Trump's niece says 2001 NDA based on 'fraudulent' financial information

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Lawyers for Donald Trump’s niece seeking to clear her path to publish a book about the family have cited “bombshell” New York Times reporting on the Trumps’ tax affairs as proof a non-disclosure agreement signed in 2001 was based on “demonstrably fraudulent” financial information and should be held invalid.

Attorneys for Mary Trump made the argument in filings in New York state supreme court in Dutchess county this week.

Simon & Schuster is set to publish Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man on 28 July. The president’s brother, Robert Trump, is seeking to block it, citing the NDA which was signed after litigation over a family will.

Earlier this week, a judge in New York granted a temporary restraining order against Mary Trump and the publisher. But in a sign that the book is likely to come out regardless, Simon & Schuster was released from the order, after saying it had printed 75,000 copies and started to ship them to sellers, and had been unaware of the NDA.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-s-niece-says-2001-nda-based-on-fraudulent-financial-information/ar-BB16kLVR?li=BBnb4R7&ocid=DELLDHP

[MagickMuffin]

1. was based on "demonstrably fraudulent" financial information and should be held invalid.

I concur. If the content was “demonstrably fraudulent” then the NDA is also “demonstrably fraudulent”

[bluestarone]

2. GOTTA show his taxes!!

GREAT move by her and her lawyer!!!! THEY will WINN this!

[Nevilledog]

3. Simon & Shuster have already won.

Publisher is not bound by any NDA.

[Cha]

4. Exactly! & with trump.. something is Always Fraudulent.

[beastie boy]

5. It may be a bluff, and they can't prove fraud in NDA. But will Trump call their bluff?

Very unlikely. One thing is for certain: if he does not call his niece out on allegations of fraud, it's a sure sign her allegations have basis in fact. And if he does, his tax returns or other documents will likely expose multiple, if unrelated, instances of fraud. A lose-lose for the lying scumbag.

Great gambit by her lawyers!