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!
Whistleblowing would be unaffected.
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.
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.
Listening to Donald Trump is bad.
Reading a transcript of what he actually says is ... scary.