馃攳
Non-Disclosure Agreement Won't Stop Book Release & Epstein Victims Seek Justice With Maxwell Arrest - YouTube
Channel: The Ring of Fire
[0]
The bitter court battle over a book by Donald
Trump's niece Mary continues. Earlier I spoke
[6]
with Mike Papantonio, a long time trial attorney
and host of America's Lawyer with Mike Papantonio,
[13]
about this headline grabbing legal drama.
Here's that interview. Will they ever stop
[19]
publication, Mike?
There are a lot of questions swirling around
[22]
about the release of Trump's, Mary Trump's
book, and they all are going to depend on
[26]
what's actually in the, the nondisclosure
agreement that she signed 20 years ago. Mary's
[32]
lawyers are arguing that the NDA is too broad
in scope and, and it's, it can't be enforced
[37]
because of that. This is an actually, it's
actually an argument that's made by other
[41]
people who have been bound by NDAs regarding
Donald Trump and those cases were very successful.
[46]
Her lawyers are claiming that the Trump children
lied about their assets in order to secure
[52]
the estate settlement.
And if they entered into an agreement on false
[57]
pretenses, then the whole thing would be considered
null and void. An interesting part about this,
[63]
there may be what we call, and this is a guess,
but there may be what we call liquidated damages
[68]
involved in this. And what that means is there
hasn't, there doesn't have to be a showing
[72]
of damages. There simply has to be a showing
that the contract has been violated and then
[77]
that, that liquidated damage amount falls
on, on Mary Trump. Most of the time, you'll
[83]
see a publishing company like Simon and Schuster
say, look, we will handle liquidated damages.
[89]
We think we can make enough money on this
book that we're going to go forward anyway.
[94]
And any damages that ensue from there, we'll
go ahead and handle that. Daniel Ellsberg
[99]
is a great example. The Daniel Ellsberg case
with the Pentagon papers.
[104]
Understand those papers they were, they were
published and Daniel Ellsberg was, you know,
[110]
he was indicted and in the end he was not
prosecuted. So the point is this, Mary Trump
[116]
is at risk, Simon and Schuster is not at risk,
just like in the, in Daniel Ellsberg case.
[123]
Ellsberg was at risk, but the publisher was
not at risk because they argued first amendment
[128]
and they also argued that this notion of prior
restraint on publishing or pre-publication
[135]
injunction should not be considered by the
court and they were successful. So I think
[140]
the book comes out and I think what Mary Trump
is going to have to understand is there's
[145]
ramifications that are going to flow after
that.
[149]
Alright. It's rare that a book is stopped
from publication, isn't it?
[157]
It's very rare. It's a, it's a very fundamental
first amendment, right. The court looks at
[162]
yeah, there may be some issues, but the, the,
the first issue we're going to look at is
[167]
are we, are we willing to enjoin a publication,
especially a pre-publication and this judge
[173]
has said, look, there are already thousands
of these books out there. What good is it
[178]
going to do anyway? I think Simon and Schuster's
in good shape. I can't say that Mary Trump
[184]
is in good shape because we haven't had a
chance to look at what that NDA is or whether
[188]
there's liquidated damages in that NDA.
So at this point, it's impossible to say who's
[196]
going to win on this?
Well, I think, I think Simon and Schuster
[202]
is going to win. I think the book is going
to be a best seller. I think it's going to
[206]
generate a lot of money. And the only question
is who wins between the Trump family and Mary
[213]
Trump? As I said, Mary Trump is saying, look,
the reason this thing is null and void, the
[218]
reason the NDA is null and void is because
there was fraud in the disclosure of assets
[225]
that the Trump family came forward with. And
so that's going to be an element they're going
[229]
to argue. The, the Trump family is going to
obviously argue, you can go forward with this,
[235]
but your damages are going to be substantial.
She simply has to take the risk. Maybe Simon,
[240]
Simon and Schuster will step in to handle
the damages that might result here.
[245]
Does it make the president look good to be
fighting it?
