The Billy Bush and Trump recording fame should encourage more leaks. Though Iām surprised there hasnāt been more of a āCosby Effectā with more and more women coming forward that Trump has assaulted. Also, does anyone really believe that Trump did not do these things heās bragging about? Also, also, barf.
Warren Buffett should take a page from the Trump playbook and offer to cover the legal fees.
So, the obvious questions-
who owns the rights to these unused video bits?
Where are they?
Who is blocking them from being released?
Possibly Trump?
Can they be declared necessary to possible investigations and therefore ordered preserved?
Even if the videos are negotiated as private is it possible
to see the contractual terms to put question to interested parties-release confidentiality as part of national interest?
Maybe Buffet and Cuban could start a fund for people Trump sues over NDAās.
Give it a week. Itās only been three days since the Trump/Bush audio leaked.
It is not a cut and dry decision. There are privacy concerns here of non-public figures who may be in the recordings that must be considered in whether or not to publicly release any recordings. If it is written in their contracts, they have a right to expect that MGM will protect their data and privacy.
Are the tapes under audit by the IRS or something?
In other words, āWeāre afraid because Trump and his NDAs have got us by the balls (he into grabbing junk, you know).ā
Interesting how he makes it clear that although heās legally bound not to release anything, he wonāt pursue anyone else that does. That sounds like heās letting folks know heās ok with it if they do. This seems like it has a lot of possibilities of being very fun.
Bulltwaddle.
Thatās possible, Mr. Weed, but when I read that, I read something different. He says 'Hey look, Iām just the Producer, MGM owns that. Of course he owns the production company. So you can say MGM owns it, but contractually, they canāt release it. Who can give permission to release that? Hmmmā¦Mark Burnette.
I have no idea how itās structured or what the contracts say. But when I hear that, the bells that immediately go off is that heās passing the buck to some other corporate entity that might be primarily him or not. Just like when he said āI havenāt threatened any legal processā¦ā Well, shit. He doesnāt have to. Itās already written in their contract. But if the contract is with MGM, then he can say heās absolved of it either way.
Of course he sold out to MGM and runs MGM now, but heyā¦itās still a different corporate entity, right?
I assumed he meant he was somehow legally bound to protect the folks involved, i.e. Trump. I was guessing Trump may have realized he said a lot of bad shit that could get out due to no ass covering legal work from previous years so when he went into a multi-episode show, not just a quick bit on entertainment tonight, he or more likely his lawyers made sure his ass was covered.
I am sure Donald Trump cares about other peopleās ādataā and privacy. He has released the cell phone number of a primary adversary. He, while releasing minimum medical information was making up all sorts of crap about HRCās private ādataā. I am pretty sure HO does not give a hoot about anyoneās privacy except his own, and that of his wife and children. And if the shoe were on the other foot you know that Giuliani, Paladino, Bannon and Bossie would give a hoot for the privacy of third parties in the tapes.
First we hear him say that he would hire a special prosecutor with the hopes of putting Clinton in jail (not his exact words, but thatās the jist of them), then we read that he would consider requiring high level federal employees to sign NDAs?!?!?!
Am I the only one concerned about this?
Many were taking Burnettās statement as a greenlight to anyone who has damning evidence against Trump to release it. Burnett further made it clear that heās not and will not help Donald Trump. There were rumors he was helping Trump organize the GOP convention in July, but those were soundly denied by Burnett:
Despite Burnettās entertainment partnership with Trump, his
participation in the convention would be surprising, for in recent
years, he and wife, actress and producer Roma Downey, have been
financial supporters of Democrats.
Burnett has made not secret that heās a Democrat and so if anyone has that information on Trumpā¦letās see it!!! (*Of course MGM, who owns Burnettās production company, might still be a problem.)
Still, I wouldnāt be surprised if more damning info on YamMan comes out by the end of the week. ~fingers crossed!~
David Brock has offered to secure funding for anyone who incurs legal bills if caught leaking information.
ā@davidbrockdc
If a $5 million āleak feeā is what stands between truth and total #Trump implosion, sign me up. http://correctrecord.org/trumpleaks/ CC: @mcuban https://twitter.com/chrisdocnee/status/785159503419351040 ā¦
11:13 AM - 9 Oct 2016
810 810 Retweets 1,134 1,134 likes
āThe New York Daily News is reporting that another producer of
āApprenticeā claims there are tapes with āfar worseā language by Trump.ā
So we shall see! 
His lawyers were probably burning up the phone lines to a lot of places, but most assuredly Burnetteās office to remind everyone of the NDAās Trump always requires and of their long history of suing everyone they even think may have violated one of them.
Thank god for the secret tape and nowadays for people with phones recording everything. Fuck cops wearing body cams that may or may not get released, we need to start making sure all black folks wear body cams.
Thatās bullshit. He can release those tapes. He wouldnāt suffer any criminal liability. His only liability (and that of his company) would be financial and they would easily have financial backing to defend any law suit. In addition, they would make a lot of money with heightened interest in the show (downloads, rentals, views etc.). This is cowardice, plain and simple.
He doesnāt have authority to release the tapes, but he certainly has authority to disclose in nonspecific terms whatās on them. And he could do that without violating third-person privacy.