it! Problem solved.
That’s why I’m not running....its not a secret that he is clueless
You mean like pushing John Robert for SCOTUS? Cruz helped us get a great one there.
http://spectator.org/articles/65968/what-happened-%E2%80%98politically-incorrect%E2%80%99-donald-trump
Of course you’re not running. You know it all, right? Right.
I actually prefer his genuine ‘faux pas’ to any of the fake bullsh*t of others, including the know-it-allskis on this thread.
Of course you’re not running. You know it all, right? Right.
_________________
more than Trump? yes...most people do
It’s hilarious to me that you’re thrilled to finally have a candidate who proudly exposes his ignorance on the important issues of governance. If that’s what you’ve always been looking for in a candidate I can understand why you’re so happy with Candidate McDreamy.
> “It’s hilarious to me that you’re thrilled to finally have a candidate who proudly exposes his ignorance on the important issues of governance.”
Ignorance, ...uh-huh.
Important issues of governance eh?
Yes, of course as you are all-knowing and all-seeing. perhaps you can enlighten the thread on YOUR VIEW of ‘important issues of governance’? Yeah? Can you do it?
Consider starting with banking. How would you go about investigating the effects of central banking? Can you enlighten the thread on that? Can you?
Oh yes, you’re not running but you are able to criticize others about ‘important issues of governance’, so it follows that you are more expert than those you call ignorant.
So let’s have it. Let’s hear your thesis summary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.