[252]
I think it's a big mistake. I think every
time, I think every time Trump steps up and
[256]
fights something like he did with Bolton or,
the publications are going to continue. They,
[262]
look, his base is his base. His base at 40%
isn't going to change. They're going to stay
[267]
there regardless of what he does. But I think
people that aren't in his base say, what do
[272]
you have to hide? I think it's a mistake for
him to do that. He doesn't need to do it because
[276]
ultimately the person seeking that publication
is going to prevail. Now, Bolton has another
[282]
problem. Bolton's issue comes down to, there's,
there's certain, there's certain steps that
[287]
he has to take with the federal government
to be able to release certain elements of
[292]
what's contained in his book. He didn't do
that. So there, there that's it, you can't
[297]
complain, you can't compare the Mary Trump
case with what happened to Bolton.
[302]
Okay. Now, let鈥檚 go to some other areas.
Authorities arrested Ghislaine Maxwell last
[309]
week, the Jeff, Jeffrey Epstein's alleged
enabler in the sexual abuse case. Donald Trump
[316]
is a close friend of Mr. Epstein.
Right.
[318]
He was. Do you expect him to come out in,
in the trial of, ms. Maxwell or she'll turn
[324]
state's evidence, right?
Yeah. I think this is, as the FBI mentioned,
[331]
Maxwell's been slithering around all over
the globe for 12 months since her buddy Jeffrey
[336]
Epstein was arrested last summer. They, they,
they finally found her in New Hampshire on
[342]
this palatial estate that she had purchased
with cash from interestingly enough, a shell
[347]
company that both Epstein and she had set
up. Maxwell's been hit with six charges, one
[352]
being perjury for lying to investigators years
ago. And the rest are all related to her acting
[358]
as a groomer and a recruiter for these young
girls that Jeffrey Epstein and his powerful
[363]
friends abused over the years. An attorney,
interesting part of this story, an attorney
[368]
named Brad Edwards is spectacular attorney
out of South Florida, has been working tirelessly
[373]
on this case, and this is a big step forward
for him in this fight for, for justice, for
[378]
the Epstein victims.
But here's what we know so far. Maxwell has
[382]
been accused of actively seeking out these
young girls all over the world in putting
[387]
them in, in Epstein's ring. She, she would,
according to the indictment, this is the way
[392]
the indictment reads. She acted as a groomer
of, of sorts for these girls, showing them
[397]
how to perform massages on Epstein and other
men. Her presence in the room with the girls,
[402]
Larry, seemed to put the girls at ease. If
you read this, if you read this indictment
[407]
and make them think that everything was okay,
that what they were doing was perfectly normal.
[412]
What Maxwell did to these young girls obviously
is deplorable. Here's the interesting part
[417]
of the case though, Maxwell is going to say
that there was, there was a non prosecution,
[424]
prosecution agreement that was signed. Okay.
And it was signed back when Epstein was first
[430]
prosecuted. Epstein's pals, his political
pals came to his aid and worked out this nonprofit
[436]
prosecution agreement in 2008.
It included a phrase that Maxwell's lawyers
[442]
are trying to use to protect her from prosecution.
It said that not only would Epstein not be
[448]
prosecuted, but also his co-conspirators would
not be prosecuted. Maxwell wasn't expressed,
[454]
explicitly mentioned in that agreement. But
it, it, it contained a phrase that I think
[459]
the phrase was not limited to people that
were named in the indictment. So virtually
[465]
anybody, the argument is going to be made
that anybody that was surrounding that indictment,
[471]
anybody that was surrounding the, the first
Epstein problem, that they are absolved from
[476]
all this. And here's why that argument might
not work. And my guess is the argument will
[481]
not work because it only pertains crimes that
were committed in Florida and much like Epstein's
[487]
arrest last year, new charges emerged that
weren't related to Florida, allowing prosecutors
[493]
to go after him. This is the same kind of
problem that they've got.
[497]
So, you know, the truth is, I don't think
this effort by Maxwell has a chance because,
[505]
because there's so many problems with that
non prosecution agreement. The, the judge
[510]
was totally dysfunctional, absolutely dysfunctional,
where it came to his job. The prosecutors
[517]
were dysfunctional. They didn't do their job.
The, the, the victims in that case under Florida
[523]
law should have had the right to know what
was going to happen in the pleading in the,
[528]
in the, in the deal that was made. They weren't
made aware of that. The law in Florida is
[532]
very specific about that. The chances of her,
of her winning on this little glitch, I think
[539]
is almost nonexistent, but that's what you're
going to hear about a lot that she's been
[543]
absolved of all this, because she was a, she's
protected under that non prosecution agreement.
[549]
Mike, you're always on the mark. It's always
great having you with us.
[554]
Thank you, Larry.
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage