After dinner and dessert -- and a lil' more time to reflect, with a frosty root beer. . . I will note that it is an even bigger waste of our taxpayer funds, than I first imagined. . . because there is no "there, there. . ." in this supposed suit (for a private contract breach). In sum, on the substance of Melania's claim. . . there is in fact, no substance.
Let me explain: it is highly likely that the Trump family (Melania included) has long used these NDA agreements, as private parties -- to control the narrative about them. Several chunks of this agreement (Sections VI, VIII and X, among others) read very much like a private wealthy party NDA, for "domestic" and other ancillary help.
I will thus conjecture that Ms. Wolkoff had previously signed one (when Melania was just a NYC socialite) -- and that it took until August of 2017 (eight months into Trump's term) to work out an agreeable written "government duties / negotiated" version, that addressed the all differences between being a party planner for a private New York City socialite, and the duties of (among others) avoiding waste -- imposed on a FLOTUS, now on our payroll.
To that end, given that there are reports of very inefficient spending patterns in the book, at left -- and given the likely futility of reporting these goings-on to any acolyte White House Counsel (as we've seen with numerous others), or the ethics officer in the White House -- it is very likely that this book is also a form of federally protected whistle-blowing, under common law.
In this regard, I would note specifically Melania's callous attitude about the welfare of innocent babies being ripped from their parents at the border (on tape, no less) -- in a clear violation of enforceable treaties we've signed, and the international protocol on refugees, as well as several congressional federal statutes -- and dozens of federal rules.
Stacked against this, is a claim that a "contract" forces silence -- on an no-doubt aghast fellow citizen -- in which the second part of Section V of the contract itself acknowledges that federal law on responsible, open government cannot be trumped by a mere contract secrecy clause (in Section IV and elsewhere). No, the secrecy provision, if enforceable at all -- must yield to public policy on open government. This is our own money -- not theirs any longer, you see.
That Bill Barr and Melania style this as a government services contract. . . is in fact fatal to its enforceability. The "contract" itself amounts to an uncompleted gift -- of services. As such it cannot be enforced at law -- that is, a promise for which no money was exchanged -- a pure gratuity. . . is no contract, at all. So, the idea that truthful reporting about Melania should cause a forfeiture, and a civil suit, by the government. . . based on promises made as gifts (i.e., not enforceable at law) is patently. . . silly.
So Bill Barr DOUBLY wastes our money, here. Charming. I'm out, now -- fuming.
नमस्ते
