Trump lawyers try to halt book's release as White House fights to contain firestorm

a reply to: antiantonym

Lawyers for Donald Trump moved on Thursday to try to shut down the explosive new book which has exposed the chaos behind the scenes at the White House.

Yeah, no. Prior restraint and all, which is generally an unconstitutional suppression of speech.

Trying to suppress speech the President doesn't like—because it's about him and hurts his feelings, the poor snowflake.


And: NYT v. Unites States

a reply to: antiantonym

Typical snowflake Trump.

really... michael wolff? LOL ok

Doesn't suprise me considering one of Trump's motto's is always fight back no matter what. I don't agree with Trump on this one if the source is correct on it's reporting. I feel he should just ignore it, since it will fade away just like all the negative hit pieces from MSM after a little time. Plus, there is also that whole freedom of speech thing that another poster already pointed out.

So the obvious question has to be why are they trying to stop this book.

I mean apparently there is also a claim in it that it was Blair who told the Trump campaign that he was under surveillance by British Intelligence. So this could validate some of Trumps earlier claims.

So could it then be possibly that Trump wants it stopped because it contains something truly explosive, sure we wont know until we get our hands on it next week but even so. Why is Trump so determined to block this when he could just do his usual and go on a twitter storm and deny everything.

It seems like this has really shook him.

I for one can't wait to read this next week to find out whats got him so triggered.

Let me say this right now, after its release everyone is going to be cherry picking their facts, I bet we will have Trump supporters saying "ahhh we told you so...it was in that book" and at the same time tell us the bits they don't like are fake news. No doubt some on the left will make the same claims and cherry pick from it. Then each side will accuse the other of cherry picking, and so the arguments between cult-Trump and Never-Trump will continue. For that reason I don't think this book is going to change the course of debate, it will be the usual, baseless cries of "fake news", flat out denial and I guarantee you someone at some point will ask why Wolff didn't write about Hilary.

I do however think that this move by team-Trump indicates that they are very worried about something in this book, causing such a fuss about it all is only adding to the media hype around it and as usual Trump is just making everything worse for himself.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I for one can't wait to read this next week to find out whats got him so triggered.

How could Trump know? Did he get a copy already?

This situation is screaming that Trump has things to hide, and he's concerned that some of that may be exposed here.

I see it like this...

Do you think the average person would want the possibility of everything they've ever done being exposed to the world? I think that would scare the average person to death.

In Trump's case, it could cost him basically everything I believe.

For example, the information in this book could lead Mueller in a new direction, or it could lead an investigative reporter to check out things that they wouldn't have thought of otherwise.

The possibilities are endless.

a reply to: antiantonym

How could Trump know? Did he get a copy already?

Apparently Wolff got permission to write the book after Trump read a favourable article he had wrote on Trump and so Wolff was able to blag accesses to the White House over the first year. I think as part of the agreement Trump might have asked for a advanced copy.

There will probably be be quite a few that are in circulation already.

So yeah I think Trump has seen a copy and so far based on what I can observe (having not read the book) it seems only logical to assume that the only reason Trump is trying to stop this book going to sale is because the contents of the book are going to be damaging to his administration.

Hell its not even been published yet and its already causing damage after the claims by Bannon and thats after a few exerts.

a reply to: UKTruth

Simple question do you believe it is right for Trump to instruct his legal team to try to stop the release of this book?

Simple yes or no will do.

Just curious on your thoughts on it.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: antiantonym

Typical snowflake Trump.

Both sides are being played. Fire up the left to keep them emotional which clouds thinking making them malleable and controlled. Make the right dig in their heels to throw on some more fuel keep those fires of support heated.

Brilliant but a bit devious.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: antiantonym

Forget that. I want to see him take this to court and have to testify under oath on what is true or not.

I would have liked to see Obama do the same about Larry Sinclair's allegations...but instead, he just had Beau Biden use his AG office to issue a bogus arrest warrant and falsely imprison him to shut him up. Then he sent the IRS after him and had his disability benefits cut off.

I'm grateful Trump is using the proper legal channels and not making Wolff or Bannon political prisoners.

originally posted by: Jiggly
really... michael wolff? LOL ok

Except he was invited in to the Trump WH to archive trumps transition into politics. Looks like they didn't anticipate how good a job he would do....

He has hours and hours of tapes. Most writers tape everything nowdays. I use a voice activated recorder smaller than my iphone, sensitive enough to pick up and record a conversation 10 ft. away.

Actually the tapes are sdhc cards and I predict Wolff has them in a safe place incase of repercussion by Trump.

The digital world has changed everything!!!

a reply to: MotherMayEye

So do you think it is right of Trump to instruct his lawyers to block this books publications??

Yes or No.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So do you think it is right of Trump to instruct his lawyers to block this books publications??

Yes or No.

If it is actually libellous, then yes. Enough has been spilled through the press that I don't think it's too soon for him take action.

If he is just trying to intimidate but knows the book is substantively true and accurate -- then I do not agree.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So do you think it is right of Trump to instruct his lawyers to block this books publications??

Yes or No.

If it is actually libellous, then yes. Enough has been spilled through the press that I don't think it's too soon for him take action.

If he is just trying to intimidate but knows the book is substantively true and accurate -- then I do not agree.

So if he is being libellous his first amendment rights do not apply.

Freedom of speech does not mean then in your view, that you can just make up unproven lies about people then discuss them in the public domain to tarnish that individuals reputation.

Would that be correct?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So do you think it is right of Trump to instruct his lawyers to block this books publications??

Yes or No.

If it is actually libellous, then yes. Enough has been spilled through the press that I don't think it's too soon for him take action.

If he is just trying to intimidate but knows the book is substantively true and accurate -- then I do not agree.

So if he is being libellous his first amendment rights do not apply.

Freedom of speech does not mean then in your view, that you can just make up unproven lies about people then discuss them in the public domain to tarnish that individuals reputation.

Would that be correct?

Libel is a cause of action in civil court regardless of how I feel about it or the First Amendment.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Libel is not a valid reason for prior restraint.

If it is, in fact, libelous, then a suit after publication is the legally viable option.

Not prior restraint.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

True but their is a reason I am asking.

Lets say you want to argue this book should not be published because it is libellous and makes up some like about Trump and as such the sale of the book should be halted and the author sued in a civil court.

Can you tell then how that is any different from Trump claiming Obama wasn't American?

Seems to be like another case of one rule for Trump and another rule for every other politician.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Let me ask you something...do you think it was right for Beau Biden's office to issue a bogus arrest warrant for Larry Sinclair and then arrest him at his press conference where he had made salacious claims about having oral sex and doing coc aine and crack with Obama in 1999?

Is that a better way to deal with speech that a person in power objects to?

Yes or no?

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Libel is not a valid reason for prior restraint.

If it is, in fact, libelous, then a suit after publication is the legally viable option.

Not prior restraint.

The media is already flooded with a dozen stories about what is in the book. I don't think it's too soon...IF those stories are, in fact, libelous.

Agree to disagree.

A few articles have a couple chapters available to read. It is funny and sad at the same time. Funny because the admin is a complete f up, but also sad because a complete f up is running the country. The impression I got was the best punishment for Trump conning the US was that he has to do the job. I laughed when it said they were trying to explain the constitution to Trump.

Early in the campaign, Sam Nunberg was sent to explain the Constitution to the candidate. “I got as far as the Fourth Amendment,” Nunberg recalled, “before his finger is pulling down on his lip and his eyes are rolling back in his head.”

Here is a link to some of the book.